National Academies Press: OpenBook

Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged (2004)

Chapter: Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote

« Previous: Chapter 4 - Transportation Services and Operations
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Processes Used to Plan, Budget, and Promote." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13784.
×
Page 54

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.

41 CHAPTER 5 PROCESSES USED TO PLAN, BUDGET, AND PROMOTE One of the logical first steps in developing coordinated transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged is planning, which may be difficult to accomplish. Even the initial step of identifying opportunities for coordinating ser- vices and the potential benefits that coordination can offer requires established working relationships and communica- tion between multiple agencies with multiple missions, goals, and constraints, which is never an easy undertaking. Planning for the coordination of transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged must be based on an under- standing of the various potential funding sources and pro- grams identified in Chapter 6. Beyond the types of available funding and their eligible uses, it is imperative that service providers and other interested parties also learn about the actual planning processes that precede the awarding or grant- ing of these funds. This can be a daunting task, given the mul- titude of agencies and levels of government involved in the planning and expenditure of each program’s funding, as well as the myriad eligibility requirements inherent in many of these programs. In today’s environment of constrained public budgets and increased competition for available funds, making a strong case for an adequate level of resource allocation to trans- portation services for the transportation disadvantaged is equally important. This entails educating the public and key parties involved in funding decisions about the benefits of such transportation and of the amounts of funding that are needed for the operation of effective services. Recent expe- riences, mentioned later, suggest that public information and advocacy efforts are most successful when undertaken by a coalition of interested organizations. The objective of this chapter is to present transportation service providers and other organizations with several types of information related to coordination planning and decision- making processes and opportunities for advocacy: • Insight into the planning requirements of transportation funding sources: human services programs that address transportation, state coordination programs, and private funding sources. • A discussion of political processes in which organiza- tions can become involved in an effort to increase the visibility of transportation issues at the national, state, or local levels. • Case study examples illustrating best practices. • Guidance from other coordination practitioners. • Links to other coordination planning resources. PLANNING REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH FUNDING SOURCES This section details the planning requirements associated with different types of funding sources that can be used for the provision of transportation service to the transportation disadvantaged—transit funding programs, human services funding programs, and private foundations. Decision-Making Processes Associated with Funding from Traditional Transportation Sources The federal government has established planning process requirements, to be carried out at the regional level, for projects and services that are supported by federal transportation funds. These requirements offer opportunities for involvement by human services agencies as well as transportation providers and planning bodies. In addition, a number of states have created their own requirements for coordination between transportation providers and human services organizations in the program- ming of transportation funds. Federal requirements, and a selec- tion of state planning processes, are described below. Federal Requirements for Planning at the Regional Level In urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000 peo- ple, federal law requires the establishment of an MPO to carry out the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive develop- ment of transportation plans and programs. The responsibility for carrying out the federal requirements of the MPO lies with its policy board. Membership on MPO policy boards varies from state to state, but almost all consist of a combi- nation of local elected officials, the state DOT, and the RTA. Although MPOs typically do not operate their own trans- portation systems, by bringing together stakeholders includ- ing local elected officials and transit and highway operators, these organizations provide a regional approach to dealing

42 20-year timeframe, but containing short-term as well as long- term projects and activities. The goal of the Transportation Plan is to foster the development of an intermodal, integrated transportation system that is efficient and effective, provides a means of managing congestion, and helps the region to meet air quality standards. The plan must address both the operat- ing and capital resource needs of the projects it includes. Intermodalism means that highway, ridesharing, bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation projects and services are all considered. Public transportation projects can include not only fixed-route bus and rail services, but also flex routes, demand-responsive services, and taxi services, making human services agencies relevant participants in the planning process. Transportation plans must be developed with the input of elected officials, public agencies, and citizens, and MPOs are required to make draft plans available for review and comment. Job Access Transportation Plan. FTA will consider an application for a grant from its JARC program only if the projects contained in the application are part of the region’s Job Access Transportation Plan and have been reviewed and approved by the MPO as being in accordance with the region’s Transportation Plan and included in the TIP. A coordinated transportation and human services planning process that includes all interested stakeholders must be used to develop the Job Access Transportation Plan. MPOs are normally involved in, if not the lead agency for, the develop- ment of regional Job Access Transportation plans that are required at the federal level, giving agencies that are con- cerned with assisting individuals who are preparing to enter the workforce another reason to become involved with their MPO. Stakeholders that typically participate in the job access planning process include the following: • Transportation officials • Transit agencies and other transportation providers • Agencies administering TANF and Welfare-to-Work funds • Workforce development organizations • Other human services providers • Community and faith-based organizations • Disability groups • Public and assisted housing providers • Child care organizations • Employers and business organizations • Elected officials • Citizens As with the development of the area’s UPWP, nontrans- portation agencies can more effectively and meaningfully participate in the development of the Job Access Transporta- tion Plan by serving on technical or policy committees of the MPO than by attending public meetings. The Job Access Transportation Plan must describe the loca- tion of welfare recipients and low-income residents (particu- with an issue—transportation—that transcends municipal and state boundaries. As federal highway and transit funds for a given urbanized area must be programmed through an open process directed by the MPO, these organizations also repre- sent an important step in the flow of a significant and rela- tively stable source of federal dollars. Because of these overall responsibilities, MPOs present an excellent opportunity to improve the coordination of services for the transportation disadvantaged. The barriers to mobil- ity that confront transportation-disadvantaged individuals are, like MPOs, regional in nature. Federal transit funding, which is most likely to be relevant to the improvement of service coordination, as well as certain federal highway program funds such as the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program, pass through the MPO and can only be spent after being part of approved MPO plans and programs. Addition- ally, the MPO process is an open one, with high minimum standards for public outreach and participation. It is this open access characteristic of MPOs that represents the strongest argument for human services involvement in the MPO process. There are several points in the MPO process at which doc- uments must be developed and which provide an opportunity for participation in funding decisions: • Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) • Transportation Plan • Job Access Transportation Plan • TIP Each of these documents, and the processes by which they are developed, are described below. UPWP. The UPWP is a planning document that programs fed- eral transit and highway planning funds. Most of the planning studies programmed through the UPWP process are recom- mended by the MPO policy board. Public outreach require- ments provide opportunities for other interested parties to propose projects. For example, community groups in Boston organized around a plan to analyze the merits of the Fair- mount Line, an underutilized commuter rail line that cuts through densely populated Boston neighborhoods with a high proportion of transit-dependent residents. By becoming active in the citizens advisory committee of the MPO, the groups were able to convince board members to allocate federal plan- ning funds to this project. Unless the interests of human services providers are already represented within the MPO policy board, these organizations must actively seek to increase their involvement. The limited amount of available federal planning funds, combined with a seemingly limitless list of planning concepts, means that MPOs are unlikely to dedicate efforts toward bringing more stakeholders, and therefore planning ideas, into the process. Transportation Plan. MPOs are required to develop a long- term transportation plan for their region, covering at least a

larly those with disabilities); employment centers and facili- ties for employment-related activities; and public, private, and nonprofit transportation services. It must also identify transportation gaps that limit the target population’s ability to prepare for or find and maintain employment. Projects and services to address those gaps must not only be proposed, but assigned a priority for funding and implementation. Job access transportation services are typically funded with a combination of federal TANF, Welfare-to-Work, and JARC funds. The planning process associated with use of these funding sources is described later in this chapter. TIP. The TIP is the document that an MPO uses to program operating and capital funds for expenditure within a 2-year period. The TIP includes all federal highway and federal tran- sit funds to be spent in an urbanized area. Projects selected for inclusion in the TIP must be in accordance with the region’s Transportation Plan. Of particular interest to agencies look- ing to coordinate service for the transportation disadvantaged are FTA’s Section 5307 (urbanized area formula grants), Section 5309 (capital investment grants), Section 5310 (for- mula grants for elderly and the disabled), Section 5311 (rural and small urban formula grants), and JARC funds. FHWA’s CMAQ program is also of interest, as transit ser- vice is an eligible use for these funds. Three broad categories of transit programs are eligible for CMAQ funding: • Service expansion • Provision of new transit service • Financial incentives to use existing transit services However, as with the UPWP, MPOs already face funding constraints when developing their programs. This reality and the requirement that all projects programmed in the TIP be consistent with an MPO’s long-range transportation plan suggest that stakeholders interested in pursuing coordination efforts through the MPO process get involved not on a project- by-project basis but with a dedicated, long-term participation effort. The citizen’s advisory committee is the most likely point of entry into the MPO process, although the technical advisory committee and policy boards tend to be closer to the ultimate decision-making process. Involvement at these levels, even if it occurs only through attendance at meetings that are open to the public, serves to heighten awareness of the MPO process and increases the likelihood that transportation-disadvantaged interests will become a focus of the MPO. Environmental Justice as Catalyst. One recent development that has helped to foster stronger links between human services agencies and MPOs is the federal government’s emphasis on environmental justice. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires transportation planning to be sensitive to past inequities in both the provision of transportation services and the burden of negative impacts from transportation invest- 43 ments. This new emphasis on environmental justice has been most significant in how it has shaped planning at the MPO level. In an effort to ensure that transportation plans and pro- grams satisfy Title VI requirements, MPOs have brought a variety of stakeholders to the table. In most cases, these stakeholders were not previously involved in transportation planning. This has typically resulted in stronger links with organizations and advocacy groups that focus on minority or low-income populations; as well, there has been increased involvement on the part of human services organizations in the planning process. The emphasis on Title VI has also affected the type of analysis that is conducted as part of the planning process. Title VI requires that the location of low-income and minority pop- ulations in each region be identified and that the impacts of projects and services included in the regional Transportation Plan and Job Access Transportation Plan on those groups be evaluated. For example, a Title VI analysis might calculate the length of time low-income residents without cars would have to travel to an employment center with entry-level jobs by bus as compared to the length of time residents with cars would have to travel. Transportation options for the low- income group to reduce that inequity could then be proposed. Barriers to MPO Involvement. The examples previously cited suggest that planning requirements related to welfare reform and job access programs and recent federal guidelines regarding environmental justice and Title VI can contribute to an increase in interaction between traditional transporta- tion agencies and human services agencies. Although these relationships can help to foster an increase in sensitivity to the transportation concerns of transportation-disadvantaged individuals on the part of the traditional transportation offi- cials and planners, human services agencies may still not be pursuing traditional federal transportation funding streams through the MPO framework. In interviews with MPO rep- resentatives, several reasons for this lack of involvement were identified. One reason is that the MPO process is often unfamiliar to entities that have not historically been involved. Human ser- vices agencies, as relative newcomers to the process, may need more time and experience or outreach and education before they are comfortable with the variety of funding pro- grams and the strategies for securing this funding for the transportation disadvantaged. Transportation organizations should be aware that they may need to make a more aggres- sive effort to involve human services agencies in the trans- portation planning process, by making direct personal con- tact with agency representatives, actively soliciting input on agendas and tasks, extending invitations to human services agencies to sit on MPO committees, holding meetings at con- venient times and in accessible locations, and simplifying processes for providing input whenever possible. A second explanation is that the human services agencies may choose to convey their needs and priorities through MPO

forums and committees in which they participate and then to rely on the MPO to advocate for programs to meet these needs. In Thurston County, the MPO/Intercity Transit coalition has greater access to legislators and decision makers than the human services agencies do, so it has made sense for the coali- tion to carry the human services transportation agenda on some state issues. Thurston County planners also suggested that because MPOs typically are the keepers of so much data on transportation and demographics, they are naturally able to provide more of the contextual information for certain grant programs. Perhaps the most significant barrier to increased participa- tion in MPO activities on the part of the human services agencies is their own resources. In the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC), not only does the Environmental Justice Committee represent a very small por- tion of participating human services agencies’ workload, it also represents a very small piece of the MPO’s overall plan- ning and programming efforts. Although the members of the committee have come together in the past around project- based issues of interest before the MPO, planners in central Massachusetts question whether the amount of time any of the agencies would have to devote to being a full participant in the MPO would be the best use of their limited resources. State Requirements for Planning at the Regional Level Despite the large amount of federal funding that could be spent on enhanced coordination efforts, a high level of human services participation in the MPO process does not appear to be common. There are, however, some examples of human services agencies integrating themselves into the MPO struc- ture in order to improve coordination. In Florida, state statutes mandate each county’s coordinating board to advise their MPO on any issue pertaining to the provision of transporta- tion services to the transportation disadvantaged. Although the coordinating boards are not full voting members of the MPO, they are still able to bring the concerns and needs of the transportation-disadvantaged population to the attention of the MPO board. In Arizona, human services planning is a mandated func- tion of the four MPOs and two Councils of Government (COGs). The Arizona Department of Economic Security, the state agency that administers aid to low-income families, requires COGs and MPOs to plan for the use of a portion of each region’s Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Cur- rently, MPOs receive roughly 24% of their region’s SSBG funds, which are signed over to the MPO by the local gov- ernments that receive them. MPOs have staff specifically responsible for overseeing human services planning with these funds. Planning efforts in Arizona and Washington offer exam- ples of transportation planning processes that have been used 44 to develop transportation services for transportation- disadvantaged individuals and to seek funding for those services. MAG, the Phoenix MPO, has its Human Services Com- mittee submit recommendations to the MPO board as to how to spend the funds. These recommendations are the product of a needs assessment, a public outreach process, and input from experts in the areas of programs for older adults, people with disabilities, and low-income individuals. Although the Human Services Committee has recently made recommen- dations that included spending a portion of the SSBG fund- ing on transportation for older adults, most of this block grant money goes toward the core missions of the respective human services agencies. There are examples, however, of greater MAG involve- ment in pursuing transportation funds specifically for the transportation disadvantaged. The MAG Human Services Committee has worked with Maricopa County to try to secure Welfare-to-Work funding for transportation. Although this effort did not succeed, MAG has also worked with the county to pursue FHWA Surface Transportation Program (STP) fund- ing for an older adult transportation initiative. These efforts included convening a planning group and hosting a national conference on the issue. The MAG Human Services Commit- tee also has the responsibility within the MPO for reviewing all grant applications for the FTA Section 5310 funds. In Washington State, coordination is encouraged but not required, resulting in a variety of results and lead agencies. In Thurston County, the home of the state’s capitol in Olympia, the lead agency for coordination efforts has been the MPO, Thurston County Regional Planning Commission, in conjunc- tion with the RTA, Intercity Transit. Their collaborative effort to take the lead on coordination was born of the increased emphasis on environmental justice in the late 1990s. After realizing that they were not doing all they could to incorpo- rate input from segments of their population, they built a coali- tion including the County Health Department and applied for a JARC grant. The coalition won the JARC grant and has continued to meet on a monthly basis. The funds from this grant went primarily to two initiatives. The first was a program to provide transportation to a Native American reservation in the rural southern half of Thurston County. The service is a fixed-route deviation bus system that connects to Intercity Transit’s routes. The second initiative funded with the JARC grant is called Village Vans. The MPO coordinated with the county housing commission to identify low-income housing areas and then provided the vans for work trips. Driving was done by WorkFirst (the Washington welfare system) clients as a job training program. Three of the original four drivers now have full-time positions driving for other companies. The MPO estimates that the Village Vans program has also assisted 70 people find and get to work between its startup in February 2002 and the end of 2002. In this project, the coalition found it easier for Intercity Transit to take the lead in dealing with the grantor, FTA, as they were more familiar with the regulations and process.

Decision-Making Processes Associated with Funding from Human Services Sources In addition to support from transportation funding pro- grams, providers of transportation service for the transporta- tion disadvantaged often rely on funding from human ser- vices organizations. The processes used to make decisions about the use of those funds are discussed below. Outside of U.S. DOT, the most significant sources of fed- eral funding that can be used to support transportation ser- vices are located within DHHS and DOL. Three of the most significant funding programs include Medicaid, Title III of the Older Americans Act, and TANF. These and other sources of federal funds are discussed in Chapter 5. The planning requirements that are typically associated with these federal programs are described below. In terms of their structure, federal programs follow a num- ber of different models that affect how funds flow from the federal level to states and localities. In most cases, however, a requirement to submit a plan for the use of the funds to the federal agency is a condition of receipt, and programs and services must be developed and implemented in accordance with that plan. Some programs make funds available to a designated state agency, either according to a formula or on a discretionary basis, to support eligible programs and activities. The Med- icaid program follows this model. The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allocate federal Med- icaid funds to the designated Medicaid agency in each state, by formula, for use in providing health care services for indi- viduals and families who meet certain income and resource requirements.1 Each state may design its own Medicaid pro- gram, but it must comply with federal guidelines and require- ments and be documented in a Medicaid State Plan that is approved by CMS. The TANF program also follows this basic model. Formula funds are distributed in the form of block grants to the desig- nated welfare agency in each state by the federal Office of Family Assistance (OFA) in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). When the legislation establishing the TANF program was passed in 1996, each state was required to submit a TANF plan to the OFA that outlined how the state would implement welfare reform. However, the planning process for the use of TANF funds for transportation can be slightly more complex. From the out- set of welfare reform, transportation was seen as a crucial ele- ment in the process of moving individuals from welfare into the workforce and was included as an eligible use not only for TANF dollars but also for welfare-to-work grants from the U.S. DOL and was the purpose of JARC grants from the FTA. 45 TANF funds for transportation are often combined with U.S. DOL welfare-to-work funding or FTA JARC funds or both. These three agencies jointly issued guidance in 1998 and 2000 regarding the use of funds for transportation ser- vices (4, 5, 6). Planning often involves an interagency coor- dinating committee to provide guidance on transportation initiatives, as well as other components of welfare reform programs. This approach has been taken by nine states: Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. New Jersey and Ohio have ensured coordination between transportation and human services agencies through a mandated local job access planning process. In another structural model, programs distribute funds to a designated state agency and hold the state agency responsi- ble for distributing funds to eligible local recipients and ensuring that policy and administrative requirements are met. For example, Title III funds from the federal Administration on Aging (AoA), which may be used to provide transportation and other support services for seniors living outside of care facilities, are distributed to the agency on aging in each state. The agency on aging then passes funding along to designated Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs). In the case of Title III funds, a state plan must be approved by the appropriate regional AoA office, and an area plan must be approved by the state agency on aging before the funding can be used to implement pro- grams and services. State Coordination Planning Processes Planning for coordination of transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged population has evolved in a vari- ety of ways across the country. States with formal coordina- tion programs or policies may require participants to follow certain planning or decision-making processes or may oversee planning and budgeting at the state level to ensure that coor- dination guidelines are followed. In Florida, for example, coordination legislation requires Local Coordinating Boards (LCBs), assisted by designated official planning agencies, to identify local service needs and prepare annual plans for addressing them. Maine and North Carolina both require local coordinating bodies to develop periodic plans that identify needs within the area. In Maine, the plans are reviewed by the state DOT when acting on funding requests; in North Carolina, a state-level interagency advisory council is responsible for ensuring that state and federal transportation funding is spent in accordance with the plans developed locally. The following paragraphs summarize the experience of six states: Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New York, and Washington. Florida As described in Chapter 4, the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged designates and oversees LCBs 1 In some states, the state Medicaid agency distributes funds to local agencies, such as county departments of social services, for use in providing health care services. State agencies responsible for programs serving individuals with developmental disabilities or mental retardation may also receive Medicaid funds from the state Medicaid agency.

in each of the state’s 67 counties. The LCB selects a local Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) to coordinate the provision of transportation for people who are transpor- tation disadvantaged (seniors, people with disabilities, low- income individuals, and children at risk). Under Florida law, local and state agencies are required to participate in the coordinated transportation system if they receive local, state, or federal funds for the transportation of transportation- disadvantaged people. A variety of state human services agen- cies contract directly with each CTC. Another key feature of the Florida program has been the involvement of service providers and groups representing the interests of older adults. Despite some difficulties in its start- up phase, providers of services to seniors began to see the benefits of a coordinated system and the increased purchas- ing power of pooled resources. Each county has a designated CTC that is responsible for administering the coordinated transportation. In 2003, 40% of CTCs are AAAs or other agencies that provide trans- portation and other services to seniors. This makes sense, as they bring the largest pool of money to the coordinated sys- tem. Elderly groups are also part of a very sophisticated polit- ical network in the state, which has translated the needs of the transportation disadvantaged into a powerful issue for the Florida legislature. (It is not uncommon for legislators to receive 700 e-mails from this network of supporters before votes affecting service coordination.) More government agen- cies are beginning to take the lead as CTCs. The executive director projects that within 10 years all CTCs will be gov- ernment agencies. Kentucky In 1999, Kentucky mandated transportation services to be coordinated through 15 different brokerages that covered all areas of the state. The motivation for coordination was that, although RTAs were in place statewide to receive 5311 and 5310 funds, there was evidence that Medicaid and TANF transportation funds were being abused by both recipients and providers. The brokerage system was viewed as a means by which to control costs, which were skyrocketing for the two programs. The Kentucky DOT was selected to lead the effort due to its experience in managing transportation statewide. It orig- inally contracted with two other cabinet-level state depart- ments, Families and Children (DFC) and Human Services. DOT has set the rates for transportation providers in each region. These rates differ to reflect the varying size of the coordinated transportation market in each region. The broker can receive only up to the cap rate, which is a fixed dollar amount per population of eligible recipients. The brokers contract with a variety of providers: nonprofits, taxi compa- nies, and even neighbors who volunteer rides. DFC subsequently opted out of the system because it was unable to pay the cost of transportation for its TANF clients. 46 Its costs were high because of the high number of trips taken by its clients to jobs, interviews, and other work-related des- tinations. As of 2003, DFC gives a fixed amount to each client for transportation. Maine In the 1970s, Maine passed a law requiring the DOT, Department of Human Services, and the former Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation to submit annual operations plans to coordinate planning of transportation ser- vices. The latter two agencies were consumers of the vast majority of purchased transportation in the state. Maine DOT designated Regional Transportation Providers (RTPs) in nine regions. Some of these are single-county entities, while oth- ers cover multiple counties. Various funding sources are fun- neled through the RTPs, although initially only funds for seniors and mental health clients were included. Although the structure was initially created for planning purposes, coordi- nation has begun to occur on the operating side as well. RTPs differ not only in geographic scope but also in function. Some are multipurpose agencies, such as the York County Community Action Corporation. The other RTPs are single-purpose agencies that exist solely for the provision of transportation, such as the Regional Transportation District in Portland. In all cases, regional planning agencies are responsi- ble for the actual planning. In the last 10 years, there has been more of an emphasis on expanding existing programs and moving into new areas. Maine Medicaid changed transportation from an administra- tive service to a medical service in order to obtain a higher reimbursement rate from the federal government. Adminis- trative costs require a 50% match from the state, while med- ical costs require a lower match from the state. The RTPs were very involved with this policy change. Medicaid services are coordinated at the RTP level. In order for RTPs to have Medicaid ID numbers, they must be full-service providers with an agency vehicle, a volunteer driver program, and arrangements in place for purchasing transportation from taxis. Medicaid is by far the largest pro- gram, funding about 80% of York’s annual transportation bud- get, for example. There are 30 to 40 funding sources in all. The biggest programs after Medicaid are Child Development Ser- vice (Maine preschool program for special needs children), Mental Health/Mental Retardation, and senior programs. The Maine Transit Association (to which all RTPs belong) provides a forum for all members to share experiences and ask questions. The small size of the state is an asset in coor- dinating service, as the York County CAC coordinator knows each of her eight colleagues on a first-name basis. Although MTA does not have any regularly scheduled political con- ferences or events, members work together effectively when there is relevant legislation before the legislature. MTA also publishes a directory containing information on programs

and contacts for the benefit of their member organizations and state legislators. Michigan In Michigan, coordination of service has largely occurred through Project Zero, the state’s Welfare-to-Work program. Three state-level agencies—Family Independence, Michigan Career Development, and Michigan DOT—work together to coordinate transportation services for former welfare recipi- ents. Family Independence and Michigan Career Develop- ment utilize a portion of their TANF funds, and the DOT matches this contribution. The local partners or departments of these three agencies submit an annual plan of service to the state. At first, the match provided by Michigan DOT in Project Zero represented such an increase in resources that the total program funds were able to cover all requests for client trans- portation services. In recent years, as the two nontransporta- tion agencies have seen a decrease in their TANF budgets, policies have been revised. Rather than hold transportation spending constant and cut back in other areas, the state agen- cies decided to distribute TANF funds to the local agencies and let them determine what share to spend on transportation (with the DOT still matching whatever level of spending the locals decided upon). One year, the DOT used its federal JARC funds as the match for the TANF funds in 10 regions where transit agencies had submitted winning proposals for the JARC funds. Although coordination is not mandated by the state in Michigan, the DOT does require its transit providers to coor- dinate. In some rural areas of the state where transit service is not provided, other entities have had to step forward to assist in coordinating service. In Ottawa County, for exam- ple, a nonprofit called Life Services System (LSS) has con- tracted with some agencies to purchase rides from human ser- vices providers, taxi companies, and nearby fixed-route transit providers. LSS first became involved in transporta- tion in 1992 after being awarded a Department of Education demonstration grant to provide rides to employment for 3 years. In the years since that grant expired, LSS has con- tinued to broker transportation service for a variety of agen- cies: Community Mental Health, the DOT (for services for older adults and ADA clients), and Project Zero. A concern voiced by LSS about these sources of transportation funds is that they are not assured from year to year. The DOT funds could be a more stable source, but because the DOT funds can typically be distributed only to transit providers, LSS is not able to rely on them as an ongoing funding source. New York The New York DOT structures its transit programs to encourage coordination at the local level. County governments 47 are the ultimate decision makers, so a wide variety of services has resulted. One unique characteristic in New York is that the state budget for transit is $1 billion, almost equal to the amount spent on highways. While the overwhelming major- ity goes to the Metropolitan Transit Authority in the New York City region, the rest of the state sees a greater amount of dedicated transit funding than comparable areas in most other states do. One aspect of service coordination that is handled at the state level is employment transportation. The DOT has recently signed an MOU with the state’s DOL to oversee the provision of transportation service through the TANF pro- gram. The exception to this MOU is the auto program of Labor’s TANF program, through which the state assists clients in financing and purchasing private automobiles. The DOL is still responsible for overseeing the eligibility of their clients. Local agencies have attempted to coordinate Medicaid with other programs. Although these attempts may have cre- ated savings in Medicaid spending, they may have caused increases to the budgets of other programs. According to the state’s director of mobility services, the biggest weakness with attempts at coordination is that there is no established method for determining the costs of the Medicaid program. In addition, in 2002 the governor signed an initiative that increases the pool of eligible recipients of Medicaid in the state. Increased eligibility for Medicaid means increased eli- gibility for Medicaid transportation, so costs are going up and outpacing any Medicaid-related savings achieved through ser- vice coordination in counties where it has been attempted. Although rural counties in New York have been more inter- ested in coordination (some have coordinated service between Medicaid, TANF, and veteran services), the state’s director of mobility services identified the multitude of varying federal requirements for each program as a disincentive. In an extreme example, because of the different federal requirements for eli- gibility, one county makes use of 15 different color-coded tokens to differentiate riders funded by the various programs. Washington In Washington, state legislation stops short of mandating coordination. Instead, the legislation refers only to the “intent” to coordinate services. The ACCT has been undertaking efforts, through its biannual report to the legislature, to push for more of a mandate for coordination. The ACCT adminis- trator identified the lack of high-quality data as the biggest challenge that increased support for coordination faces in Washington. Without complete and reliable data on ACCT’s efforts at coordination, it has been very difficult to demon- strate the program’s effectiveness to the legislature. In the absence of a legislated mandate, the state’s regions have been free to pursue approaches to coordination that best suit local realities. In Spokane, human services and trans- portation providers have coordinated data collection efforts.

Some rural regions have shared maintenance facilities. In Mason County, there is a coordinated call center. The lead agency also varies by region. In Thurston County, it is the MPO. In other areas, it is the public transit agency. The ACCT administrator admitted that the lack of a mandate often means that coordination works best in regions where there is a suffi- cient amount of “peer pressure.” Some areas are much more successful than others, with the most common denominator in success being the presence of a strong leader at the regional level. The variety of approaches means that Washington can serve as a real laboratory for the effectiveness of different methods. However, the reliance on strong leadership is dis- couraging, because it sends the message that the individuals involved—rather than the particular approach—determine success or failure. One statewide success that the administrator pointed to is ACCT’s efforts at working with the state in the application for a recent JARC grant. After the state decided to submit the application, as opposed to several individual agencies doing so, ACCT played a key role in ensuring that the application appropriately addressed coordination. WorkFirst (Washing- ton’s TANF/Welfare-to-Work agency) put up the matching funds. ACCT receives money from the grant through an ear- mark, and the funds are used to ensure that the JARC-funded transportation services are part of a coordinated plan. In Washington, Medicaid operates on a regional brokered system. Some of the regional brokers of Medicaid service want to be involved in transportation coordination. However, according to the ACCT administrator, the state’s Medical Assistance Administration is reluctant to relinquish control of the funds. The ACCT administrator suggested that this is a different scenario than in many other states, as it is the state and not local entities that has prevented coordination from including the Medicaid program. Planning Processes Used by Private Funding Sources Sources of private funding also undertake planning pro- cesses to establish agendas, determine priorities, and provide the basis for funding decisions. Local chapters of the United Way, for example, typically conduct a comprehensive needs assessment every 3 years to identify areas in which local organizations believe needs of target populations are not being adequately met. The needs assessment can include research conducted with focus groups and surveys of ser- vice providers and human services professionals; those con- sulted usually include individuals from nonmember as well as United Way member agencies. Transportation providers and human services agencies with an interest in transporta- tion services for the transportation disadvantaged can have input into the priorities established by the local United Way 48 chapter by participating in needs assessment surveys if asked and can keep abreast of current priorities by requesting a copy of the most recent needs assessment report. As described in Chapter 6, private foundations may be a source of funding for projects designed to increase the coordi- nation of transportation services for the transportation disad- vantaged. There are two aspects of funding from foundations to be aware of as planning for a transportation coordination initiative proceeds. First, foundation funds are generally awarded to programs or projects that advance the foundation’s central goals, usually based on responses to a competitive solicitation. Research- ing a particular foundation’s goals and current priority areas should be an initial planning task. Another important planning step should be to identify the types of organizations that are eligible to receive grants from a particular foundation. Because public agencies may not be eligible, a not-for-profit coordination partner may need to take the lead role and submit the grant application. (As an added incentive for working collaboratively, foundations often view grant applications from partnerships or collaboratives more favorably than those from single entities.) Most foundations have specific guidelines for grant-seeking organizations—these guidelines vary by foundation. However, grant-seeking organizations might expect to provide some or all of the following pieces of information to foundations: • The purpose of the project for which funds are being requested • Problems and issues the proposed project will address • Estimated project budget • A list of other sources of secured and potential funding for the project • Detailed project schedule and implementation plan • Plans for evaluating program accomplishments If foundation funds will be sought for a transportation coor- dination initiative, transportation providers and other partici- pants should ensure that planning for the initiative includes these items. POLITICAL PROCESSES Support and funding for coordination of transportation services at the federal, state, and local levels can be a crucial factor in the success of local coordination efforts. Equally important is the degree of local public support for public transportation and transportation services for the transpor- tation disadvantaged. The following sections discuss ways in which organizations that are pursuing coordination can work for advantageous policies, programs, and funding sources to enhance their efforts and create public awareness of, and

support for, the benefits that coordinated transportation ser- vices can offer. National Opportunities for Political Involvement and Tools for Advocacy As described below, local organizations can become involved in efforts to shape transportation policy at the fed- eral level and build general support for public transportation through industry associations and by following new federal legislative developments and proposed funding programs. CTAA CTAA is a national, professional membership association of organizations and individuals involved in community transportation, which is defined by CTAA as transportation service that addresses the transit needs of the entire commu- nity, including both the general public and special popula- tions. CTAA conducts research, provides technical assis- tance, offers educational programs, and serves as an advocate in order to make community transportation available, afford- able, and accessible. CTAA has over 1,400 members, includ- ing many providers of transportation services for the trans- portation disadvantaged and human services agencies. As mentioned earlier, CTAA is an excellent resource for orga- nizations that have an interest in, or questions about, the pro- vision of transportation services. CTAA is undertaking efforts to work for new policies and programs in support of coordination of transportation ser- vices. One aspect of this work is the organization’s ongoing lobbying efforts in Congress with regard to reauthorization of the federal surface transportation authorization bill, due in fiscal year 2004. This effort, which CTAA refers to as its National Transit Renewal Program, aims to secure improve- ments for CTAA member organizations that are consistent with CTAA’s four basic principles: • Investment: Greater federal investment for all commu- nity and public transportation programs • Innovation: New and innovative strategies for commu- nity and public transportation • Security: Providing communities of all sizes the capac- ity to respond to natural and national disasters • Building New Partnerships: All regulatory burdens placed on the community and public transportation field must be examined to ensure necessity and efficiency and serve as a foundation for a new partnership between the federal government and public and community transportation CTAA’s success in translating these goals, in particular the last one, into federal policies through its National Transit Renewal Program will be an important factor in determining 49 the resources available to continue to further coordination efforts through traditional transportation funding sources. CTAA is also a source of information and tools that local organizations can use to contact elected representatives about issues that affect public transportation providers, especially those that operate community-based or specialized services. For example, CTAA tracks federal legislative developments and posts information and suggested actions on its website, www.ctaa.org. A recent alert concerned the filing of the Max- imum Economic Growth for America through Rural, Elderly and Disabled Transit Investment Act, designed to increase resources for transit service and other transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged in nonurbanized areas. A Community Transportation Local Action Campaign included sample e-mails and letters on topics such as reauthorization of the federal transit legislation, service for seniors, and med- ical transportation; related background materials; Congres- sional addresses and phone numbers; and advice from expe- rienced transportation managers. All materials and guidance were available on CTAA’s website. Another way in which CTAA is working to encourage improved coordination efforts is through its annual meeting. For example, a key component of CTAA’s 2003 Expo was the National Summit on Transportation Coordination. CTAA used this forum to look carefully at the barriers and create an environment where frank discussion of the topic could occur. One product of the summit was the development of a list of recommendations to be forwarded to federal agencies whose missions are relevant to the issue of improved coordination for the transportation disadvantaged. National Consortium on the Coordination of Human Services Transportation The National Consortium, formed in 2003 by the Coordi- nating Council on Access and Mobility2 and supported by sev- eral federal agencies, is made up of a number of nonprofit organizations that represent providers of human services trans- portation, users of such services, or state and local govern- ments. The Consortium’s goal is to disseminate information about the coordination of transportation services to policy- makers as well as to professionals in both the transportation and human services fields. For example, a survey of Medic- aid nonemergency transportation in each state was released in December 2003. Planned products include legislative briefs on coordination and a coordination guide for state legislators and other officials. More information about the Consortium is available at www.ctaa.org/ntrc/is_coordination.asp. 2 A federal interagency group formed in 1986 as the Joint Department of Health and Human Services/Department of Transportation Coordinating Council on Human Ser- vices Transportation.

United We Ride In late 2003, four federal departments—DOT, DHHS, DOL, and Education—introduced a new human services trans- portation coordination initiative entitled United We Ride. United We Ride includes five components designed to make coordination of human services transportation easier and more rewarding for states and local communities to pursue. A Framework for Action: Building the Fully Coordinated Transportation System is an assessment tool that can be used by states or community organizations to determine how well local transportation services measure up to the ideal of a fully coordinated transportation system. A Framework for Action includes a series of modules for both communities and states, each of which focuses on one aspect of a fully coordinated human services transportation system. Modules for local communities include the following: • Making Things Happen by Working Together • Taking Stock of Community Needs and Moving Forward • Putting Customers First • Adapting Funding for Greater Mobility • Moving People Efficiently State-level modules cover the following topics: • Making Things Happen by Leadership and Partnership • Taking Stock of State Needs and Moving Forward • Putting Customers First • Adapting Funding for Greater Mobility • Technology Moves Coordination to the Next Level • Moving People Efficiently Each module features a question that is central to the mod- ule’s topic, statements to help participants rate state or local progress, and a standardized rating scale. A facilitator’s guide provides step-by-step assistance with the process of bringing a group together and using the tool to conduct an assessment. A Framework for Action is available at www.fta.dot.gov/ CCAM/United_We_Ride.html. The other four elements of United We Ride are awards to states that have achieved successes in human services trans- portation coordination, a National Leadership Forum on Human Services Transportation Coordination (held in Feb- ruary 2004), a coordination grant program for states, and technical assistance activities for states and local communi- ties known collectively as Help Along the Way. At the National Leadership Forum held in February 2004, five states received the first State Leadership Awards: Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington. APTA APTA assists public transportation providers in much the same way as CTAA does for community transportation and 50 human services organizations (although some transportation providers belong to both organizations). Several recent APTA initiatives may be of interest to organizations pursuing coor- dination of transportation services for the transportation dis- advantaged or working to move transportation issues to a higher priority on local planning or funding agendas. Communities in Motion. National market research has determined that the theme of “community benefit built on personal opportunity” is a meaningful way to promote public transportation, even to those who do not need or use it. Based on a research effort that included a national telephone survey and detailed discussions with small groups, only about one- half of the public is familiar with the public transportation ser- vices in their local areas; about one-quarter has no knowledge about them. Moreover, people tend to be more concerned about other issues than about public transportation. However, when public transportation is promoted in a way that empha- sizes the mobility, freedom, and access to opportunities that it can provide for all members of a community, even nonsup- porters become more favorably disposed toward it (7). APTA has developed an outreach campaign based on this theme, known as Communities in Motion, and a toolkit for transit systems and other organizations to use as they plan and conduct Communities in Motion activities. While some of the information in the toolkit specifically applies to transit service, many of the activities, events, and graphics could be used with equal success to increase awareness of transporta- tion services for the transportation disadvantaged, coordina- tion issues, and achievements. The stated goals of the campaign, to quote APTA’s web- site (8), are as follows: • Build public support for public transportation by increas- ing awareness of how public transportation improves quality of life—providing opportunity, freedom, mobil- ity and access for all citizens. • Increase appreciation for public transportation's contri- butions to communities. • Recognize elected officials who have been supportive of public transportation initiatives. • Reach out and involve local groups and individuals that have a vital interest in public transportation's local, state and federal legislative goals. • Communicate the importance of investment in public transportation. APTA’s website also contains an online version of the toolkit. It includes the following: • Communication tools, providing facts and message points about the impact that public transportation has on communities, for use in speeches, press releases, and discussions with local elected officials. • Suggested activities and community events.

• An official Communities in Motion logo, with instruc- tions for duplicating and using the logo in a number of different applications. The home page for Communities in Motion is http://www. apta.com/CIM/index.html. APTA Access and Legislative Committees. Several APTA committees have established subcommittees that focus on coordination issues. The APTA Access Committee has formed a Coordination Subcommittee, which keeps abreast of devel- opments in coordination initiatives at the federal level between DHHS and FTA. The Coordination and Sustainability Sub- committee of APTA’s Legislative Committee also tracks rel- evant developments at the federal level, such as the recent study on transportation coordination conducted by the General Accounting Office. In addition to reporting to their sponsor committees on the status of relevant agency and legislative activities, these groups help to develop industry responses to federal actions related to coordination, share information with APTA members and other interested organizations, and formulate recommended strategies for enhancing coordina- tion efforts. Legislative Conference. Each year in March, APTA spon- sors a legislative conference during which attendees can hear updates on legislative developments, participate in the development of APTA’s legislative agenda, and call on their own Congressional representatives to discuss transportation achievements and issues of concern. Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow. APTA also participates in Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow, referred to as (PT)2. Composed of transit author- ities, state DOTs, transit associations, and businesses, the aim of (PT)2 is to highlight the benefits that public transportation generates, build support for public transportation services at all levels, and increase public transportation funding at the federal level. Similar to the outreach campaigns of APTA and CTAA, (PT)2 provides legislative alerts, news bulletins, educational materials, and other information on its website, www.publictransportation.org. The (PT)2 site can also be accessed through APTA’s website. Proposed Federal Programs and Judicial/Legislative Developments In addition to the state and regional opportunities to fund coordination efforts discussed earlier in this section, recent years have produced a series of federal initiatives, court deci- sions, and legislation that address, at least peripherally, the needs of the transportation disadvantaged. Several of these are described in Chapter 5. Coordination of transportation ser- vices is not identified as a specific objective of any of these 51 programs or decisions. However, in many cases they target the same population groups as those served by the agencies attempting to further the cause of coordination, suggesting that these agencies may have an opportunity to tap into new funding streams that may be created. Opportunities for Political Involvement at the State Level Transportation and human services organizations can also become involved locally in transportation policy develop- ment. Efforts to pass state and local ballot initiatives for transportation service funding offer an excellent opportunity for coalition-building and advocacy, even if the main pur- pose of the initiative is not to advance coordinated services. State Transit Associations At the state level, one of the best ways for a local organi- zation to participate in public transportation policy develop- ment and coalition-building is by becoming involved with that state’s transit association. Typically made up of trans- portation providers and human services agencies (with trans- portation suppliers and vendors often involved as associate members), state transit associations provide opportunities such as the following: • Networking with peers at periodic meetings and con- ferences. • Presenting unified positions on possible actions to fed- eral and state legislators. • Participating in events that highlight public transporta- tion’s contribution to local communities. State and Local Ballot Initiatives In recent years, there have been numerous transportation funding ballot measures at the state and local level. In 2002 alone, there were 9 statewide and 32 local or regional ballot questions to fund transportation projects. Only in a few mea- sures, however, was there a specified component dedicated to specialized or coordinated transportation. According to the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP), the use of direct ballots to fund transportation marks a significant change from the traditional method of financing, away from user fees approved by the legislature (primarily gasoline taxes) and toward voter-approved general revenue taxes, such as sales taxes and bonds (9). The proposed fund- ing source for nearly one-half of the 2002 ballot questions (20 of 41) was a local sales tax. Other proposed funding sources included property taxes, bonds, or some combination of these sources.

The STPP concluded that the following are among the keys to successful ballot initiatives: • Creating as broad as possible public involvement in the initial development of a transportation measure. • Specifying projects and their benefits to voters, rather than following a “trust-us” approach. • Matching the benefits to those who will be paying the costs. The third key seems crucial in understanding the relatively greater success that local measures have had compared to regional and state measures. In general, the statewide and regional referenda concentrate the benefits in certain areas, i.e., certain voters, while spreading the costs across the entire area. When the statewide and regional ballots have spread the benefits across the voting area, they have had a greater ten- dency to be less specific with the benefits or timetables for improvements. On the other hand, as described below in two successful transportation ballot measures, local initiatives are more likely to be able to provide benefits to a large portion of the voters and specify those benefits. Miami-Dade County, Florida. In Miami-Dade County, Florida, 66% of the voters approved the People’s Trans- portation Plan in the November 2002 elections. The funding mechanism for the plan is a one-half-cent increase in the county sales tax. Its proposed service improvements included the following: • Nearly doubling the Miami-Dade Transit Agency’s bus fleet, from 700 to 1,335 vehicles • Expanding the municipal circulator program • Using minibuses on all new neighborhood and munici- pal circulator bus routes • Adding 3,000 transit jobs The organizers of the ballot measure pointed to the broad range of public participation prior to the election: • 100,000 hits on their website (www.trafficrelief.com) • 2,000 attendees at two transportation summits • 80 public meetings • “Thousands of meaningful suggestions” to provide input to the plan Alameda County, California. In Alameda County, Califor- nia, over 81% of the voters approved Measure B in Novem- ber 2000. This measure proposed to fund a wide range of transportation programs totaling $1.4 billion with a one-half- cent increase in the local sales tax. Included in the $1.4 bil- lion is $149 million for paratransit, 11% of the total. After the failure to renew a sales tax in 1998, the sponsors of that measure tried to create a broad coalition of support for transportation funding. The STPP report states the following: 52 Groups representing the homeless and the working poor fea- tured prominently in the negotiations over spending cate- gories and percentages. Social justice advocates argued per- suasively that if they were going to support a regressive tax that their clients would have to pay as a significant portion of their overall income, then the tax should support transporta- tion services that would help connect low income individu- als with jobs and services (9). Measure B also included provisions for the creation of both a citizens’ advisory committee and a citizens’ watchdog committee. The watchdog committee reports directly to the public rather than the county government and is charged with issuing an annual report that includes information on the expenditure of funds and the completion of projects. EXAMPLES OF BEST PRACTICES FROM CASE STUDIES As Table 3 in Chapter 3 shows, a large number of the orga- nizations and systems that were the subject of case studies plan transportation services for members of transportation- disadvantaged groups (or make transportation-related deci- sions) in consultation with their coordination partners and other interested stakeholders. Several case study subjects stand out as examples of innovative or comprehensive plan- ning processes. In the Phoenix area, MAG spearheaded an extensive out- reach effort so that a wide range of stakeholders could con- tribute to the development of the region’s action plan to improve mobility options for older adults. After facilitating the creation of the plan, MAG is now overseeing implemen- tation of its 25 recommended and prioritized strategies. A key activity for MAG is helping community groups to incorporate senior mobility issues into their programs and to identify new program and partnering opportunities. An ongoing stake- holders group provides guidance and assistance as imple- mentation of the strategies proceeds. The Greater Twin Cities United Way has made transpor- tation a focus since a 1999 survey of six Vision Councils iden- tified transportation as either the number one or number two barrier to United Way programs and services for constituents. While the United Way has tested a number of coordination strategies as part of its Transportation Alternatives Initiative, several of its planning efforts are worthy of note here. First, United Way followed up on its survey of Vision Councils with a web-based survey of transportation programs, aimed at iden- tifying the amount expended on transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged in the region and assessing the potential for coordination. Second, the organization has part- nered with the Center for Transportation Studies at the Uni- versity of Minnesota to conduct two transportation confer- ences. The conferences provided an opportunity for numerous state and local public and nonprofit agencies to gather and discuss transportation needs, barriers, and potential solutions.

Finally, THE CENTER and the Humphrey Institute of Pub- lic Affairs at the University of Minnesota are helping United Way to evaluate its pilot transportation projects and assess the results they have achieved. For more detail on each of these efforts, see the full case studies in Appendix A on the accompanying CD-ROM. ADVICE FROM PRACTITIONERS The points listed below have been compiled from com- ments made by the transportation and human services pro- viders and state officials interviewed as part of the case stud- ies described above, as well as from other case study subjects. These lessons offer guidance from experienced organizations related to the groundwork that is necessary for a successful coordination initiative—working with coordination partners, creating effective coalitions, and planning and evaluating coordination activities. • It is important to include all of the entities involved early in the planning process, so that they have a stake in the success of the system. Additionally, things will go more smoothly if policy issues are anticipated and dis- cussed early on. • Choose coordination partners carefully. Pick those who show a clear willingness to change the way they have traditionally done things. • Have the right people at the table at the right time. It greatly slows down and complicates the coordination process if the people at the table are not able to make appropriate decisions when needed. • Define goals and objectives clearly at the beginning. This serves to focus attention and energy and helps keep the process from wandering off track. • Building trust is critical and can take time. Be prepared to meet and discuss issues of concern to coordination partners until satisfactory solutions can be identified. Another strategy is to make sure that the benefits of a more coordinated system are readily visible to all the parties. • Establish an effective coalition early. It takes time to identify the major players and get them involved. The activities of the coalition should also be supported by adequate planning and research; action must be bal- anced with careful consideration of the consequences. Elected officials and other key decision makers should be approached only when the coalition has assembled all the facts to document transportation needs and issues and requests for support or assistance. • Enlist the support of local elected officials. This can be especially helpful in efforts to obtain funding for coor- dination initiatives. • Although proposed programs that affect the provision of transportation services for the transportation disadvan- 53 taged (such as the New Freedom Initiative and legisla- tive decisions such as the Olmstead decision, which are discussed in Chapter 6) may not have dedicated sources of funding, enhance opportunities to benefit from these initiatives by becoming familiar with the legal frame- work and by building coalitions with other potential beneficiaries. • The broader the coalition organized around a funding effort and the more specific and wide-ranging the ben- efits to be achieved by a new funding measure, the more likely it is to succeed. This suggests the value of involvement in such efforts to broaden public awareness of, and support for, public transportation services of all types, including those that serve the transportation- disadvantaged population. • Foster commitment to coordination throughout each par- ticipating agency. It is not enough to have commitment from the top if middle managers are opposed or resistant or if unwritten rules or status issues that may deter coor- dination efforts are not addressed (e.g., the status or pay of a manager may be based on the number of vehicles he or she manages). Nor is it enough to have middle management commitment if top management is not interested or has other priorities. • Focus on improvements that can be created by a few people but that will benefit many. Make sure everyone has a specific mission and a budget to make it happen. Focus on short-term improvements such as communi- cations tools (listservs and websites, for example), and data management software to simplify record keeping and reporting. • For long-term systemic changes, start small and test the concept before broadening the scope. Start by thinking about the desired system improvement, then determine what changes are needed to achieve it. Develop a better understanding of technical and political issues before developing more formal systems for coordinating riders and resources. OTHER COORDINATION PLANNING RESOURCES Other resources that can provide information and guidance related to planning, decision making, and advocacy include the following: • Access to Jobs—Planning Case Studies, prepared by the Office of Planning, FTA, U.S.DOT, Washington, DC, September 2001. • Coordinating Transportation Services: Local Collabora- tion and Decision-Making, prepared by Creative Action, Inc. for Project ACTION, Washington DC, May 2001. • Innovative State and Local Planning for Coordinated Trans- portation, prepared by the Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center for the Office of Planning, FTA, U.S.DOT, February 2002. • Job Access Planning: Challenges and Approaches, prepared for the FTA by the BRW Consulting Team, May 2001. • Planning Guidelines for Coordinated State and Local Specialized Transportation Services, prepared by the 54 Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, Office of the Secretary, U. S. DHHS, and the FTA, U. S. DOT, December 2000. See Appendix F, on the accompanying CD-ROM, for a guide to case studies conducted as part of previous research efforts by topic area, including Planning and Building Coalitions.

Next: Chapter 6 - Funding Sources »
Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 105: Strategies to Increase Coordination of Transportation Services for the Transportation Disadvantaged examines strategies for initiating or improving coordination of local and regional publicly funded transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged.

  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!