Introduction

A. Legislative Background

In its supplemental report to accompany the U.S. Department of Transportation's (U.S. DOT) fiscal year 1997 and 1998 appropriations bill, Congress directed "the Secretary of Transportation, working with the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the DOT/DHHS Coordinating Council, to develop guidelines for state and local planning (agencies) to achieve specific transportation coordination objectives." These include but are not limited to:

• joint identification of client transportation needs;
• identification of the appropriate mix of services to meet these needs;
• the expanded use of public transportation to deliver human service transportation; and
• Cost-sharing arrangements for program clients transported by paratransit systems.

Similar language in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (U.S. DHHS) appropriations legislation encouraged U.S. DHHS to work with the U.S. DOT on those guidelines. In the spring of 1997, the two departments formed the DOT/DHHS Transportation Planning Workgroup to address the development of the guidelines. Subsequent to this directive, welfare reform has focused renewed attention on the use of social service and "non-traditional" transportation systems to complement existing public transportation to provide adequate access to jobs for temporary aid to needy families (TANF)/welfare recipients. More than ever before, U.S. DOT and U.S. DHHS need to cooperatively develop strategies to facilitate the coordinated planning and delivery of specialized and public transportation services.

Coordination can substantially increase the availability of accessible transportation for people with disabilities. Although not mandated, coordination between local agencies is clearly a goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA does mandate that persons with disabilities cannot be denied access to public transportation facilities and services and that those services must be comparable to those provided to the general public. ADA provisions require that all newly acquired and modified vehicles operated by public and private transportation providers be accessible and mandates that public transit agencies provide ADA paratransit services that complement their fixed-route services for people who cannot use those fixed-route services. ADA paratransit services must be comparable in terms of response times, fares, geographic service area, and hours and days of service and may not restrict the number of trips an individual can make or prioritize service based on the rider’s trip purpose.

With regard to coordinated planning, ADA regulations require that public providers identify all other providers of transit services in their area as part of the preparation of the complementary paratransit plan. However, other providers, such as health and human service agencies, are not necessarily required to work with the public provider in putting together the paratransit plan, or to coordinate their services. When the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) was passed in June 1998, it contained a number of sections that directly address planning for the coordination of government funded transportation services.

Under Section 3022(d): Health and Human Service/Participation of Governmental Agencies in Design and Delivery of Transportation Services, the Act provides that "to the extent feasible, governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations that receive assistance from Government sources (other than the Department of Transportation) for non-emergency services:

1. shall participate and coordinate with recipients of assistance under this chapter in the design and delivery of transportation services; and
2. shall be included in the planning for those services."

Under Section 3004: Metropolitan Planning, the Act calls for the Secretary of the U.S. DOT to encourage each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) to coordinate the design and delivery of transportation services with all recipients of U.S. DOT funding and all agencies funded by other government agencies. The Act also calls for the Comptroller General to conduct a study of Federal departments and agencies (other than U.S. DOT) that receive or provide Federal financial assistance for non-emergency transportation to assess the level of transportation spending under Section 3034. The Act also creates a new Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant program under Section 3037: Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute Grants. Under this program, grant evaluation criteria include the extent to which applicants demonstrate coordination with, the financial commitment of, and the maximum utilization of existing transportation providers in the area.

The joint UMTA/FHWA April 1976 regulations for elderly and handicapped transportation established accessibility criteria for U.S. DOT-funded projects that specifically included coordination as a means of implementing the "special efforts" required to comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (ADA's predecessor). The 1979 U.S. DOT regulation implementing the Section 504 requirements for U.S. DOT grantees specifically required (among others) that grantees create a "transition plan" including "the identification of coordination activities" as one of the eight requirements of these plans. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 established coordination as one of the requirements of Section 18 program created by that Act. ADA and TEA-21 are only the latest examples in a long line of U.S. DOT-required coordination efforts.

Transit operators funded by FTA are required to meet specific transportation planning requirements as a condition of funding. Transit operators are required to provide detailed operational data on cost and ridership to FTA on an annual basis. In urbanized areas, transit operators are key players in developing regional transportation plans through the metropolitan planning process, as called for in TEA-21. As transit agencies, their single focus is on transportation. In contrast, U.S. DHHS-funded programs are multi-service organizations focused on their individual agency missions and view transportation services as a secondary function in support of servicing their clientele. While state agencies administering certain programs such as Medicaid are required to submit plans that describe how local agencies will ensure necessary transportation for clients to and from medical providers, U.S. DHHS programs do not typically conduct transportation planning or have transportation reporting requirements related to the transportation components of their programs.

As a result, data and information to support planning for FTA and U.S. DHHS-funded transportation services are not always comparable, making planning for coordinated transportation between transit and health and human services challenging. For many years, health and human service agencies have contracted for or provided their own transportation services, which in many cases were not coordinated with local public transportation agencies (where they existed). Many transit agencies were also involved in providing paratransit and dial-a-ride services, prior to the passage of the ADA, using FTA’s Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program and Section 5311 Non-urbanized Area Formula Program funds. The passage of the ADA brought the lack of coordination between the various providers into focus. As transit agencies were required to provide accessible ADA paratransit services comparable to their fixed-route services, many health and human service agencies continued to provide their own transportation services. As a result, areas were often left with a confusing, uncoordinated maze of transportation services with duplication of services and other system inefficiencies.

This situation has been exacerbated by concerns over who should pay for specialized transportation services. In some cases, health and human service agencies saw the ADA as an opportunity to have paratransit services provided by the public transit agency, rather than in-house, with the possibility of considerable cost savings. Conversely, transit agencies feared an overwhelming demand for their ADA paratransit services with few sources of funding to support those services. Both FTA and U.S. DHHS have traditionally spent considerable funding on transportation services. FTA’s overall expenditures for transportation services are estimated to exceed $4 billion for fiscal year 1998, while transportation spending by U.S. DHHS programs was estimated at $2.6 billion for fiscal year 1998¹. In the face of constant budgetary pressure and possible cuts in funding faced by both U.S. DHHS and U.S. DOT, the potential is apparent for cost savings and more cost-effective delivery of transportation services to communities as a whole through coordination.

Measures in both the ADA and TEA-21 clearly support greater strides toward coordination. The guidelines being developed through the DOT/DHHS Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (Coordinating Council) for state and local planning agencies to achieve specific transportation coordination objectives are a first step in realizing that goal. The Coordinating Council has also authored a study entitled "Planning Guidelines for Coordinated State and Local Specialized Transportation Services." It is a complementary report to this one and is referenced throughout this document.²

The DOT/U.S. DHHS Transportation Planning Workgroup determined that the identification and description of successful, existing state and local coordinated planning initiatives would inform the development of final guidelines, as well as provide agency customers with potential models upon which to base their own planning efforts. Ultimately, the workgroup expects the guidelines to incorporate best practices and models with recommendations that will assist transportation service providers to develop effective and successful planning partnerships.

In undertaking this study, the workgroup decided to take advantage of FTA’s general working agreement with the U.S. DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) to conduct this analysis.

The workgroup developed a list of planning "strategies" and activities that may facilitate coordinated planning for transportation between health and human service and public transit agencies. These activities can be categorized under four headings:

• Formation of coordinating councils or groups
• Institutional MOUs, or inter-agency agreements defining roles and responsibilities
• Consolidation of administration/finance under one agency
• Mutual definition of "coordination"
• Joint identification of client transportation needs
• Development of joint results/products of coordination
• Public involvement

• Uniform definitions and standards
• Establishment of uniform accounting systems
• Improved data collection
• Identification/quantification of the need/performance
• Identification/quantification of transportation costs and revenues
• Identification and measurement of non-monetary costs and benefits
• Use of analytical tools (GIS, analytical packages/software, modeling)

Coordinating Procedures

• Co-location of human services ("one stop shop" to reduce the number of trips)
• Consolidation of scheduling and dispatch ("one call" for customers)
• Consolidation of capital equipment
• Resource allocation based on transportation need/performance
• Establishment of cost sharing arrangements
• Lending/sharing of planning, technical resources among agencies
• Data sharing
• Joint sign-off/certification of plans/grant applications

• Establishment of oversight bodies
• Measuring system performance and costs
• Measuring cost/cost savings and benefits of coordination

To assess whether these strategies are currently being implemented, the workgroup developed a list of candidate states and urban and rural areas believed to have experience in coordinating transportation services. The list was based on historical knowledge and experience of the workgroup members, supplemented by recommendations from FTA regional offices, and the input of other stakeholders. Staff from the U.S. DOT’s Volpe Center conducted telephone interviews with representatives from the candidate areas to gather information on the history and background of transportation coordination efforts in their areas. From these initial interviews, an Interim Report was prepared that summarized the transportation coordinating activities being conducted in the targeted areas. Based on these findings, the list of coordinating strategies was condensed to include seven broad strategies of coordination, including:

• Partnerships
• Shared planning resources
• Joint identification of planning needs
• Identification of transportation services, costs and revenues
• Establishment of cost sharing arrangements
• Performance measurement
• Measuring cost savings and benefits of coordination

Volpe Center staff then conducted a second round of interviews with specific areas, depending upon the given topic of coordination to develop detailed summaries of their experiences in implementing and accomplishing the strategy. Interviewees were asked to describe how the strategy contributes to a coordinated approach to transportation service delivery, how it fits into the local planning process, and to identify issues associated with each strategy and potential obstacles.

This draft Final Report summarizes the results of these efforts. Each chapter that follows addresses one of the seven coordinating strategies. The chapters begin with a general discussion of the strategy and its potential for producing beneficial results in transportation coordination. Each chapter then provides examples of how the strategy is being implemented in two of the case study sites. In each of the case studies, a number of the approaches illustrated might not be considered traditional "planning." This reflects that coordination between human service and public transit agencies is not necessarily traditional. While this report discusses each of the seven coordinating strategies separately, it is important to note that these strategies are interdependent and often blend together. It is the intent of this report to illustrate how each strategy, individually and applied together, might fit in to a coordinated regional transportation planning process. Appendix A provides information on transit and health and human service officials contacted as part of this study.