About DOT | Briefing Room | Our Activities

Regional Coordination Workshops Summary & Findings

Prepared by SAIC & TranSystems Corp. March 21, 2005

Section 1: Background

For several decades, many federal programs have funded transportation services for older adults, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals.  Yet, more could be done to coordinate these services and to introduce Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and other Information Technologies (IT) to better plan and operate public transportation services in rural, suburban, and urban areas. 

National Mini-Forum

In November 2000, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Joint Program Office (JPO) issued a task order to the SAIC team to provide support to USDOT's work with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).  The task order called for the team to hold meetings, conduct research, and increase awareness and understanding within these agencies of the capabilities and benefits offered by technology and how IT/ITS strategies might be applied to enhance transportation services, particularly in rural areas.  These efforts were to culminate in a National Mini-Forum on rural transportation and technology. 

The purpose of the National Mini-Forum was to explore the use of various technologies, including ITS, as a more effective means of addressing many of the operational and management issues associated with human service transportation programs.  The intent was to discuss an integration vision and interdepartmental cooperation effort to improve mobility and accessibility, seeking the right mix of technology and program coordination.  Attendees would range from senior federal government officials, to state and local officials, who would identify the opportunities and challenges in addressing these ongoing issues.  The issues were expected to include the following topics: (1) reporting and record keeping, (2) service coordination, (3) cash handling, (4) organizational management, (5) maintenance tracking, (6) greater passenger safety and security, and (7) improved efficiencies in trip scheduling and delivery.

Regional Coordination Workshops: Phase One

In July 2002, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), on behalf of USDOT, and HHS proposed an alternative to the National Mini-Forum.  The suggestion was to conduct a series of Regional Coordination Workshops, which would be organized through the regional FTA and HHS offices.  The expectation was that focusing at the state level and working through the Regional Administrators and Regional Directors would be an effective way of introducing the concepts. 

Four Regional Coordination Workshops were held between March 20 and September 11, 2003 (FTA Region I, Region III, Region VI, and Region X).  The Phase One Workshops included presentations about three federal initiatives and their relationship to coordinated transportation services for (1) older adults, (2) low income individuals and those transitioning from welfare to work, and (3) persons eligible for Medicaid-funded medical trips.  The workshops included presentation of best practices related to ITS/IT strategies, and provided time for state roundtable meetings, during which states could work on their own State Action Plan to further transportation coordination initiatives.

United We Ride and Presidential Executive Order

During the summer of 2003, the JPO agreed to delay presentation of the remaining Regional Coordination Workshops pending the announcement of a new FTA initiative: United We Ride: Building the Fully Coordinated Human Service Transportation System, which was unveiled in the Fall of 2003.  The United We Ride initiative includes five elements:

• A Framework for Action.  Created by a panel of experts from around the country that was convened in August 2003, this publication is a self-assessment tool that states and communities can use to identify areas of success and highlight the actions still needed to improve the coordination of human service transportation. 
• State Leadership Awards.  These awards recognize a select number of states that have accomplished significant progress in human service transportation coordination
• National Leadership Forum on Human Service Transportation Coordination.  This conference, held in February 2004, brought together Governor-appointed senior leadership teams seeking to raise the visibility of the issue among state leaders and to secure commitments to action.  The forum was used to provide technical assistance, as well as to recognize those states that had already taken significant steps to improve human service transportation services. 
• State Coordination Grants.  In November 2004, FTA awarded 45 State Coordination Grants to help address gaps and needs related to human service transportation in those states.  The grants are intended to be used to assist states with conducting a comprehensive state assessment using the Framework for Action or for those states that have an established Action Plan already, the state grant can be used to further implement one or more of the elements identified within the Framework for Action.
• Help Along the Way.  This technical assistance program builds on the work of the Community Transportation Assistance Program (CTAP), the Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP), Easter Seals Project ACTION, and other stakeholders to provide hands-on assistance to States and communities in the development and delivery of coordinated human service transportation programs. 

Additionally, on February 24, 2004, President George W. Bush signed an Executive Order on Human Service Transportation Coordination.  The Executive Order establishes the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) within the USDOT.  Membership includes: the Secretaries of Transportation, Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior: the Attorney General; and the Commissioner of Social Security.  The Executive Order established the purpose of the CCAM:

(a) Promote interagency cooperation and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to minimize duplication and overlap of Federal programs and services so that transportation-disadvantaged persons have access to more transportation services;

(b) Facilitate access to the most appropriate, cost-effective transportation services within existing resources;

(c) Encourage enhanced customer access to the variety of transportation and resources available;

(d) Formulate and implement administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms that enhance transportation services at all levels; and

(e) Develop and implement a method for monitoring progress on achieving the goals of this order.

The CCAM had one year to prepare a report for the President that would:

(a) Identify those Federal, State, Tribal and local laws, regulations, procedures, and actions that have proven to be most useful and appropriate in coordinating transportation services for the targeted populations;

(b) Identify substantive and procedural requirements of transportation-related Federal laws and regulations that are duplicative or restrict the laws' and regulations' most efficient operation;

(c) Describe the results achieved, on an agency and program basis, in:

(i) simplifying access to transportation services for persons with disabilities, persons with low income, and older adults;

(ii) providing the most appropriate, cost-effective transportation services within existing resources; and

(iii) reducing duplication to make funds available for more services to more such persons;

(d) Provide recommendations to simplify and coordinate applicable substantive, procedural, and administrative requirements; and

(e) Provide any other recommendations that would, in the judgment of the Council, advance the principles set forth in section 1 of this order.

The report was filed in March 2005. 

Regional Coordination Workshops: Phase Two

The Regional Coordination Workshops resumed in the Fall of 2004.  Six workshops were presented between October 14 and December 10, 2004 (FTA Region II, FTA Region IV, FTA Region V, FTA Region VII, FTA Region VIII, and FTA Region IX). 

The Phase Two Workshops were updated to reflect the United We Ride coordination initiative.  The workshops benefited from the addition of facilitated in-depth discussions about coordination strategies that work, based on examples drawn from the states and local agencies.  The workshops included information about various strategies - including ITS/IT - to improve the coordination of human services transportation in the state and local program levels.  Time was devoted for each state to work on its own State Action Plan or the United We Ride Framework for Action, as needed.

Section 2 of this report includes an overview of the outcomes of the workshops and highlights how coordination may be enhanced through the use of technology solutions.

Phase One Workshops

Four Regional Coordination Workshops were held during 2003:

• FTA Region I - Boston             March 20, 2003                       71 participants
• FTA Region III - Philadelphia   June 25, 2003                          57 participants
• FTA Region VI - Dallas           June 18-19, 2003                     96 participants
• FTA Region X - Seattle            September 11, 2003                 97 participants

Agendas are included in Attachment A.  Three of the workshops were one day; Region VI opted for a two-day workshop.  A regional planning group composed of federal and state agency representatives worked with the SAIC team to plan each workshop and to tailor the content to fit each region's needs.  Workshops included presentations by regional staff representatives of AoA, CMS, and TANF.  An ITS overview was provided at each workshop, along with local innovative practices presentations, as time permitted.  The two-day workshop provided additional time for the states to meet to discuss their action plans.  Each state breakout session included a facilitator and note taker, typically drawn from the SAIC team and federal agency representatives.  In addition, each workshop participant received a three-ring binder with copes of the presentations and other relevant materials, as well as handouts about various federal and state coordination initiatives.

Not surprisingly, the level of coordination varied somewhat from region to region and from state to state within each region.  The notes taken during each round table were returned to the designated state representative(s) to review and edit, as needed.  The state round table notes were intended to help states document progress made at the workshops and provide a framework for continued coordination efforts following the workshops. 

A brief summary of each workshop is provided below.  Technology applications and lessons learned are highlighted. 

Region I - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont

The first workshop held March 20, 2003, attracted 71 participants from all five states, not including the workshop organizing team.  Participants represented a variety of state, federal, and local agencies including transportation, aging, health and human services, and Tribal governments.  Coordination is not new to the New England states, although each state has taken a different route to get there and some are further along than others.  Technology solutions were highlighted more prominently in this region as most states already have coordination programs in place and are at various stages of implementing ITS solutions. 

Connecticut

Connecticut is well-known for its coordinated transportation program including a statewide Medicaid Brokerage program.  Connecticut also is credited with being the originator of a new acronym in the 1990s termed: "BORPSAT," which brought together a Bunch Of the Right People Sitting Around a Table to work out issues related to coordinating transportation in response to the new welfare initiatives under the TANF and  Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) programs.  The Connecticut State Action Plan identified the issue of providing senior transportation as a target area, particularly the need to find solutions for Medicare transportation, dialysis, and adult day care.

Technology has been used by several programs in Connecticut.  For example, the Medicaid brokerage program electronically transmits schedules to its operators and eligibility files are integrated into the scheduling system.  Some private operators have mobile data terminals (MDTs) and automatic vehicle location (AVL) capabilities for monitoring and tracking activity.  The systems also use automatic call distribution technology and plans are underway to incorporate interactive voice response (IVR) into the telephone system.  Additionally, geographic information systems (GIS) have been used to map where JARC recipients live, as well as the location of employers and child care facilities.  The information is being used to identify gaps in service.

Technology is seen as a key component for coordination in Connecticut.  In addition to the technologies listed above, the group identified the use of Smart Cards to help facilitate fare payment issues for low-income and other sponsored individuals. 

Maine

Maine is another state with many innovative programs involving coordinated transportation services, including extensive use of volunteer drivers.  Maine's State Action Plan identified a goal of providing efficient scheduling for customers, medical providers, and transit providers.  The steps needed to reach that goal include: (1) clarifying the Medicaid/transportation provider policy; (2) developing outreach to, feedback from, and communication with Medicaid providers and transit agencies; (3) identifying ways to implement the goal; and (4) marketing the transportation options to medical providers and customers.  The lead agencies responsible for this project would be the State DOT and State DHS.

There have been past difficulties with a computerized scheduling and dispatching system introduced in one region by Maine DOT.  Nonetheless, it is felt that AVL, currently used for transit vehicles in Acadia National Park for schedule adherence and real-time bus departure information and passenger counts, has potential in other areas such as Portland.  Other low tech applications for MDTs have been used (e.g., passenger counting).  Cell phones and two-way radios continue to be used and the state 511 program will provide real-time transit information for Acadia National Park.  There also are seven or eight JARC program service centers that use GIS for real-time ride-matching.

Additional use of AVL for vehicle location (including vehicle deployment in response to homeland security issues, Smart Cards, and computerized scheduling and dispatching, are viewed as promising technology applications for the state of Maine.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts has good coordination between Human Services and Transportation with a new Office of Human Service Transportation (currently includes DMR, MED, DPH).  In addition to coordination at the state level, coordination also is happening at the local level.  There also are expected to be opportunities for more coordination with Elder Affairs, RSAs, and others.  There also is a statewide ID card for individuals with disabilities and a network of 15 Regional Transit Agencies that often broker services. 

The proposed State Action Plan would focus on issues related to policy (e.g., funding & telemedicine), infrastructure (e.g., ITS, intermodal connections, accessibility), and other issues supporting coordination and collaboration.

Technology and ITS architecture have already helped to support intermodal capabilities for DOT-related projects.  Future plans include using Smart Cards that can be used across all transportation modes.  Additional funding will be needed for ITS-related computerization, equipment purchase, operation, brokerage administration, payment systems, and procurements).

New Hampshire and Vermont

Because of the smaller number of representatives, New Hampshire and Vermont met jointly. 

New Hampshire has monthly coordination meetings at the state transit association level, but there is no mandated coordination policy in New Hampshire.  The lack of a coordination mandate is viewed as a barrier.  Several steps were identified as being needed to develop a State Action Plan including the need for at least one success story to build coordination interest and improve leadership in the Medicaid program. 

Vermont has mandated coordination and is well-known for its ability to leverage funds and run a very low cost system.  Cost allocation between transportation and human service agencies was identified as a significant barrier to coordination in Vermont.  For the development of a State Action Plan, Vermont participants suggested that agencies continue to work with the Public Transit Advisory Council and work to improve HHS coordination with the public transit Planning Commissions.

Both states indicated that technology had a role to play; however, discussions about coordination needs in general dominated the discussion.  It was noted that new funding would be needed to implement technology solutions.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island has a Paratransit Task Force, created by Executive Order of the Governor.  It includes representatives from the Governors Office, Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), Department of Elderly Affairs, Department of Heath Services, Department of Mental Health, public representative, representative of vendor of services.  DOL sometimes attends the meetings but its lack of participation was identified as a potential barrier. 

RIPTA has computer-aided scheduling, but not computer-aided dispatch (CAD).  The ITS Deployment Plan calls for the development of radio systems, MDTs, and CAD capabilities that would be coordinated with the state police and DOT.  The RIPTA web site needs to be updated.  DHS is setting up dedicated telephone lines for setting up service and wants to utilize on-line reservations software.  Potential problems with the DHS using on-line reservations are the cost and lack of web use by older adults.  Other ideas are to share GIS data related to transit routes and employment throughout the state, particularly to job centers.

Region III - District of Delaware, Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia

The third workshop held June 25, 2003, attracted 57 participants from all four states and the District of Columbia, not including the workshop organizing team.  Participants represented a variety of state of state, federal, and local agencies including transportation, aging, health and human services, and others.  This region included an ITS presentation by Wheels of Wellness in Philadelphia.

Delaware and Virginia

Representative from Delaware and Virginia met together.  Both states indicated that there was a need for education and in Virginia there is a need for state agencies to send a uniform message supporting coordination.

Delaware's goals focused on the need to train and educate state agencies about coordination.  The plan is to hold regional meeting to describe the coordination effort and to be sure to include DOL and DOE in the meetings.

Virginia plans to have regular meetings with a Group/Council including the secretaries of transportation and health and human services.  One topic to address is to develop a survey of technology needs.

Delaware and Virginia have introduced intra-agency client ID numbers that can be used by different agencies including a billing interface.  In Delaware there is no centralized technology system; however, Delaware DOT is implementing a statewide ITS system for scheduling and dispatching.  Also, Delaware uses client information and bus route information to help HHS identify individuals who could use the Medicaid bus pass program.  In Virginia, the intra-agency database is shared by human service agency, not transportation providers.

Virginia identified the need to inventory transportation technology needs as a next step.  The plan calls for the Group/Council to develop, distribute and analyze a survey, and make recommendations to both secretaries (DOT and DHS). 

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia representatives discussed some of the problems related to agencies that do not coordinate transportation efforts with other agencies.  The District currently consists of uncoordinated programs "stove pipes" that could benefit from working together.  A common issue is a lack of drivers with commercial drivers licenses (CDLs).  The action plan calls for development of a City Wide Collation on transportation including mental retardation (MR) and DC DOT initially, and then expanding to include TANF, Medicaid, and Office of Contracts and Procurements.  It was noted that the United Planning Organization (UPO) has a large database of all the lead agencies.  Funds are needed to share this with all the agencies.  DHS is looking at pooling all its transit services together. 

It was asked whether there is technology available where people could carry a transponder device to signal a nearby bus to pick them up?  Potential action for the action plan would be to identify new technologies that could assist with this effort.

Maryland

Maryland already has he Maryland Coordinating Committee for Human Services Transportation:  The state has developed a draft "Five Year Human Services Transportation Plan," which includes recommended action items related to coordinated transportation.  The State Action Plan calls for four actions: (1) finding ways to better coordinate funding for transportation, (2) improving technology to support coordination, (3) developing statewide standards for providing transportation services, and (4) maintaining and improving infrastructure to support coordination.

There is some use of AVL, MDTs, and computerized scheduling and dispatching.  Additional technology improvements (i.e., scheduling software) are needed to facilitate more coordination of services

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania has a variety of state-funded programs that are coordinated such as the Shared Ride Program and others.  At the same time, there have been recent events that have affected transportation including significant funding cuts and agencies who have ceased operations (e.g., Philadelphia Works).  There appears to be a serious problem with cost allocation by human service providers that don't identify the true cost of providing service.  The proposed State Action Plan includes two pieces: (1) development of a standardized transportation data reporting for all agencies and (2) development of a one-stop shop for human services transportation resources.  

No specific plans were identified related to the use of ITS/IT.

West Virginia

Only one person attended from West Virginia; therefore, there was no state action planning session.

Region VI Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

The second, workshop held June 18-19, 2003, attracted 96 participants from all five states and Tribal governments.  Participants represented a variety of federal, state, and local agencies including transportation, aging, health and human services, as well as participation by a large number of Tribal representatives.  The two-day workshop provided additional time to work on the State Action Plans.  As a result, the notes for the roundtables are more complete and detailed than permitted in the one-day version of the workshop.  This workshop also included a presentation about the Client Referral, Ridership, and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT) program developed by the Alliance for Transportation Research Institute, along with a presentation about the Calcasieu Parish Public Transit System in Louisiana.

Arkansas

Arkansas participants developed a long list of current coordination and technology strategies that are already in place including statewide Medicaid brokerage system, volunteer grants through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and many other efforts.  Some agencies already use computers for scheduling rides; however, many smaller programs use locally developed MS Access-based programs.  The State Action Plan includes three elements:

1. Identifying who the industry stakeholders are,
2. Increasing public awareness about transportation resources, and
3. Looking for cross-agency transportation service options.

Among the technology-related ideas were development of a web site that would serve as a comprehensive source of information about available transportation resources and development of a Smart Card program as the next step to the Ticket to Ride program.

Louisiana

Louisiana began by identifying the five biggest challenges to coordination: (1) money/rates; especially in the rural areas/communities, (2) getting a rural system in every parish because of the 50% match requirement, (3) lack of coordination with other state agencies, (4) identifying resources, and (5) lack of effective regional transit authorities.  The State Action Plan includes six goals:

• Goal #1: Relay message and educate Interagency Transportation Coordination Committee about transportation issues.
• Goal #2: Include transportation benefits on existing EBT card.
• Goal #3: Begin process of getting transportation as an important issue.
• Goal #4: Develop unit price cost strategy in an effort to leverage JARC contract.
• Goal #5: Education/Outreach - Build positive image of public transportation.
• Goal #6: Establish public transportation trust fund.

Several action items related to technology were discussed including developing a state-level specification for Smart Card to work with existing EBT card; continue meeting as a group to discuss how to integrate IT into transportation, how to get population around more efficiently, and to compare needs studies; and educate consumers about transportation options through 511/211 including web site interface and 800 number.

New Mexico

New Mexico discussed the need for cabinet level requirement for coordination and created a long list of coordination issues.  The State Action Plan addresses these concerns and includes a primary goal of creating a Cabinet level Coordinating Council on Transportation.  Five objectives were identified to support the goal:

• Objective 1:  One chip card for all public benefits.
• Objective 2:  Create public awareness of transportation programs and opportunities through education.
• Objective 3:  Update and expand transportation needs assessment.
• Objective 4:  Create a one stop for transportation information and referral with case management to follow.
• Objective 5:  Create Tribal dialogue around transportation and coordinate efforts after July events.

The New Mexico discussion centered more on efforts to improve coordination than technology solutions.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma's discussion also centered on the lack of a statewide initiative to coordinate transportation.  It was noted that Tribal and state efforts often run in parallel, due in part to the fact that federal regulations, statutes, and state laws provide for tribal operation of federal and state programs that parallel many of the same services offered by the state.  Several transportation-related issues were of concern including the increased work requirement proposed for TANF participants, which was expected to increase demand for transportation.  A second major concern is the lack of funding for transportation, requiring programs to prioritize trips.  Medicaid transportation and whether tribes can become certified Medicaid providers also was identified as an issue.  Another concern relates to the lack of transportation for older adults.  The State Action Plan includes initials steps identified in response to these concerns and for bringing state government and tribal representatives together.  The plan includes creation of the Oklahoma Public Transportation Coalition.  The Purpose of the Coalition is to provide a forum for communication and information exchange on issues surrounding public transportation.

The Oklahoma discussion centered on development of a Coalition rather than specific technology solutions.

Texas

Texas just passed legislation requiring TXDOT to oversee coordination of transportation services.  It is too early to know all of the ramifications of the new legislation.  In addition to the new legislation, the Round Table identified several categories of issues: funding; communication; data tracking; policy; access to work, health care, and community; urban/rural issues; Medicaid; and environmental issues.  It was recognized that the new legislation will be a top priority and the discussion included brainstorming about the issues identified during the brainstorming portion of the meeting.

Several technologies were identified that would assist with coordination efforts in Texas.  For example, it would be helpful to have "transparent eligibility" so that a client's information could be captured in a database used by different programs (and that info used for billing purposes).  Some next steps that would be helpful include using GIS to identify travel patterns, using various technologies to promote universal access to transit programs.

Region X - Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington

The fourth workshop held September 11, 2003, attracted 97 participants from all four states.  Participants represented a variety of state, federal, and local agencies including transportation, aging, health and human services, and others.  The workshop also included state panels highlighting innovative practices. 

Alaska

Alaska's participants identified the need for an Executive Order or Administrative Order from the Governor to mandate coordination as one approach for improving coordination.  The group also suggested the need for a federal mandate to accurately identify and report transportation costs.  As part of the State Action Plan, participants identified five goals including:

• Goal 1:  Broaden Alaska Mobility Coalition (AMC)
• Goal 2:  Create Statewide Transportation Coordination Council
• Goal 3:  Explore Technology
• Goal 4:  Structuring strategy for transportation related grant funds - DOT, AMC, Mental Health Trust
• Goal 5: Expand Van Sharing (the King County Metro example)

CARTS has been using scheduling software to track clients manually, which is very time consuming.  Some potential technology applications were identified for exploration including: improved scheduling software, personal data assistants (PDAs), and Smart Card technology.  These options will be explored as part of the State Action Plan Goal 3.

Idaho

Idaho already has begun a series of regional meetings where a lot of groundbreaking has taken place and interagency workgroup has been accomplished.  Forums with a professional facilitator are being held to develop goals for the program.   The second forum is scheduled for October 22, 2003.  Staff annually updates agencies, there are many subcommittees working to bring more information.  A specific concern of the group is finding enough match money to help with coordination.  Everyone has to share and a flowchart of how funds flow and who can do what would help.  Information is needed like a fact book including how much is being spent.  Five goals were identified as being needed to develop a State Action Plan:

• Goal 1: Identify resources for local communities to empower their future.
• Goal 2: Create education/outreach program for decision makers.
• Goal 3: Develop a statewide data collection system on public and client transportation (use national transit database).
• Goal 4: Educate local communities about technology and benefits.
• Goal 5: Recommend reauthorization language in FTA and HHS regulations to require coordination and utilize other programs for match purposes.

Most of the discussion for Idaho centered on coordination.  Several technology-related recommendations included: (1) listing potential technology applications that could be employed to help enhance coordination/delivery of the targeted public transportation services; and (2) consider low tech and high tech solutions for call-taking, scheduling and dispatching, service delivery, vehicle location, customer service, public information billing, etc.

Oregon

Oregon participants identified a long list of coordination goals for the state.  Of particular concern was the need to develop a roadmap that goes beyond providing medical transportation.  On the technology side, there is a need for better software to accommodate brokerages, multiple funding agencies, and multiple providers.  Oregon identified four action steps needed before developing a State Action Plan including:

1. Coordinated Communication & Planning (inventories, best practices)
2. Consistency in Measurements & Requirements
3. Expand Brokerages beyond TXIX
4. Brokerage IT (software)

Specific action items identified for technology-related consideration included (1) defining the Oregon brokerage IT needs/outputs; (2) defining basic software standards based upon functions and activities, and flexibility; (3) inventorying available software and functions of software; (4) researching the experience of software users/users' group; and (5) interfacing between transit and human services client databases

Washington

Washington State participants acknowledged the progress made to coordinate services among transportation providers, but affirmed that there is a need to continue to improve coordination between transportation and human services at all levels.  Barriers also were identified including a pressing need for federal regulations be clarified and made consistent, which was discussed as part of week-long conference workshop with the FTA Office of Civil Rights during the summer.  The two main goals identified to improve coordination included:

• Goal 1: Address "Payer of Last Resort" and "Usual and Customary."  Current federal policy that defines these criteria (and the confusion that currently surrounds it) is the Number One impediment to the Number One Agenda Item of Jenna Dorn's FTA program.  It is an impediment to coordination.
• Goal 2: Connect Special Needs and Human Service Transportation Needs to the "Planning Process" (Regional and State Wide Planning Agencies).  Ultimate goal is to develop a Washington State Human Service Transportation Plan.

A variety of ITS strategies are currently in use throughout Washington State such as GIS used to identify residence, day care, and work destinations (Spokane); potential use of Smart Cards, web based information, and additional paratransit software in three-county area (Sound Transit); Smart Bus technology and upgraded paratransit software (Pierce Transit); and so on.

It was noted that human involvement with technology is very important: the system is only as good as the data you have and data is driven by collection method and by cost.  It also was noted that a suite of tools is needed that includes universal design, the  511 system, trip planner and web-base portal.

Phase Two Workshops

Six Regional Coordination Workshops were held during 2004:

• FTA Region II - New York City          October 28, 2004                    49 participants
• FTA Region IV - Atlanta                      October 14-15, 2004               50 participants
• FTA Region V - Chicago                     November 15, 2004                 51 participants
• FTA Region VII - Kansas City December 1-2, 2004                86 participants
• FTA Region VIII - Denver                   December 9-10, 2004              65 participants
• FTA Region IX - San Francisco           November 8-9, 2004               57 participants

Agendas are included in Attachment B.  Two of the workshops were one day long; four regions opted for two-day workshops.  A regional planning group composed of federal and state agency representatives worked with the SAIC team to plan each workshop and to tailor the content to fit each region's needs.  A professional facilitator also was used to plan and facilitate each regional workshop.  Bill Potapchuk of the Community Building Institute, facilitated Regions II, IV, and V; Pam Curtis of Pam Curtis & Associates/National Policy Consensus Initiative, facilitated Regions VII, VIII, and IX.

Each workshop included presentations about the United We Ride initiative as well as an ITS overview.  Some regions elected to provide program overviews similar to those provided during the Phase One workshop; others did not.  All of the Phase Two Workshops included "innovative practices" presentations that highlighted coordination efforts within the region and sometimes from outside the region.  As was the case during the first set of workshops, the two-day workshop format provided additional time for states to meet to work on their state action plans.  Each state breakout session included a facilitator and note taker, typically drawn from the SAIC team and federal agency representatives.  Some of the larger regions also used state agency personnel to assist with these duties.  In addition, each workshop participant received a CD, which included a variety of resource materials on coordination and ITS and other technologies.

The focus of the Phase Two Workshops shifted toward the United We Ride Framework for Action, with an added emphasis on coordination issues.  Not surprisingly, the level of coordination varied somewhat from region to region and from state to state.  The notes taken during each state planning session were returned to the designated state representative(s) to review and edit, as needed.  The state planning session notes were intended to help states document progress made at the workshops and provide a framework for continued coordination efforts following the workshops. 

A brief summary of each workshop is provided below.  Technology applications and lessons learned are highlighted

Region II - New Jersey, New York, Virgin Islands

The Region II workshop held October 28, 2004, attracted 49 participants from New Jersey and New York.  No one attended from the Virgin Islands.  Participants represented a variety of state, federal, and local agencies.  Each state has taken a different approach to coordination and technology concerns.  The workshop included coordination presentations by North Carolina DHHS and the Ocean County (NJ) Department of Transportation Services.  The speaker from Sullivan County (NY) Department of Family Services was unable to attend due to illness.  Most of the discussion centered on coordination issues, with less of a focus on technology solutions.

New Jersey

New Jersey's discussion focused on its recently submitted United We Ride grant application and the next steps that will be needed to implement the grant, assuming it is awarded later in the year.  The grant includes various activities to ensure that:  

1. New Jersey State officials, agency directors, and human services program administrators will have an increased knowledge of the UWR Initiative.
2. Regulatory and administrative guidance will be written for UWR activity in New Jersey.
3. Baseline data will exist on all of the state agencies and programs that provide human service transportation in New Jersey.
4. An Action Plan for a Statewide Assessment of Human Services Transportation will be developed by New Jersey's UWR Interagency Committee.
5. A technological system(s) will be in place to track UWR project activity.
6. A centralized technological system will be identified for storing data on human services programs in New Jersey.

The primary technology concerns discussed with respect to the grant focused on the need to collect and store data on human services programs in New Jersey and to track UWR project activity.

New York

New York has concerns about how coordination is perceived by the state legislature - a way to save money, rather than a way to leverage resources.  Most of the discussion focused on its UWR Grant application:  The objective of the proposal is to build off of existing human services coordination and create a comprehensive state action plan.  Albany County will take the lead.  Funding will be used to give the task force more responsibilities - interface with the regional transportation authority, which provides fixed route and paratransit service.  Activities include a demographics studies and exploring enhancements.  Albany DHHS, the lead agency, will set up focus groups and put out a request for information (RFI) for a consultant to do an inventory of expenses.  Focus groups will consist of at-large members of the public.  Albany County will then create a prototype among various county departments.  The prototype will then be implemented, in a limited fashion, and the state will put together a State Action Plan based on the results/experience.

The primary focus of the discussion was on coordination and not technology strategies.

Region IV - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,  North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico

The Region IV workshop held October 14-15, 2004, attracted 50 participants from all states in the region, although only a few people attended from Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee.  No participants from Puerto Rico attended.  Participants represented a variety of state, federal, and local agencies.  This region includes states with mature coordination programs (such as Florida and North Carolina) as well as states with less developed coordination approaches (such as Alabama and Mississippi).  Each state has taken a different approach to coordination and technology concerns.  The workshop included coordination presentations by North Carolina DHHS, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, St. Johns County (FL) Council on Aging, and the Aaron E. Henry Health Center transportation program in Mississippi.  Most of the discussion centered on coordination issues, with less of a focus on technology solutions.

Alabama

The Alabama group noted that it was only a portion of the state task force working on the UWR initiative and asked that its discussion be considered suggestions to be brought to a meeting of the full task force.  Some of the elements to consider included:

1. One stop for Workforce Development could be a centralized broker location.
2. One provider per county - must be done by and executive order or memorandum of understanding.
3. Each state agency must be able to talk to one other on a technology basis. - This could bring coordination to a new level.  (One stop customer information system with a 1-800 telephone number or a call center.)
4. Internet ride tracking capability for customers, brokers and providers would be useful.
5. Expand ALDOT's Web site to include coordination and trip scheduling.
6. Tracking and allocation of costs for transportation - financial accountability.
7. Client tracking.

 The technologies being considered focused on information management and expanded use of web-based coordination and trip scheduling.

Florida

The Florida Coordinated Transportation System (FCTS) was developed more than 20 years ago and is among one of the best known examples of statewide coordination.  The Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) also is responsible for administering the Medicaid transportation program, primarily through its network of community transportation coordinators (CTCs).  The CTD supports the development of new technologies and permits CTCs to spend up to 25% of their TD Trust Fund allocation on equipment. 

The CTD is currently working to build a web-based reporting system for coordination (track trips, miles, other data).

Georgia

A priority issue for Georgia is for the governor to issue an Executive Order (EO) requiring coordination at the state level.  Discussion focused on the Framework For Action and how it could be used to research and develop the EO and then get it done.  It was felt that an EO would be easier to achieve than legislative action.

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

Kentucky

There were not enough representatives from Kentucky to convene a state work group.

Mississippi

Mississippi has no coordination program in place at the state level.  There is no mandate, just a working group of funding agencies.  Seven agencies are now working together.  The original four included: Mississippi Departments of Transportation, Mental Health, Human Services, and the Mississippi Division of Medicaid.  Later three more were added: Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation Services, Mississippi Protection and Advocacy, and the Addie McBride Center for the Blind.  The current issue is that it is generally known how many people may need service, but not much is known about their actual needs.  The plan is to identify utilization numbers (of customers) and who has the funding (which agencies).

The primary technology discussion centered on development of a reliable database, which can be used for planning purposes.

North Carolina

Like Florida, North Carolina already has a 25-year history of coordination.  The current coordination issue centers on regionalization.  A recent study carried out by the Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) of North Carolina State University suggested potential cost efficiency and service enhancement through regionalizing public transportation systems.  During the work session the NC team discussed various ways to address the regionalization issue.

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

South Carolina

The current Governor recently mandated a coordinated transportation system, the requirements and implementation of which are currently working their way through various state agencies that provide transportation services.  Current initiatives by various state agencies include issuing RFP's for the development of brokerage systems.  These are intra- and not inter-agency efforts.  There was an expressed desire for a statewide coordination council to address concerns of duplication of service issues and examples of the "empty bus" syndrome.  The key issues are true cost allocation, what agencies can and cannot do, and for who they can and cannot provide services.  The SC DOT by a past proviso is designated as the lead agency in SC for statewide transportation coordination initiatives. 

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

Tennessee

There were not enough representatives from Tennessee to convene a state work group.

Region V - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin

The Region V workshop held November 15, 2004, attracted 51 participants from all states in the region.  Participants represented a variety of state, federal, and local agencies.  Each state has taken a different approach to coordination and technology concerns.  The workshop included coordination presentations by the Illinois Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP), RIDES Mass Transit District in Illinois, and Greene County Transit Board (Greene CATS) in Ohio.  Most of the discussion centered on coordination rather than technology issues.

Illinois

The Illinois Interagency Coordinating Committee on Transportation submitted a UWR Grant application.  The funding will be used to increase staff and equipment and to fund a person to work with the coordinating committee.  It is felt that this person can serve as a champion at the state level.  Illinois DOT is putting together a scope of work for the position and will match the grant funds through the section 5311 program.  The person will be located at the state RTAP program.  The person will guide the state thought the Framework for Action. 

There also was discussion of development of a database to identify transportation providers from human service and public transportation perspective (for each county).

Indiana

There were not enough representatives from Indiana to convene a state work group.

Michigan

There were not enough representatives from Michigan to convene a state work group.

Minnesota

The discussion centered on approaching the governor's office for coordination support.  The participants suggested pushing for a memorandum of understanding (MOU) from other departments beyond just DOT and DHS.  At a minimum, DOL needs to be involved.  The participants recommended two commissioners from DOT and DHS to work together first and form task forces if needed.   

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

Ohio

Ohio plan is to engage a consultant to compile its Framework for Action reports from Task Force members.  The position also would be used to conduct regional focus groups to assess the level of coordination in each region; and to facilitate the interagency work group to build an action plan. 

One technology consideration that was discussed was development of a web page on coordination.  Work has already begun on this effort.

Wisconsin

A small group met from Wisconsin to discuss the UWR grant application and

The group also discussed strategies for developing a statewide transportation inventory. 

Region VII - Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

The Region VII workshop held December 1-2, 2004, attracted 51 participants from all states in the region.  Participants represented a variety of state, federal, and local agencies.  Each state has taken a different approach to coordination and technology concerns.  The regional planning group was particularly interested in providing different state models for coordination.  The workshop included coordination presentations by Oregon DOT, Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, and Greene County Transit Board (Greene CATS) from Ohio.

Iowa

Iowa's vision is to: "Get everyone from where they are to where they want to be in an efficient, safe, and timely manner."  Iowa identified seven goals.  The first goal - Have the Governor issue an Executive Order for highest levels of State Government agencies to participate in Transportation Coordination Council (TCC) - drives the remaining goals, all of which support this goal.  The approach is to define coordination, develop a communication and education plan, ensure adequate funding is made available for the TCC, review regulations to identify potential barriers, inventory existing transportation programs, and hold a conference to work toward coordination.

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

Kansas

Kansas identified a vision statement: to: "Enhance multi-agency coordination to provide efficient, sufficient and reliable transportation to all Kansans."  It was noted that while there is significant coordination, more needs to be done. The rural areas have long distance trips and the urban areas have high demand for service.  Five goals were identified:

1. Broaden perspectives of federal and state regulations to achieve coordinated services.
2. Identify common goals of the state agencies involved in human services and transportation to meet the needs.
3. Identify the universe of transportation providers across the state and identify the types of trips that they are mandated to provide and the sources of funding.
4. Increase use of technology to assist in cost allocation.
5. Sustained effort among all stakeholders: state, regional and local towards reaching coordination vision and goals.

Technology was viewed as one way to improve cost allocation.

Missouri

Despite a previous mandate for coordination, Missouri has had a difficult time getting coordination implemented at the state level.  The issue is complicated by the fact that Missouri is a home-rule state, making it difficult for the state to mandate coordination at the local level.  After considerable discussion, it was agreed that more work needs to be done before recommending a vision for transportation coordination in Missouri.  Five key elements were identified for developing a state coordination plan and a list of potential participants in the process were identified. 

It was agreed that it would be beneficial to have the 511/211 system include transit/human service transportation information and that it would be desirable to also centralize information on the Internet.

Nebraska

Nebraska's vision is to have "A Public Transit System that's (1) reliable, accessible, convenient, and affordable for all people for all needs at all times; and (2) a financially sustainable, regionally based, coordinated collection of partnerships and resources.  Nebraska identified several ambitious goals among them to provide transportation service "24/7 (365 days a year): 'For all needs, all the time.'"  Toward that effort they would like to develop regional seamless services that are easy to understand and use.  Service would be open to all with a focus on the needy.  It is important to make public transportation "a mobility choice."

In addition to generating a database, the participants noted that it would be beneficial to include human service transportation agencies in the "Rural ITS Earmark Project Team."

Region VIII - Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

The Region VIII workshop held December 9-10, 2004, attracted 65 participants from all states in the region.  Participants represented a variety of state, federal, and local agencies.  Each state has taken a different approach to coordination and technology concerns.  The regional planning group was particularly interested in providing alternative coordination models.  A local panel from Denver included presentations by the Rose Community Foundation, HealthOne Alliance, Special Transit in Boulder, and the Senior Resource Center in Denver, all of whom work together to coordinate local transportation services.  Another presentation was made by the Utah Health Care Financing Department, which oversees the state Medicaid brokerage.  A third presentation highlighted some innovative rural telemedicine and Social Security Administration on-line benefits administration through the University of North Dakota School of Medicine & Health Sciences and the Social Security Administration (SSA).

Colorado

Colorado is a "local government state," meaning it is difficult for the state to mandate anything - including coordination - at the local level.  An Executive Order from the governor is not likely and may not be necessary.  Most funding for human services transportation comes from the federal level.  Colorado's UWR grant application calls for creation of a Coordination Council made up of state agency representatives, transit officials, planning organizations, consumer representatives, etc.  The question for them is: "How can we do transportation better?"  They would examine responses to a self-assessment tool and develop the State Framework for Action probably with the help of a consultant).  This effort will provide the "meat" for getting to the answers. 

It also was noted that state agencies need to be more aware about what technologies are available to improve coordination.

Montana

Montana State University's (MSU) transportation coordination plan (from the UWR state coordination proposal) involves three phases and has resource to support the program.  The three phases are: (1) assessment of agencies, (2) a transportation coordination plan for agencies, and (3) implementation of the several steps of the plan.  MSU has implemented an outreach effort.  One of the primary objectives is to disseminate best practices information to community groups and agencies.  MSU has been active in coordinating focus groups for an assessment of Montana transportation coordination.  Montana has a transportation coalition in place called the Montana Transportation Partnership (MTP).  The group includes funding agencies and organizations representing consumers, such as independent living centers and advocacy groups.  MTP can provide input on developing a statewide transportation coordination plan.  In the end, the most important thing will be agency buy-in.

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

North Dakota

North Dakota's vision is to: "Ensure affordable personal mobility for all North Dakotans."  North Dakota developed several goals including a goal that all North Dakotans will have access to health care, employment, social/recreational activities, commerce and services, education and training, and childcare/eldercare.  A second goal is to develop, maintain, and expand a one stop shop for transportation resources and services in ND, which would include an on-line module.  A third goal is to get an Executive Directive on coordination from the Governor.  Toward that end they will need to hire and Executive Director, establish the ND Personal Mobility Council, establish regional boards and hire regional coordinators, provide state funding for startup and ongoing funding of the boards, as well as training and technical assistance

Technology was discussed in the context of providing on-line information.

South Dakota

South Dakota identified a vision of "access to unlimited mobility" and four goals to support that vision:

1.      Re-establish state level coordination initiative;

2.      Create additional transportation options;

3.      Educate public about public transportation; and

4.      Increase ridership.

Action items were identified including the immediate development of a "Blue Ribbon Task Force" to begin the process of re-establishing state level coordination initiatives. 

The technology discussion included maintaining the existing (DDN) digital network and developing an on-line resource guide as suggested by North Dakota that would describe transportation resources.

Utah

Utah identified its vision as: "Within the next 10 years Utah will have a consumer responsive coordinated transportation network for all citizens who do not have access to personal transportation."  Utah then identified four short-term and two long-term coordination goals.  The short-term goals include:

1. Enlarge the existing Utah UWR committee to include all agencies and stakeholders.
2. Conduct an assessment and take an inventory of existing transportation services and their related funding agencies.
3. Evaluate the inventory of existing transportation services/agencies.
4. Try to get "buy-in" from higher level professionals (i.e., department heads and decision makers).

Utah's long-term goals include:

1. Have an interagency Transportation Coordination Council established at the department head/Cabinet level (include the Governor's Office and the five department heads).
2. Implement an interagency, coordinated transportation system that would include a "one-stop-shop" model.  This would be statewide by 2010.

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

Wyoming

Wyoming identified a vision to: "Create an awareness for coordination among government agencies, tribal councils, public/private providers, foundations, and consumers."  Wyoming developed three goals:

1. Identify and educate state agencies, tribal organizations, public/private providers and consumers involved in transportation and identify funding sources.
2. Rejuvenate WY "Summit on Transportation" and expand membership to include tribal councils (based on the first goal).
3. Conduct in-depth transportation needs assessment (local, tribal, statewide - senior centers, MPOs).

Participants felt that a cabinet level directive might be necessary to support coordination efforts.  There are some complicating factors including the fact that two tribes occupy one reservation.  There also are many rural transportation issues in Wyoming.  Generally, city governments do not see transportation fitting into their role.

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

Region IX - Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands

The Region IX workshop held November 8-9, 2004, attracted 57 participants from all states and territories in the region.  Participants represented a variety of state, federal, territorial, and local agencies.  Each state and territory has taken a different approach to coordination and technology concerns.  Presentations were made by OUTREACH, a non-profit transportation provider in San Jose, California; the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) senior transportation planning effort; and the Agency Council on Coordinated Transportation (ACCT) in Washington State.

Arizona

Arizona developed three goals: (1) have the Governor issue an executive order/call to action to recognize the importance of mobility and coordination, (2) Assessment/inventory of state programs funding mobility - analysis of gaps - look at possible coordination options at state/regional/local level, and (3) Develop educational pieces on transportation.  The intended outcomes of these efforts would be (1) issuance of a Governor Executive Order, (2) development of a coordinating team, (3) establishment of an assessment process, (4) an exchange of services, (5) more effective use of resources (driver training, insurance, micro-enterprises, repair), and (6) cooperative agreements to serve regional / tribal / local needs.

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

California

California identified 11 coordination goals among them:

1. Establish four pilot projects to demonstrate brokering of Medicaid transportation in California and establish regulations that provide for a transit/paratransit allowance to be purchased by individuals who need regular medical services.
2. Establish a more meaningful planning process in the state that includes changes to the requirements for submission of line-item budgets, a certified letter of support from local transit provider, changes to eligibility requirements.  Plans must be current, relevant, and include input from all relevant parties.
3. Hold California Mobility Summit.

The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

Hawaii and Pacific Islands

A number of barriers were identified including an overall lack of coordination and apparent lack of accountability.  Hawaii has met ADA requirements but needs extend beyond ADA, particularly for rural areas.  There are resources such as the UWR planning grant and other funding that may be used to improve coordination efforts.  The ultimate goal of the group is to make coordination a priority within the governor's office.

Technology barriers also were identified: how we communicate.  Challenge in communication infrastructure.

Nevada

Nevada has several challenges including rural vs. urban issues.  There also is a difference between northern and southern Nevada' transportation planning needs (i.e., two plans are needed).  Several action items were identified including development of an inventory of transportation programs/funding in the state.  It was agreed that an important goal is to identify the stakeholders.  It also was suggested that a state task force be developed to focus on transportation issues.

 The discussion did not specifically address technology issues.

Issues and Themes

The focus of the two sets of workshops differed to some degree due in part to their timing.  The Phase One Workshops, conducted in 2003, were in advance of the United We Ride effort and reflected more of a focus on coordination in general and technology solutions that could be used to enhance coordination.  A shift in focus somewhat away from technology solutions to a bigger focus on coordination and the United We Ride effort are evident in the Phase Two Workshops.  Overall it appears from the evaluations (see separate report) that the Phase Two workshops received slightly higher evaluation scores overall, partly as a result of the innovative practices presentations and professional facilitators who helped to organize the workshops.  The most useful material for incorporation into the Mobility Services for All Americans (MSAA) may have come from the Phase One Workshops because of their added emphasis on technology solutions.

Coordination

While each state had its own specific concerns relating to the coordination of human services transportation, there were a number of common issues that surfaced in many state discussions:

• The perceived need to have some type of mandated coordination at the state level (and possibly federal level), whether by executive order or legislative action.
  • However, in some home-rule states it was noted that governors may not be willing or able to effectively mandate coordination at the local level.
• The importance of having all of the right people engaged in the coordination effort.
  • Coined by Connecticut as the need to have a "Bunch of the Right People Sitting Around the Table" or "BORPSAT."  It is evident that for coordination to succeed, the correct agencies and individuals must be involved in the planning, funding, operating, and evaluation phases for coordinated human transportation services to succeed.  It also takes individual champions with a vision to advance the concept.

  • Many states expressed the need for formal coalition building to be more inclusion, particularly related to Tribal issues and being sure that all state agencies that should be included are part of the coordination discussion - not just transportation and health/human services individuals. 
  • It was noted that for various reasons, not all of the right people may have been present at the workshops.  In some cases agencies were not represented because of travel restrictions.  In other cases there was a lack of interest or possibly knowledge about the workshops.
  • In particular, there was a desire to include representatives from DOL and those who represent low income individuals. 
• While the focus of coordination efforts often rests on the need to provide service for persons who are transportation disadvantaged (i.e., people with low incomes, older adults, people with disabilities, and others without access to transportation), many states included accessibility and mobility for all persons in their vision statements for the future.
  • In many states there was a desire to ensure that public transportation is viewed as a viable option to driving for those who wish to use it or who have to use it.
  • It also was recognized that providing coordinated, accessible public transportation (i.e., fixed route bus and rail) could help to ease the demand for more costly paratransit services.
• There is a need to make more resources and more flexible funding available both at the federal and state levels.
  • It was noted that some states contribute nothing or very little to public transportation or human services transportation, leaving the burden to local governments and private funding sources.
  • Quite simply, states felt that additional funds were needed to meet the demand for service and that the demand would only grow as Baby Boomers age.
  • In some regions, Tribal funding also plays a key role in transportation assistance and there is a need to work more closely with the states to leverage resources.
• There are problems with data availability and reliability.
  • A number of states noted that they lacked basic data that would help them to plan and implement human services transportation.  The reasons cited included reporting deficiencies, lack of uniform cost-allocation across programs, and turfism (stove piping) among various agencies.
  • Other issues affecting data included the use of different terminology and/or data collection methods (e.g., public transportation operators typically focus on one-way trips while human service program typical focus on trips taken by individuals for specific programs.
• The need to define and showcase success stories.o
  • A common misconception about coordination is that the overall cost will decline because services have been coordinated.  In reality, the overall cost may remain the same; however, the amount of service as well as the quality of service should increase with well executed coordination efforts.
  • An ongoing issue for coordination proponents is providing good examples of sustainable coordination efforts and documenting the before and after effects of coordination.
• A need to educate stakeholders about coordination options and benefits.o
  • It was noted that there is no one perfect model of coordination that will work in all instances.  It must be tailored to local needs and concerns.o
  • Coordination does not mean consolidation.  There are many forms of coordination from informal agreements to fully integrated or consolidated systems.o      
  • There was general agreement about the need to create some form of one-stop information center so that consumers would know what transportation resources are available in a particular community.

Much progress has been made, yet much remains to be done even in states with a long history of coordination.  The United We Ride initiative, and the state and community Framework for Action materials appear to be useful coordination tools.

Technology

The original focus of the workshops was to highlight how ITS/IT could be used as tools to enhance human service transportation coordination efforts.  Discussions about technology were most prominent during the Phase One Workshops, whereas the emphasis on United We Ride and related coordination efforts were more prevalent during the second set of workshops. 

An important aspect of the workshops is how the information provided about ITS and IT can be used to help develop a related federal initiative called "Mobility Services for All Americans" (MSAA).  The goal of MSAA is to increase mobility and accessibility for the transportation disadvantaged and the general public, and achieve more efficient use of federal transportation funding resources through technology integration and service coordination. 

At the workshops, the technology discussions centered on two major themes: (1) how technology can be used to improve recordkeeping and data collection/reporting efforts and (2) how technology can be used to enhance coordination and improve transportation operations.  An overriding concern for both themes was the cost to acquire, implement, and use technology. 

Data Collection and Reporting

One area of particular interest that came up in almost every region was how to collect, use, and disseminate information.  In particular, information that could be useful for planning purposes, information dissemination, and billing purposes. 

• Planning.  Several technologies were identified during the workshops that could assist with planning transportation services including:
  • Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and mapping technologies, which could be used to identify trip origins and destinations, as well as areas not being well served.  These analyses could be based on demographic/census information, passenger use data, and other programmatic information.  These techniques are commonly employed by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), regional planning councils (RPCs), and others to identify travel patterns and areas with unmet need.  A number of JARC program participants have used GIS to map low income individuals and to identify transportation, day care, and employment site information.
  • Electronic databases including all sorts of simple or complex databases that track information about customer use.  There was an interest expressed in developing shared databases among programs (e.g., Medicaid eligible customers and ADA paratransit eligible customers) so that resources might be better coordinated.  It was generally agreed that the issue that get in the way are related to confidentiality and/or stove-piping of programs, not the actual technology itself, which is available.
• Information dissemination.  At every workshop, at least one state expressed the desire to develop a one-stop center for information about transportation resources.  In some cases the idea was expanded to become a "mobility manager," which would work with customers to develop personal trip itineraries.  Many ideas were suggested including:
  • On-line databases needed to collect, manage, and disseminate information.  These Internet-based information sources should include accessible formats so that they may be used by persons with disabilities.  Although concerns were expressed about whether individuals in rural areas have access to the Internet, there often are computer terminals in local libraries that may be used.
  • Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems also were suggested that would allow a person to use their telephone touchpad to access information using a numeric menu.
  • Telephone call centers, such as the one in King County (Seattle) also were mentioned where a database has been built to include information about transportation options in the area.  Funded in part by the transit department, the call center is staff by a social service program for senior citizens.  A customer can call and receive assistance from a live customer service representative.
• Electronic databases, invoicing, and billing.  After several decades of attempting to coordinate services, participants still comment on problems of accountability and billing.  Among the suggested (and already used technologies) are:
  •   Smart Cards can be programmed to collect, store, and provide information about an individual customer.  Smart Cards could be used to cover a variety of programs - such as attendance at a senior center program as well as use of transportation.  This information can also be downloaded from card readers and used for billing purposes.  It also was noted that Smart Cards can assist customers who may have subsidized trips in that no one needs to know who is paying for the trip, whether it's the individual, a social service program or Medicaid, for example.
  • On-line transactions also can facilitate coordination as shown by the benefits claim filing project in North Dakota, which was highlighted at the Denver workshop.  Social Security recipients can now file on-line for benefits, which has resulted in quicker returns and faster processing, using fewer resources.
  • The Client Referral, Ridership, and Financial Tracking (CRRAFT) program in New Mexico (and highlighted during the Region VI workshop in Dallas) is a great example of what an electronic database can contribute to the coordination of transportation services.
    

Improving OperationsTechnology has much to offer to assist with coordination efforts particularly for service delivery in multiple jurisdictions or with multiple funding sources.  Transportation operators are adopting ITS strategies and have well-documented results.  Several examples that were highlighted at the workshops include:

• Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority - Massachusetts
• Capital Area Rural Transportation System - Austin, Texas
• Ottumwa Transit Authority - Ottumwa, Iowa
• Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) - Suburban Detroit
• Sunshine Bus - St. Augustine, Florida
• Wheel of Wellness - Philadelphia

In addition to the database and GIS technologies described above, the states were interested in exploring the use of the following technologies as they apply to brokerage and other forms of coordinated transportation services:

• Automatic vehicle location (AVL), which can be used to track vehicle location for real-time information related to schedule adherence, as well as reviewing stored data for resolution of past service issues.
• Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), which capture on-board information pertaining to trips, which drivers record by depressing buttons to indicate arrivals, departures, and so on.  The MDTs also can be used to transmit pick-up and drop-off information in real-time.  Some systems, such as Spokane Transit, no longer have paper manifests on paratransit vehicles; all transactions occur via MDT transmission. 
• Scheduling and dispatching software has improved over the years, making it possible to manage eligibility for certain trips by funding source or other means, automatic call-backs to customers if a schedule changes, scheduling assistance for trip assignments, and dispatch assistance.  Even less expensive program are now able to capture many of these features and be integrated into AVL/MDT based operations.
• Interactive Voice Response is gaining popularity and is used to schedule, confirm, and cancel trips.  One issue with IVR is that persons who use TTY devices are unable to use this technology so another option must be offered.
• Internet based scheduling a relatively new ITS application is Internet base scheduling capability where a customer can schedule, confirm, and cancel their own trips without ever talking to the transportation provider.   

Summary

Many of the coordination issues cited by various workshop participants (e.g., need for agencies to share information or need to coordinate service provision) can be facilitated through the use of technology.  While urban areas may appear to employ more technology solutions, rural areas also have benefited from technology as shown by the CRRAFT example and others cited during the workshops and through the MSAA project.  It also was noted that ITS needs to support universal access and design to support physical use of the system as well as the information portals - e.g., accessible web sites.  While on-line Internet access offers many benefits for those who can use it, it was noted that access to the Internet may be a barrier among certain populations (e.g., low income, older adults, and rural residents).  Finally, several state commented on the importance of the human factor in technology.  Technology is a good thing, but it is implemented by people.  People - including drivers and other personnel - need to be knowledgeable in its use, about the system, and the technologies need to be maintained properly.

Future Priorities

The future for coordination of human services transportation has never looked more promising.  As agencies and individuals begin to better understand coordination and what it can accomplish, more realistic goals and expectations will be realized.  The workshops raised a lot of questions about coordination and the use of technology, some of which can be used to frame future research and demonstration efforts as coordination evolves into the future.  New capabilities and opportunities are being created in both the transportation and health and human services communities through the use of emerging technologies and innovative services.  Pioneering public transportation agencies are using ITS to provide centralized coordination of community transportation providers, one stop shopping, and service brokering through integrated automatic vehicle location systems, advanced communications, and universal benefit cards.  Others are providing on-vehicle audio annunciation, accessible traveler information, and flexible routing to assist passengers with disabilities in using conventional transit services.  In the rehabilitation community, innovative Assistive Technologies such as personal GPS and personal display assistants using mobile communications to provide real-time assistance to those with cognitive disabilities, accessible pedestrian signals, and "talking" bus stops and signs are also being developed.  Through the MSAA initiative, the USDOT will demonstrate how technology can be used to help facilitate coordination between transportation and human services providers, and how it can improve accessibility and mobility for all Americans.