State DOT Survey Responses - Effectiveness of Federally Mandated Coordination Planning

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Research Results Digest 354, A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs is worth a careful read. While I am summarizing parts of the report here that apply nationally, there are in-depth portions about particular states that are illuminating. This report is part of the series of ongoing research that is performed for AASHTO's Standing Committee on Public Transportation. The NRC Director, Chris Zeilinger, serves as a liaison to the panels that oversee all the work that is conducted under NCHRP Project 20-65.

State DOTs were surveyed to state the effectiveness of the coordinated planning effort (1) in meeting "FTA goals of enhancing transportation access, minimizing duplication of services, and facilitating the most appropriate and cost- effective transportation possible with available resources; and (2) "ascertain[ing] the cost of developing and maintaining these Coordination Plans (in terms of time and money) to ensure that resources are being used wisely and effectively, resulting in the better, more cost-effective and coordinated programs that the plans are expected to foster."

Opinions from 21 states

Twenty-one states responded to the survey. Afterward detailed telephone discussions in six geographically and demographically representative states were conducted with staff from state DOTs, planning organizations, transit agencies, human service transportation providers and non-governmental organizations.

Benefits reported from the requirement to draft coordination plans with stakeholder input were "enhancing transportation access for target populations, increasing commitment/participation in the plan development at both the state and local levels, improving coordination, and creating a general understanding of eligible JARC and NF grants." Disadvantages of the current funding streams and their administrative requirements included burdens on existing staff, while not having the resources to hire additional staff. Another problem reported was the uncertainty of future funding, which inhibited taking advantage of available funding for fear that services could not be sustained.

Specific improvements suggested

Prominent among the suggestions for improving transportation funding to meet coordination goals was "the consolidation of the Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF grant programs with other federal grant programs such as Section 5310, 5311, and 5307."

With consolidation, the respondents indicated that the individual grant program goals could still be reflected in program and planning requirements, including dedicating percentages of funding to each program goal. Section 5310, Transportation for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, was the most frequently mentioned program for consolidating the JARC and NF grants, and several respondents indicated that these grant programs could also be consolidated with Section 5311, the Rural and Small Urban Areas grant program. By consolidating the JARC and NF grants with Section 5310 and/or 5311, the respondents felt that the states could manage the program more efficiently, while still developing a Coordination Plan (as required for Section 5310) and serving similar target populations.

The report authors pointed to concern expressed in an AARP report that the needs of target populations would be neglected were funding streams to be consolidated. That report is Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation.

Especially interesting is the discussion of the benefits reported about coordinated planning and its limits given the realities of current funding, lack of local control, and the difficulty in meeting the local match requirement. "[M]any of the states noted either that they believe human services transportation did not necessarily improve because of the plan, or it was difficult to tell if it had." There was broad spectrum of sources for local matching funds. Some states supplied the funds, while others did not or did so only in rural areas.

Money and performance metrics

Those involved in the telephone discussions expressed a desire for sustained funding and concrete guidance about performance measures beyond traditional transit rubrics.

[M]any respondents believe the use of standard performance measures fails to sufficiently measure the human services aspect of the projects and often favors urban areas over rural because often rural areas have higher transportation costs due to longer distances, dispersed customers and destinations, and little other infrastructure to support human services customers, which may make rural transportation appear ineffective or inefficient.

One suggestion made would be to tie grants to coordination and performance.

[R]espondents believe that by using performance measures and data, and linking federal funds to the results of this process, coordinated planning could make better use of quantitative information and link plans to results more closely. They believe that stakeholders making use of a performance-driven coordinated planning process would get even more out of the process of developing and working to implement the Coordination Plan.

Has the coordinated planning requirement delivered results?

The qualitative answer - in terms of improved and more efficient service to riders and potential riders - is generally no, or perhaps, not yet. Respondents indicated that the plans have achieved average to little success in meeting FTA's goals of minimizing the duplication of transportation services (81 percent) and facilitating the most cost-effective transportation possible with available resources (76 percent). However, states reported average to moderate success in "enhancing" transportation options for target populations.

Respondents felt the funding level and restrictive federal requirements for the JARC and NF grant programs often make it difficult to attract participants to the process. To increase participation of Section 5310 participants, one state offered an incentive for the participating agencies’ applications for vehicle grants.

Commitment and funding

It could be that in many places, the coordination process is ongoing and leading to improved efficiency and service. The respondents indicated that "the level of commitment/participation in the development of the Coordination Plans has been relatively strong at both the state and local levels. Over 70 percent of the survey respondents indicated that the level of commitment/participation at the state and local levels was average or better." Some states reported that the coordination process did add parties who had not been at the table before.

A pervasive issue the report discussed was funding, its sustainability and adequacy.

Many respondents indicated that the Coordination Plans have a “shelf life” of 4 years for non-attainment areas and 5 years for attainment areas, and they do not anticipate that the costs will be in excess of $250,000 (at least for the state). Additionally, while some states paid for the cost of initial Coordination Plan development, no state responded that the state would pay for the maintenance of the plans.

Later on in the report, responses about funding adequacy and obstacles showed widespread belief that "there is not enough money in these programs (particularly JARC) because the need is significantly larger than the funds. As a result, they report that the funds frequently are used for existing/on-going services (preservation) rather than new projects." There was also a perceived lack of clarity about the "beyond ADA" requirement for New Freedom grants.

Many of the plans were developed by consultants or existing staff, and a very few by mobility managers. There was no discussion about the effectiveness of the process, the plans or the resulting service in terms of what party prepared the plans.

Projects chosen

The JARC and New Freedom projects chosen were, from most to least, Mobility Management, Operating Funds, Capital Purchases, ADA Service, Flex Route Bus Service Travel Training, Expanded Service, Dial-a-Ride Demand Response, Feeder Service and Volunteer Transportation, with the last five each garnering one state response.