FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) PROGRAM GUIDANCEmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/images/Coord Plan CH 5-8.pdf · systems reporting paratransit data for the FTA National Transit

PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY

FINAL SEPTEMBER 2007

44

CHAPTER 5 – FINDINGS OF THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT This chapter considers the findings of the work activities completed in previous chapters. There is a detailed discussion of the assessment of resources and needs, and identification of gaps and unmet need. 5.1 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) PROGRAM GUIDANCE FTA circulars guiding this planning process require that the coordinated plan must contain the following four (4) required elements consistent with the available resources of each individual agency/organization:

1. An assessment of available services that identifies current providers (public, private and non-profit);

2. An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and

people with low incomes – this assessment can be based on the experiences and perceptions of the planning partners or on data collection efforts and gaps in service;

3. Strategies and/or activities and/or projects to address the identified gaps between

current services and needs as well as opportunities to improve efficiencies in service delivery;

4. Priorities for implementation based on resources (from multiple program sources), time,

and feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities identified. The Coordinated Action Plan has been developed through an inclusive stakeholder involvement process that included representatives of public transit and human services agencies throughout Los Angeles County. The methods used to ensure participation included administration of a countywide survey inventory, stakeholder agency/organization meetings and interviews and consumer meetings. In addition, a Strategic Planning Committee comprised of a number of public transit and human service agency staff and representatives was convened to review and comment upon project issues. The Action Plan inventory and accompanying technical analysis (trip demand estimation and GIS exercise) presented in Chapter 3, and the stakeholder involvement process undertaken and documented in Chapter 4, have provided considerable data and information from which to develop a profile of the needs of the target populations and the available transportation resources of public transit and human service agencies/organizations within the county. This valuable data and information will be used to inform the development of recommendations later in this report. The following section discusses the project findings relative to the required elements.



45

5.2 AVAILABLE SERVICES 5.2.1. Public Transit Public transit resources in Los Angeles County are significant. This plan shows that in FY 05 public transit operated a multitude of transit services which included rail, fixed-route bus and public paratransit, representing 584 million trips. For the 2000 Census population of 9.5 million persons in residing Los Angeles County, this represents 61 trips per capita. Funding associated with this level of service was not reported in this report, but clearly represents a major investment in the economy of this county. The county’s voters have twice supported local sales taxes for transit, voting in Proposition A in 1980 and a decade later Proposition C in 1990. Each is a one-half cent sales and use tax that is returned through the County Auditor to Los Angeles County’s 88 cities. Each year cities in the county receive a portion of the funds generated by these taxes based upon population, while the balance goes to fund other transportation uses (e.g. rail development, streets and road repair, transit security, etc.). Documented increases of the general population as well as the target populations, indicates that there will be continued need for growth in the capacity of the overall public transit system of Los Angeles County over the next twenty years. The County’s total population is expected to increase 28 percent with the target populations (seniors, persons with disabilities and income disadvantaged) increasing by as much as 55 percent between 2000 and 2030. 5.2.2. Specialized Transportation In Los Angeles County Trips Provided Los Angeles County cities operate paratransit services in a majority of the county’s eighty-eight (88) cities. Between the sixteen (16) municipal operators and the thirty-two (32) city-operated systems reporting paratransit data for the FTA National Transit Database (NTD), we can account for 4.1 million paratransit trips. Additional to this are the Access paratransit trips, ADA complementary paratransit trips of almost 2.4 million in FY 05. This represents the grand total of 6.5 million specialized public transit trips discussed in Chapter 3. Additionally, there is some level of human service transportation that is provided in Los Angeles County. The responding sample of 88 human service agencies, indicating some type of transportation function, reported a total of 866,000 passenger trips in FY 05. As these agencies represent some unknown portion of all social service organizations providing transportation, we do not know the quantity of these trips provided in Los Angeles County. This is further confounded by the differences in how human services programs report trips provided, compared to the more standardized methods in which public transit report passenger trips. However, within the responding survey sample, 36% of all trips reported were provided by human service organizations. Vehicles Reported This process also documented vehicles operated by through the inventory process. A total of 832 reported in operation with the public operators accounting for 355 of these and the human services providers with 477 vehicles. Not included are an additional 300 vehicles reported by



46

the commercial providers that may to some extent be double counted among vehicles reported by their contracting agencies, which could include either public transit or human services. The age of vehicles was not collected in this survey, but other surveys have shown human service vehicles to be generally older, with substantially higher mileage as compared with vehicles operated by public transit agencies. As this vehicle count represents just 61 human services agencies and 34 general public transit operators within Los Angeles County, it is expected that the actual number of vehicles providing specialized transportation is greater. Expenditures Reported Information on expenditures and their sources was notably different between the two sectors, public transit and human services. While $167 million was reported in total expenditures, these funds were expended differently between the two groups. Public transit accounted for $139 million or 83 percent or this total, and report that they are allocating 70 percent of the funds they reported into direct vehicle operations, with another 20 percent expended for capital and vehicle replacement. Five and six percent respectively are going to special bus pass/ bus token programs and to mileage reimbursement/ taxi voucher programs. Human service providers reported a much smaller proportion of the total dollars expended, almost $29 million (17 percent). Of this six, out of every ten dollars reported is expended upon subsidies for purchase of bus passes or tokens (59 percent). Another one and a half dollars or 16 percent of every ten reported, pays for mileage reimbursement and taxi voucher programs. Only two and half dollars of every ten reported are going to direct vehicle operations and less than one percent is reported for vehicle replacement expenses Funding sources are substantially different in that city-operated systems and public transit operators report continuing, stable funding from federal, state and local dedicated transit sources. Human service agencies reported private donations, general fund allocations and special grants. For many human service agencies, particularly the smaller ones, funding availability from year to year is an on-going issue. Infrastructure Differences Public transit operators have access to funding for vehicle replacement, which helps to ensure that high percentages of their vehicle fleets are lift-equipped. In addition, there is funding for facilities to maintain vehicles and staffing to regularly perform preventative vehicle maintenance. There is the increasing introduction of technological solutions to perform both administrative and operational support functions, such as data management and accounting, billing, trip scheduling, dispatching, AVL, automated fare payment and call taking and information applications. Such infrastructure does not exist within the human services systems, or uncommonly so. Of the individuals interviewed through this process, only one, a regional center employee, had the title of Transportation Coordinator. Other interviewees bore numerous other titles that ranged from office manager to grants manager to caseworker and agency director. Clearly the transportation function is decentralized within the human services environment across a number of agency roles. Such decentralization makes communication difficult internally and would in turn present challenges to coordination with outside agencies and organizations.



47

5.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE NEEDS OF THE TARGET POPULATIONS Understanding the unique and individualized needs reported and expressed during the survey inventory and the stakeholder involvement process, enabled the project team to begin to understand the nuances of consumer needs in Los Angeles County to ensure that projects, actions and strategies developed could conceivably address the needs over time. Table 5-1 illustrates the connection between consumer needs and potential project responses. Recognizing that there is overlap in the characteristics of target populations (e.g. seniors who are disabled and/or low income, disabled) and the fact that the sub-segments of the target populations demonstrate even greater individualized need, the following section describes the rationale and profiles the needs by consumer segment and recognized sub-segments, as well as, organizational issues relative to meeting the need. 5.3.1. Consumer-Oriented Characteristics of Need Seniors Able-Bodied Seniors Much has been written about the transportation needs of seniors and the importance of encouraging them to consider the use of public transit before they actually need it. Seniors, like the non-senior adult population, are more likely to drive or travel as passengers in private automobiles. Encouraging seniors to consider alternative transportation is challenging, as it represents a loss of personal independence and self-reliance that is difficult to contemplate. But seniors who do explore alternative mobility options demonstrate the importance of continuing to promote public transit. This is critical inasmuch as health conditions can sometimes change quickly, and the need for assistance in accessing transportation can become a higher priority. Knowledgeable seniors comment that even if there is only a gradual decrease in physical capabilities, continually reinforcing and providing information about the availability of transportation resources is important, as it ensures that the information provided to the senior may be understood in that moment when the individual is ready to listen and learn and consider. Providing information in a range of languages is also important in the multi-cultural landscape that is Los Angeles County. Interviewees expressed the need for transit information in Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian, among other languages, as often the older immigrant is less able to learn English and will continue to utilize their language of origin. Frail Elderly and Chronically Ill Consumers who are medically frail may be supported at home but are in a debilitated health status. They may be attending day care programs or adult day health care programs outside of the home but are otherwise quite limited in their mobility around the community due to multiple health issues. Trips taken revolve largely around life-sustaining purposes of medical needs, pharmacy needs or nutrition. Assistance with transportation begins with making the actual arrangements for the trip, which includes scheduling the appointment and the transportation pick-up, and getting from their house to the vehicle. These consumers generally need door-through door transportation support, which must include help with trip scheduling. When these



48

consumers do travel about the community, it is often a fearful experience due to their general health condition and limited capacity to tolerate difficulties, such as long waits or no-show vehicles. Individuals on dialysis have a range of needs that impact transportation. Reasonably able-bodied when arriving at dialysis appointments, they are weak upon leaving and may need varying degrees of assistance. On-time arrival is very important where the individual has a time slot in a given “chair” that will soon be used by the next patient on the roster, and can’t be reserved if the rider is delayed by transportation difficulties. Also return trips may have to be rescheduled if an individual has a medically difficult session (e.g. bleeding out, etc.) and has to stay longer at the medical center. Persons with Disabilities Mobility Devices Users Since the implementation of the ADA in 1990 considerable attention has been paid to the physical environment relative to persons in wheelchairs and using mobility devices. The outstanding issue that is consistently raised by consumers and their human service agency representatives is the problem of the impediments in path of travel. Implementation of the ADA has contributed to the creation of “islands of accessibility” which have resulted in a greater numbers of accessible bus stops and transfer points but no “path of travel” by which to access them. Sometimes there is an accessible bus stop with dirt paths on either side. Sometimes there is no safe way to travel to the stop because of natural or man-made obstacles in the “path of travel.” Consumers in wheelchairs and other mobility devices have difficulty accessing such places where moving about in the physical environment is impeded in one way or another. One of the resulting impacts is that greater numbers of disabled persons being classified in the conditional eligibility category, as they cannot access fixed-route services because of path of travel difficulties. Local jurisdictions, commercial entities, public transit providers and human service agencies must work in a coordinated fashion to remove impediments to travel for disabled persons. Consumers with Behavioral Health Needs Consumers in this category fall into several subsets, including those with mental health problems, those who are developmentally disabled and those who may have Alzheimer’s’ or brain injury that translates into behavioral difficulties. Those clients associated with various mental health services may be physically more able-bodied and mobile than some other groups, and they can frequently have same-day trip needs for medical appointments. Fixed-route services are potentially feasible for these otherwise able-bodied individuals. But it can also be difficult and frightening for some persons on those days when their mental illness interacts negatively with their basic functional abilities. Medications commonly taken make it difficult for these individuals to be exposed to the sunlight for extended periods. Unhealthy situations exist as a consequence for these consumers when there are long wait times for



49

vehicle pick-ups and drop-offs, outside in the sun without cover. Trip purposes for these individuals can reflect the full gamut of life-sustaining, as well as life-enhancing purposes. Consumers with developmental disabilities, Alzheimer’s or those with severe brain injuries likely require some level of supervision or assistance, both in transit, and at the end destination. In these instances, the “hand-off” is very important as it ensures that an individual with impaired judgment or poor memory is not wandering or getting lost in the space between the vehicle and the front door of their destination. Some consumers may become agitated, or even combative, in transit where they become fearful, or anxious, particularly when there is a departure from their daily routine. In addition, there is increased incidence of seizures among members of these groups. In short, drivers assigned to these services should be adequately trained and prepared to handle these types of real situations. Low Income Individuals Families Consumers of public social service programs obtain assistance from agencies and organizations through various channels. They may be court referrals where there has been an allegation of child abuse or child neglect. These cases can be a probation referral, where the family is in danger of losing their children to out-of-home placement. Some families are in immigrant populations and are non-English speaking, or do so with limited proficiency. Single parents, enrolled in Medi-Cal and Healthy Start programs, as family units typically with having more than one child, are among the low-income clientele of responding human service agencies and organizations.

This population is generally physically healthy, able to walk and move about the community, but may not own a car or the single working car in the family is used by the household wage earner. Use of fixed-route service is possible, but information must be readily accessible and services must not be so inconvenient as to discourage use. Consumers often have one or more children making the use of fixed route transit services more difficult. Pricing of transportation services is also an issue. This segment of the population is by definition low on financial resources, and therefore has difficulty rationalizing the expenditure of these scarce resources for transportation versus food and other basic needs. Homeless Individuals Individuals who are homeless or on the verge of homelessness have few to no resources and the cost of a single bus fare or token is usually beyond them. These consumers have very limited access to information and learning a bus route or the particular routing to get to a desired destination is a complicated task, simply because so many life issues impinge upon them. Similarly, even where the individual might qualify for ADA paratransit, they have limited to no access to a telephone in order to schedule a trip pick-up. Often there can be children accompanying a homeless individual, usually a female, all of whom need bus fares. Problems around transfers exist where an individual receives a token but a transfer cannot be provided; two tokens at full fare per leg of the trip are then used for a trip that would otherwise be served with a transfer slip. For these persons, so many activities of daily living are difficult and complicated. Caseworkers hope to make the transportation element of it easier so that access to jobs and a better quality



50

of life become more readily possible. However, agency personnel also note that reported transportation problems are sometimes used as a reason for not trying. Where these legitimate difficulties can be eased or smoothed, it encourages the individual to grapple with the “culture of poverty” and work to better their circumstances. Persons Released from Jail Who are Homeless and/or Disabled The Los Angeles County Jail System processes thousands of persons with low or no income, of which many have severe disabilities and are frequently homeless. It is very likely that the Los Angeles County Jail system interacts with more persons who are homeless with severe disabilities than any other agency in L.A. County. Staff estimate that 10 percent of the 300 or so individuals released daily need assistance traveling to the homeless shelters from the two prison facilities serving men and women, respectively. Individuals are released at all times of the day or night, often in the middle of the night when public and specialized transit services are meager or nonexistent. The L.A. County Jail system is run by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The LASD provides referrals to voucher-housing, residential treatment programs, and transitional housing programs at point of discharge for persons who request or are in need of support. However, the efforts of LASD have been hampered by the lack of a system that can safely transport persons discharged from jail to a given referral location. 5.3.2. Organizationally Oriented Characteristics of Need Trip Types Needed Organizations surveyed were well aware of selective consumer needs and both public transit and human services agencies/organizations spoke to the need for medical transportation and the cross-jurisdictional, long-distance trips that typify non-emergency medical trips. Only a handful of agencies and organizations reported reimbursement for Medi-Cal transportation, or Veterans Administration, both presumably the longer, inter-city trips that are difficult to serve. Stakeholder agency/organization personnel expressed frustration about the consumers’ need for trip chaining. For example, upon leaving the doctor’s office the need to stop at the pharmacy; once out for a medical appointment, the need to stop at the grocery store because this is the first and possibly only outing of the week. Case managers talked of providing these trips themselves because the kind of escorted assistance that is needed cannot readily be provided. However, agency/organization staff can provide this type of trip support only on a very limited basis. Escort trips are a significant need for many of the programs operating adult day health care, which includes Alzheimer’s’ clinics. Challenges typically arise in cases where agency staff wants to allow a respite day for the family member who is the consumers’ care-provider. On-Time Performance The issue of reliability of transportation surfaces regularly in discussions about specialized transportation. It is a problematic issue and not easily addressed, but of paramount concern to all involved. Consumers become very anxious about their appointment times and concerned when shared-ride services transport them long distances from their destination. Agencies and



51

organizations expressed numerous concerns about on-time performance relating to the problems of scheduling, deployment and actual arrival times of transportation services. In the case of dialysis and mental health appointments, the implications of late transportation services can be severe. As noted, the dialysis unit cannot easily juggle consumers from one transfusion chair to another, as these appointments are typically tightly scheduled in “waves” of service over the course of the day. Similarly, mental health medication appointments are usually very short in duration, ten minutes or less. If an individual misses his or her appointment, it may require either rescheduling or waiting many hours until there is another open ten-minute slot. Other healthcare appointments are equally unforgiving about late arrivals and generally must be rescheduled. There are also financial impacts to late or no-show service. Attendance-based programs, such as training and education programs for re-entry workers, workshops and day programs for persons with developmental disabilities, or adult day health care activities often lose income when vehicles are late. Income is lost when consumers can attend only partial days, below the threshold of what is an approved or authorized day of service. Transit Passes and Bus Tokens As discussed in previous sections, a significant number of tickets and/or tokens are purchased by human service agencies/organizations on behalf of their consumers, with the majority of their annual budget dollars expended for this purpose. Some staffers interviewed indicated that they experience difficulties acquiring passes and tokens from public transit operators, and expressed need for improving the procurement process.

Human service agencies and organizations who purchase transit fare media instead of issuing cash to clients want to ensure that their limited resources are used appropriately and limit fraud. Therefore, it would be valuable to streamline the process and enhance their ability to purchase bus tokens and passes. It is also important to promote a higher level of accountability by incorporating simple automated processes designed to track bus pass and token purchases and usage for human service agency/organization staff. Several agencies expressed interest in the ability to purchase day passes or three-hour passes on behalf of consumers to offer immediate access which allows them to travel for a specified amount of time depending upon the need. Expanded Span of Hours and Days of Service Both public transit and human services agency/organization representatives raised issues related to the need for increased evening and weekend services. In some cases this involved the difficulty of connecting with other, regional services (Metrolink) for very early work shifts. In other cases, they cited the problems of connecting between services during mid-day periods when only limited service was operating. For example, human service transportation was only available on weekdays, with no service available on weekends. Representatives from both public transit and human service agencies were aware of and concerned about the limited weekend and evening service and the travel challenges this posed for members of the target populations. Information Resources and Needs Some human service agency/organization representatives demonstrated considerable knowledge about fixed-route services, including schedules, frequency and the nearest bus stop. These individuals are clearly a valuable resource to clients and other persons within their



52

respective agencies and organizations. There is considerable reliance upon their knowledge of the specificity and detail of the transit system, including in one instance, the agency transit “guru” assisting another staffer in reading the bus book and developing the travel itinerary. Case managers speak of the need to learn the transportation system in order to be able to help their consumers. They identified problems including personnel turnover and the difficulty of keeping abreast of changes in the public transit environment. Also, staff indicated that they need massive quantities of bus books and ride guides to distribute to consumers. Agency/organization staff representatives report that many consumers do not have access to the computer or capability of using it. This reinforces the fact that the old-fashioned paper product still has considerable value within the community. Bus Facilities and Amenities and Rider Security Issues were raised about the physical amenities that dependent populations require to travel independently about the community. For single women and women with children, as well as, for frail elderly or the chronically ill, a sense of safety and security is very important. Safety elements, and information about those, are important to these populations and persons working on their behalf.

Arranging Transportation Riders with multiple health conditions require trip planning assistance. For the most part, human service agency/organization staff persons have limited time (as transportation is generally a support function within these agencies/organizations), the necessary resource information (schedules, maps, etc.), or understanding to assist riders in identifying the transportation options that may best meet their needs. 5.4 GAPS IN SERVICE IDENTIFIED This subsection discusses gaps in transportation services within Los Angeles County and identifies the geographic areas where trips may be needed. 5.4.1. Institutional Communication Gaps Coordination of the transportation services operated by public transit and human services agencies/organizations is impacted by the challenges of working between two very distinct service systems. For public transit, operating service is its core business, around which significant infrastructure has been built. For the human services agencies, transportation is a support service, and is sometimes viewed as a distraction from the agencies’ primary purpose. Although both serve the public, differences are clearly evident at the institutional level. Human service organizations are closer to the client, have a better understanding of individual needs and requirements, and focus their day-to-day efforts on addressing and resolving issues on behalf of the individual. Public transit is more attentive to “mass” needs only in relation to providing service, with considerably less awareness of the individual. This was evidenced in the inventory process where human service agencies/organizations identified a breadth of needs while a much smaller proportion of responding public transit agencies/organizations could pinpoint customer needs.



53

It follows that since the day-to-day business objectives of these two public service industries are not the same, it is logical to find that they speak different “languages”, or rather interpret, process and respond to things differently. For example, public transit operators talk in terms of one-way passenger trips, and apply productivity measures of cost per hour and passengers per hour. Human services personnel speak of client days, per diem rates and often understand trips as vehicle trips. These differences can and do make communication challenging. One such difference in understanding, related to service provision is the drive to greater service efficiencies that a shared-ride system represents and the need to pick up several passengers in a given hour. This can contrast sharply with the individualized orientation of human services personnel to meet the needs of a single consumer who may have had a difficult dialysis session, and is more frail than usual, or the individual whose medication regime makes waiting in the sunlight particularly challenging. Shared ride demand response programs have difficulty meeting such individualized needs. These disparities reflect different value systems, reflecting the different core missions of each industry. These issues must gradually be addressed in the development of coordination projects that will work effectively between systems. At a minimum, it is important to establish an individual “translator” who can work with these two systems, understanding each sufficiently to navigate in both and to design responsive, cost-effective coordinated transportation programs. 5.4.2. Capacity The activities associated with the development of the assessment of services confirm that there are already significant public transportation services currently operating in Los Angeles, offering a range of modes and services for riders. There are also considerable human services transportation programs in place, with varied methods of service provision that include staff members driving consumers in their own car with mileage reimbursement, volunteer-based programs, directly operated services and various scenarios for contracted or taxi-based service provision. However, the assessment also shows that some of the needs of the target population are not being met. In fact, the needs described exceed the services now in place. This mandates that the existing network of transportation services must be re-configured to handle the ever-increasing need, as Los Angeles County realizes continuing population growth in the future. The potential to coordinate and leverage transportation resources is a logical next step. 5.4.3. Meeting Individualized Needs One of the main objectives of the Action Plan is to recommend ways that public transit and human service agencies can work together to develop plans and projects to meet the needs of seniors, disabled persons and low income individuals. Providing service to some difficult-to-serve sub-segments of the target population (e.g. frail, chronically ill and disabled individuals) is the highest level of individualized service that can be offered to consumers, will require a significant commitment by public transit and human services and resources. The Action Plan has identified specific areas of individualized need for segments of the target population that must be addressed on some level to improve mobility overall. Public transit and human service agencies and organizations must find ways in which to meet needs consumers describe, and agency/organization personnel enumerate on their behalf. Actions and strategies



54

developed as elements of this plan have been designed to improve the ability of operators of specialized transportation to serve a higher level of individualized trip needs with greater efficiency. 5.4.4. Improving Performance of Demand Responsive Services During the stakeholder involvement process, consumers and agency/organization representatives raised a number of issues related to service quality: on-time performance, late pick-ups, and late arrivals at appointments due to long rides and shared rides, and no-show vehicles. Reliability of paratransit services is an important issue and represents a need that persists and that can translate into critical situations for frail, vulnerable and dependent populations. Comments on this issue have related to Access Services because it is the entity charged with responsibility for development of the Action Plan. This is primarily due to the high level of expectation on the part of stakeholder agencies and organizations in securing transportation for their clients, and lack of understanding about the nature of the paratransit services operated by Access Services. Therefore actions and strategies that improve the quality of services that are already in place will help to better meet identified needs. In addition, public transit efforts to communicate effectively with human service agencies/organizations should be improved. Communication Between Drivers, Dispatchers and Passengers Improving communications between everyone involved in the provision of specialized transportation services can improve the capability of agencies and organizations to address individualized needs. This initially involves improved driver training to sensitize both public fixed-route and paratransit drivers to recognize and facilitate transportation for persons with special needs. In addition, technological tools may improve the capability of the system to strengthen the connection between the rider, the vehicle and dispatch in a real-time situation. This will serve to minimize long waits, absent information about the vehicle’s arrival time. Dispatchers and call takers may require additional training to assist high-needs consumers more effectively and to be sensitized to their requirements. Capacity building then, for specialized transportation, has two purposes: 1) to increase the quantity of what is available and 2) to improve the characteristics of what is available, whether in terms of measures of cost-effectiveness, getting more for the dollars expended, or in terms of the types of service, greater responsiveness to the target populations. Capacity building translates into an array of activities: training and professional development, use of technologies to achieve increased efficiency and effectiveness, and all possible methods of expanding the quantities of service available.



55

Inter-Community Medical Trips Much has been written about the need for medical trips which are usually lengthy and typically require individuals to travel to regionally-based medical facilities. This is a state-level policy issue that relates to Medi-Cal reimbursement to public transit for medical trips provided to the eligible Medi-Cal population. At present, California is unique among the states in not reimbursing public transit for non-emergency medical transportation. In many other areas of the country, this is a significant funding source for this type of transportation. If California Medi-Cal policies are modified to allow reimbursement to public transit operators, this would provide some assistance to the senior population frequently making long-distance, medically related trips. Currently, Medicare, the national senior health care program, does not support transportation expense. Managed care programs, including Kaiser Permanente and SCAN, among others, speak to issues of need to get consumers to their regional, specialty facilities, but there is disproportionate financial participation accomplishing this. In short, there needs to be continued policy focus and attention, at both federal and state levels, to this type of transportation, even as local initiatives are implemented to assist in meeting long-distance, medically related transportation need. Some of these trips are between counties, a particularly difficult issue to address with a plan focused on an individual county. Los Angeles County receives many persons from neighboring and distant counties who have special transportation needs and are traveling distances, often to go to this county’s premier medical facilities. Some need to travel short distances, just over the county lines, while other are arriving by inter-state carriers, including Greyhound bus and air lines and are in need of specialized transportation options available at the terminals at which they arrive. Over the long-term, planning to meet these inter-county trip needs is important.



56

CHAPTER 6 – EXISTING TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENT 6.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The existing multi-level structure and configuration of public transportation in Los Angeles County is complex. Federal, state and local regulations governing transit in the region, as well as, the availability of local funding (Proposition A and C) for transportation has significantly increased the involvement of all levels of government in the business of planning, programming and allocating funding and/or operating transportation. This hierarchy of agencies and local jurisdictions providing transportation include:

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO);

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or Metro) the regional transportation planning agency/operator;

Access Services, Inc. the regional ADA paratransit provider and the designated Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA);

Municipal public transit operators eligible to receive (federal, state and local subsidies); and

City operated transit systems funded from local sales tax revenues To gain a better understanding of the transportation environment an overview of the key public transportation agencies in Los Angeles County is presented below. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Additional mandates exist at the state level.

SCAG has evolved as the largest of nearly 700 councils of government in the United States, functioning as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for six counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. The region encompasses a population exceeding 18 million persons in an area of more than 38,000 square miles. Some of the major transportation-related responsibilities of SCAG include, but are not limited to:

Maintenance of a continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

Development of demographic projections plus the integrated land use, housing, employment, transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan;

To function as the authorized regional agency for intergovernmental review of programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities.

http://scagrtp.migcom.com/

http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtip

http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtip

http://www.scag.ca.gov/igr



57

Review of environmental impact reports for projects having regional significance for consistency with regional plans.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (also known as Metro, MTA or LACMTA) is the state chartered regional transportation planning and public transportation operating agency for the county of Los Angeles. The agency develops and oversees transportation plans, policies, funding programs, and both short-term and long-range solutions that address the County's increasing mobility, accessibility and environmental needs. Metro is governed by a 13-member Board of Directors comprised of:

• The five Los Angeles County Supervisors • The mayor of the City of Los Angeles • Three Los Angeles mayor-appointees (two members of the public and one L.A. City

Council member) • Four city council members from cities in the county other than L.A. representing those

88 cities (selected by the L.A. County City Selection Committee) • The Governor of California appoints one non-voting member (traditionally the Director

of Caltrans District 7). Metro operates the third largest public transportation system in the United States. Metro provides transportation services within a 1,433 mile operating area, using 2,000 peak hour buses. Metro also designed, built and now operates 73.1 miles of urban rail service. In addition, the agency has 9,200 employees, making it one of the region's largest employers. Metro also programs and allocates funding for its operating agency and for sixteen (16) municipal bus operators:

• Antelope Valley Transit Authority • Arcadia Transit • Beach Cities Transit • Claremont Dial-A-Ride • Commerce Municipal Bus Lines • Culver City Bus Lines • Foothill Transit • Gardena Municipal Bus Lines • La Mirada Transit • Los Angeles Department of Transportation • Long Beach Transit • Montebello Bus Lines • Norwalk Transit • Santa Clarita Transit • Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines • Torrance Transit

In addition, Metro funds a wide array of transportation projects including bikeways and pedestrian facilities, local roads and highway improvements, goods movement, commuter rail, Freeway Service Patrol and freeway call boxes within greater Los Angeles.

http://www.scag.ca.gov/RTPpeir2004/index.htm



58

Responsibility for local bus service is delegated to five Sector Governance Councils, each governing bus service in a service sector comprised of the bus lines operating from operating divisions in a given geographical area. The five sectors are: Gateway Cities, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, South Bay, and Westside/Central. Members for each governance council are selected by a combination of city councils, councils of governments, and county supervisors representing the area. Governance councils approve service changes (although the Metro Board reserves ultimate authority over service), review the budget, address complaints about bus service, and provide recommendations to MTA management regarding the employment status of each sector general manager. Specific to the FTA requirements related to preparation of a locally developed coordinated plan and consistent with Metro’s countywide programming and funding responsibilities, the agency is also the designated recipient of FTA Sections 5316 JARC and 5317 New Freedom funding. As designated recipient Metro has responsibility to conduct a competitive county-wide funding application process designed to fund the development of coordinated transportation projects submitted by stakeholder agencies and organizations. Projects approved for JARC and/or New Freedom funding would be included in a Program of Projects (POP) and would be appended to updates to the coordinated plan. Access Services, Inc.

Access Services, Inc. is the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for Los Angeles County. In this capacity, Access Services is responsible for the administration and operation of Access Paratransit, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated paratransit transportation program for Los Angeles County, and is committed to improving the mobility on public transit of persons with disabilities. Additionally, as the CTSA, Access Services is responsible for coordinating transportation programs of the various social service providers in the county.

Access Services is a state mandated local governmental agency created by Los Angeles County's public transit agencies to administer and manage the delivery of regional ADA paratransit service. Access Services was established by forty-four public fixed route transit operators in Los Angeles County. It is governed by a nine member board appointed by the Los Angeles County municipal fixed route operators, the Los Angeles County local fixed route operators, the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, the Transportation Corridor Representatives of the Los Angeles branch of the League of Cities, the Los Angeles County Commission on Disabilities, and the Coalition of Independent Living Centers.

Access Services Specialized Transportation Services

Access Paratransit is the service name of the ADA Complementary Paratransit service for functionally disabled individuals in Los Angeles County. Access Paratransit transportation service is available for any ADA paratransit eligible individual to any location within ¾ of a mile of any fixed bus operated by Los Angeles County public fixed route bus operators and within ¾ of a mile around Metro rail stations during the hours that the systems are operational. Complementary paratransit service is not required to complement commuter rail and commuter bus services, since the ADA does not require that these services provide complementary paratransit service. The larger countywide service area is divided into smaller service areas and extends into portions of the surrounding counties of San Bernardino, Orange and Ventura that are likewise served by Los Angeles County Fixed-route bus lines.



59

Access Paratransit operates seven days a week, 24 hours of the day in most areas of Los Angeles County. It is a shared ride service that operates curb-to-curb and utilizes a fleet of small buses, mini-vans and taxis. Fares are distance-based and range from $1.80 to $2.70 for each one-way trip. However fares may differ during late-night service or while traveling in the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valley regions.

City-Operated Systems in Los Angeles County Due predominantly to the funding realized from two-one half cent sales taxes in place in Los Angeles County (Propositions A and C), cities have since 1980 and 1990, respectively, operated transit and paratransit services targeted to their residents. Over three-fourths of the 88 cities and County of Los Angeles operate some type of service, with the most operating paratransit. The availability of these community-based services has helped to augment the service that is provided in by Metro. Since local services in general do not operate outside the city boundaries, with exception of some medical trips and specially funded coordinated paratransit programs, the ability to travel between cities is limited to use of Metro bus services and Access paratransit for certified ADA clients. In addition, city-operated systems have varying fares and service policies that pose challenges to travel for members of the targeted populations. Therefore even though there are significant transit and paratransit services operating throughout the county, limited amount of intercity coordination has resulted in a fragmented operating environment in many cities. Consistent with the historical mission and the agency’s current role as the CTSA, Access Services was chosen to prepare the public transit and human services action plan for Los Angeles County. The following subsection describes the CTSA history and establishes the link between the CTSA functions and continuing coordination activities in Los Angeles County. 6.2 CTSA ROLE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County’s Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) has been the focus of coordination since 1990 when the Los Angeles County Transportation (LACTC) established the CTSA designation to begin coordination of social services transportation. 6.2.1. CTSA History The CTSA requirement originated in 1979 with the passage of AB 120 the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act. Commonly known as AB 120, and codified under California Government Code 15975, this act required that transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions were to:

• Develop an Action Plan for the coordination and improvement of social service transportation.

• Designate a Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) to implement the Action plan.

• Identify the social service recipients to be served and the funds available for use by the coordinated or consolidated services inventory.

• Establish measures to coordinate with fixed route services provided by public transit.



60

County or regional transportation planning agencies could appoint one or more CTSAs within their service areas. AB 120 also established that a CTSA could claim up to 5 percent of the local jurisdiction’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) sales tax funding under Section 99233.7 of the Public Utilities Code, Article 4.5 of the TDA, which established claims for “community transit services, including such services for those, such as the disabled, who cannot use conventional transit services” (Section 99275). In 1988, AB 120 was amended by the State legislature, SB 826, adding an additional section to establish measures for the effective coordination of specialized transportation service from one provider service area to another, in other words to promote inter-jurisdictional transportation coordination. In addition, the reporting timeframes were modified with the inventory (Section 15973) to be updated every four years and the action plan (Section 15975) to be updated every two years, both documents to be submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In 2002, the action plan and inventory requirements were repealed, with Caltrans no longer required to play a role in the development of the Social Services Transportation Action Plan nor required to submit reports to the California Legislature. That legislation (AB 2647) instead seated full responsibility with the local transportation planning agencies or county transportation commissions, requiring them to prepare and adopt action plans which provided for the consolidation of social service transportation programs within their respective jurisdictions. Various other functions are suggested by the coordination and consolidation of social service transportation. The benefits that are possible through – and the additional functions suggested by -- coordination and, potentially, consolidation of social service transportation are enumerated in Sections 15951 and 15952 of the California Code [emphasis added]:

• Cost savings through combined purchasing of equipment; • Increased safety and lower insurance costs through more effective driver training; • More efficient use of vehicles through centralized dispatching; • Increased vehicle reliability and maintenance cost savings through centralized

maintenance; • Cost savings, elimination of duplicative administrative processes and increased

services from centralized administration; and • More effective and cost efficient use of scarce resource dollars through identification

and consolidation of existing sources of funding.4 Improvement of local social service transportation through coordination and consolidation has the potential of bringing about real changes in the quality of transportation provided, increased efficiency and safety in operations, and increased cost-effectiveness. 6.2.2. The CTSA in Los Angeles County In Los Angeles County, it was initially decided not to designate a CTSA. At that time, the passage of Proposition A established increased levels of local transportation services, and therefore coordination was not needed. This changed in 1990 when LACTC made the decision

4 State of California, Government Code Sections 15951-15952.



61

to adopt an Action Plan that established a CTSA that would serve as a function of the Commission. At that time the focus of the CTSA was on information and referral to promote services within the county that served the target groups identified in the AB 120 legislation, seniors and persons with disabilities. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prompted further change and in 1991, the CTSA’s responsibilities were broadened to include the implementation of a regional ADA paratransit program. In 1994, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) determined that the CTSA mission, including ADA implementation, would best be filled by a free-standing, stand-alone agency and Access Services, Inc. was established. Access Services has taken the lead since 1994 in conducting inventories and preparing the CTSA Action Plan with the last Action Plan prepared in 2002. The 2002 Action Plan directed the CTSA to continue its information and referral activities, and to expand its technical assistance role to support human service transportation providers. 6.2.3. Discussion of Access Services CTSA Functions and Activities Training and Technical Assistance As the CTSA for Los Angeles County Access Services defines its role as information broker and an agency that promotes training and technical assistance relative to the FTA Section 5310 grant program. A detailed discussion of ASI and Metro’s roles relative to the FTA 5310 grant program is detailed in Section 6.3 below. In addition to FTA Section 5310, Access Services also offers a nine-session Transit and Paratransit Certificate Program in coordination with the University of the Pacific. The course is provided over a three-month period, on alternate Fridays. Other courses have been developed by the CTSA staff, including “Vehicle Maintenance Management and Inspection” and “Violence in the Transit Workplace.” The 2007 calendar also includes courses prepared by the National Transportation Institute of Rutgers University, such as this year’s “Managing the Costs of ADA” and “Multimodal Traveler Information Systems.” In addition, CTSA staff also provides significant support and follow-up to prospective applicant agencies and organizations. The 2007 training schedule is appended to this report. Information and Referral RIDEINFO is a telephone referral system, designed to provide consumers with information about available transportation services. RIDEINFO is maintained by Access Services and consists of a listing of approximately 200 transportation providers operating within Los Angeles County. RIDEINFO was an outgrowth of the last Action Plan and transit operator service information was compiled from the Inventory conducted in 2002, modestly updated in the intervening years.



62

Figure 6-1

RIDEINFO -- Access Services Web Information about Transportation

RIDEINFO is an operator facilitated referral service which matches an individual's transportation needs with available accessible transportation. RIDEINFO gives quick, accurate referrals to over 200 public and private accessible transportation providers in Los Angeles County.

The agencies referenced include those which provide transportation to persons in certain communities, medical patients, or agency clients only; some fares are minimal, others may be costly. Access Services does not endorse, recommend, or guarantee the quality or availability of any transportation provider referred to. Each participating agency should be contacted by the requesting party.

It's FREE, simply call an information specialist at 1-800-431-7882, text telephone 1-800-431-9731 or e-mail [email protected] to obtain information to all of your accessible transportation options. Referral hours are Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Information on regular public buses and trains may be obtained by calling 1-800-COMMUTE. Similar information is available to text phone users by calling 1-800-252-9040

When individuals call the listed telephone number, the CTSA specialist uses the RIDEINFO data supported by other information readily available on the Internet, once the consumer’s transportation need and the geographic area of inquiry are clear. Staff estimates that approximately 1200 calls are taken every month. The RIDEINFO dataset consists of approximately 20 fields of information that include most of the 2002 inventory information. These include transportation type, service area description, fares, hours of service, days of operation and the eligibility requirements and application process for new riders. Additionally, CTSA staff maintains a “contacts” data set. This is a listing of individuals and organizations for whom the agency wishes to maintain contact information. Individuals or organizations may be members of the various Access Services advisory committees. Those listed may be receiving the newsletter or notice of various training or other special events. The “Contacts” database has approximately 1450 organizations and 1900 contacts. This database is informally maintained by CTSA staff. 6.3 Existing 5310 Technical Assistance Roles Assumed by the CTSA and METRO Access Services as the CTSA plays important technical assistance role specific to the Section 5310 grant program. CTSA staff annually hosts a workshop along with representatives from Caltrans and MTA to provide training to potential applicants on how to complete the program application. CTSA staff additionally provides guidance and assistance to agencies in meeting their responsibilities for agency coordination which is necessary for the agency to meet application requirements. The Section 5310 grant application process involves a multi-part

mailto:[email protected]



63

application form and process that has evolved over several decades. The CTSA role of supporting agencies through the coordination process of the Section 5310 grant has assuredly helped to increase the number of successful applicants from this county. While the numbers vary annually, between 15 and 25 agencies typically submit a grant application in each cycle. As of the writing of this document, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is meeting with other transportation agencies in California for the purpose of redesigning the funding application to be consistent with the locally developed coordination planning process of SAFETEA-LU. Metro as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) is responsible for evaluating all Section 5310 grant applications from agencies and organizations in Los Angeles County and forwarding the local priorities and application scores to Caltrans. As a part of this process, Metro establishes a Local Review Committee comprised of representatives of the CTSA, Local Transit Systems Subcommittee (LTSS), and Accessibility Advisory Committee. The Local Review Committee members represent providers of services to seniors and persons with disabilities, users of transportation services, non-profit and for profit transit service providers, and Metro In addition, Metro staff has developed a web site which contains all information on the Section 5310 program and allows individuals to develop an on-line application which can be submitted directly to Metro staff. Metro staff supports individual agencies in the overall preparation of their application, participating in the annual grant workshop and providing agencies with individual technical advice that is effective in increasing the number of successful applicants from the county. As a final step in the process, all projects that have been awarded funds are then included in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).



64

CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING This chapter characterizes the funding available for transportation services potentially available for the target populations, with discussion of Federal, state and local sources. 7.1 FEDERAL FUNDING CONTEXT FOR COORDINATED PLANNING There has long been recognition of the value of coordinating specialized transportation as an important mechanism for meeting the needs of persons for whom it is difficult to use the private automobile, rail or fixed-route public transport. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) prepared a 2003 report on coordination5, detailing the 62 federal programs that currently fund transportation services for individuals with a variety of specialized transportation needs and suggesting that improved coordination of these resources was needed to better address these transportation needs. The programs identified by the GAO report are primarily administered by the Federal Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Transportation. Collectively these spent an estimated $24 billion on transportation services in fiscal year 2001. The GAO report identified various benefits to coordination, including improved customer service and selected financial benefits. A concurrent study sought to enumerate the economic benefits of coordination6, defining coordination as a “technique for better resource management” to realize benefits in such areas as:

• Additional funding – more total funding and a greater number of funding sources • Increased efficiency – reduced cost per vehicle hour or per mile; • Increased productivity – more trips per month or passengers per vehicle hour • Enhanced mobility – increased access to jobs or health care, or trips provided to

passengers at a lower cost per trip; and • Additional economic benefits – increased levels of economic development in the

community or employment benefits for those persons associated with the transportation service.

In recognition of coordination needs at the Federal Level, on February 24, 2004 President Bush issued an Executive Order to create the interdepartmental Federal Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) and launched the United We Ride (UWR) initiative. With website access to best practices, information sharing and training resources and providing mechanisms for 11 federal departments to work together to simplify access, reduce duplication, and enhance cost efficiencies in community human service transportation.

As one tool of the CCAM, the FTA sponsored development of The Framework for Action: Building the Fully Coordinated Transportation System – a Self Assessment Tool for Communities and States (FTA, 2003). This tool was developed to enable and encourage

5 United States General Accounting Office, Transportation Disadvantaged Populations – Many Federal Programs Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination Persist (GAO-03-698T), May 1, 2003. 6 Transit Cooperative Research Report: Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service Transportation and Public Transit Services, Burkhardt, J.E., Koffman, D., and Murray, G. (2003). Published by the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, as TCRP Report 91.



65

states, regions and localities in developing a clearer understanding of their current ability to promote coordinated transportation solutions.

Fully coordinated systems were understood to solve access, service quality and cost issues that limit mobility. The Framework details a four-step model that involves:

1. Process Planning, to ensure that the right people are talking to one another; 2. Assessing, to evaluate what needs are met and where the system needs

improvement; 3. Prioritizing to establish strategic options and focus resources towards clear goals;

and 4. Action Planning, to move to a clear sense of who is expected to do what and by

when, with clear outcomes and an accountability framework.

The preparation of this coordinated plan has generally followed the steps set forth by the CCAM’S Framework for Action. With the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Transit Program (FTA) conducted a series of “listening sessions” around the country to obtain guidance as to how to implement facets of this complex transportation funding authorization. Guidance was sought from public transit operators, regional transportation planning agencies and metropolitan transportation organizations as to how to address, in regulation and circular guidance, numerous facets of the transportation re-authorization. Comments on the New Freedom program (and consistent with the President’s Executive Order, and increased funding for JARC and the existing 5310 capital program) recommended consolidating the coordination planning requirements of each program. To that end, the final circulars issued by the Federal Transit Administration on May 1, 2007 all included a common Chapter V. (Section 5310 - FTA C. 9070.1F; Section 5316: Job Access and Reverse Commute [JARC] – FTA C 9050.1; and Section 5317: New Freedom – FTA C. 9045.1). This section, “Chapter V – Coordinated Planning”, requires that any projects funded through these sections be “derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit – human services transportation plan” with the plan “developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers and participation by members of the public.”7 Table 7-1 identifies the general purposes that the plan should address in relation to the three Federal programs.

7 Page V-1 of each of the respective above-referenced circulars, Section 5310, Section 5316 and Section 5317 issued by the Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, May 1, 2007.



66

Table 7-1 Summary of Goals of

SAFETEA-LU’s Coordinated Locally-Developed Planning Process The Coordinated Locally-Developed Plan shall identify transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults and people with low incomes; provide strategies for meeting those local needs and prioritized transportation services for funding and implementation.

[From the Overview in Chapter 5, Coordinated Planning of each of the Circulars related to Sections 5310, 5316 and 5317]

Program goals that the Plan shall address: Section 5310, -- Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program: Provision of discretionary capital assistance in cases where public transit was inadequate or inappropriate to serve the transportation needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities. [FTA Circular 9070.1F, p. I-3] Section 5316 – Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program: Goal is to “improve access to transportation services to employment and employment-related activities for welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals.” [FTA C.9050.1, p. II-1] From the House of Representatives conference report, stated goal is that the FTA “continue its practices [with this program] of providing maximum flexibility to job access projects designed to meet the needs of individuals not effectively served by public transportation”. [HRC Report 109-203, Section 3018]. Section 5317 – New Freedom Program: Goal is to “provide additional tools to overcome existing barriers facing Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full participation in society.” [FTA C.9045.1 p. II-2]

While no actual apportionments for the next three cycles (06/07 to 08/09) are available until the start of each Federal fiscal year, the SAFETEA-LU estimates from November 2005 suggest upward trends in the level of funding available for competitive awards. For instance, JARC levels are expected to grow by 6 to 8 percent a year; New Freedom levels by 4 to 8 percent a year; and 5310 levels by 5 to 9 percent a year. Based on the FY 05/06 carry over funds and the anticipated year to year increases (at national level), one anticipates those programs to grow to the end of FY 08/09. Estimated aggregate funding levels for the Los Angeles County metropolitan areas are: JARC (Section 5316) New Freedom (Section 5317) FY 07 $5.76 M $2.36 M FY 08 $6.24 M $2.53 M FY 09 $6.58 M $2.70 M. Additionally, the Section 5310 program, the longstanding capital program for services to seniors and persons with disabilities continues as a statewide, competitive program although this program too, is to be guided by direction from this plan. The statewide funding level for FY 06/07 is $12 million. A summary of possible “fundable” projects identified in the Circulars for each Federal program is presented as Appendix H.



67

7.2 STATE LEVEL COORDINATION INITIATIVES Various state-level coordination initiatives provide a context for and have relevance to the preparation of a “locally developed plan.” Some precede SAFETEA-LU’s coordination planning requirements and some anticipate them.

California has since the late 1970’s recognized the value to consumer of coordination of transportation services. AB 120, the Social Services Transportation Improvement Act, was passed by the California legislature in 1979. Amended by SB 826 in 1981, the Act established the authorizations for the Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies (CTSAs) and recognized the importance of an inventory activity to identify and catalog the human services transportation resources, specifically vehicles and funding. Unfortunately, no additional funding was provided to county-level agencies for the conduct of activities set forth In AB 120/SB 826 and county transportation commissions or regional transportation planning agencies have been complying with their own resources with the biennial and then every four-year inventory and Action Plan activities. The Act did allow for the utilization of California Transportation Development Act, Article 4.5 funds to support vehicle operations provided by the CTSAs.

The Olmstead Act has prompted more recent dialogue about coordination of human service transportation. The Olmstead Act is a consequence of court settlements intended to improve community-based services such that alternatives to institutionalization exist for seniors or others threatened with the potential need for long-term, institutional care. The Act provides guidance on the distribution of State funds and seeks to influence policy around its core purposes. In a recent issue paper authored by the Olmstead Advisory Committee – Diversion Work Group, transportation is recognized as a critical aspect of protecting health and well-being in the community:

Table 7-2 Olmstead Advisory Committee – Diversion Work Group8 ISSUE 5: INCREASING ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION

Policy Goal – To increase access to transportation alternatives that help individuals remain at home and in the community by, among other things, connecting consumers to medical, supportive and employment services. Problem – A lack of coordination and silos of funding between programs spanning across the Health and Human Services Agency departments and the Department of Transportation has contributed to a fragmented human services transportation system. The system fragmentation can lead to difficulty accessing services for seniors and persons with disabilities. Barriers –

- Multiple funding streams operating across departments - Lack of resources necessary to meet demand for services.

8 Steenhausen, Sarah, Assistant Secretary, California Health and Human Services Agency; Olmstead Advisory Committee – Diversion Work Group. Olmstead Issues Briefs – Draft 2: February 21, 2006, Sacramento, California.



68

Transportation actions supported through the Olmstead process include:

1. Addressing the Medi-Cal reimbursement structure for non-emergency medical transportation;

2. Supporting mobility management initiatives; 3. Increasing access to transit and paratransit by focusing on the location decisions for all

service facilities; 4. Enhancing funding for paratransit; and 5. Amending the CTSA law to require that public transit programs evaluate the impact of

route and service cuts on seniors and persons with disabilities.

Caltrans is also providing some state-level coordination leadership as a consequence of a United We Ride grant and an outgrowth of 2001 President Bush Executive Order directing coordination among Federal level transportation, health and human services, education and labor departments. Caltrans hosted the March 2005 United We Ride Mobility Summit which brought together over 200 persons, local, state and federal-level leaders, to examine issues of mobility for California’s more frail residents and the policies that inhibit or promote these.

The United We Ride Mobility Summit was a recommendation of a Long Range Strategic Plan for an Aging California (October 2003) which had identified transportation as an area for priority recommendations. The Summit vision was “improving mobility and access to services through interagency cooperation and greatly improved coordination.” There was recognition among the speakers of the need for infrastructure, for mechanisms by which to promote that coordination. The primary Summit recommendation was to address the need for a formal structure in California to address mobility and coordination barriers, implement mobility management at the state, regional and local levels.

Caltrans has supported the Transportation Task Team (TTT), meeting since 2004 as another recommendation of the Long Range Strategic Plan for an Aging California. Its focus has been on identification and promotion of strategies to build a state-level structure by which to support transportation coordination. The Caltrans TTT anticipates managing a consultant study during 2007, termed the California Mobility Action Plan, to move forward specific state-level policy issues related to transportation. These include developing guidance on the Medi-Cal transportation reimbursement policies, the interaction of various state-level agencies around transportation issues and devising the structure and guidance for a long range, comprehensive strategy to promote human services transportation coordination across the State.

7.3 LOCAL FUNDING PICTURE Stakeholder agencies and organizations operating transportation in Los Angeles County receive funding from a wide-variety of sources. Responses to the survey supplemented by other information obtained from some stakeholders indicates that significant financial resources are allocated and expended on specialized transportation within the county. Limited access to and availability of budgetary information relative to funding of transportation for the target populations, particularly for the human service agency/organization side, limits our ability to paint a complete funding picture. However, available numbers are reported to provide an order of magnitude in relation to the revenues expended on specialized transportation, discussed in the subsections following.



69

7.3.1. Local, State and Federal Operating Subsidies for Public Transit Operators Metro and the sixteen (16) municipal transit operators in Los Angeles County receive local, state and federal subsidies to support operation of their transit systems. These additional funding sources include:

♦ LACMTA Proposition A 40% Discretionary Program -Transit Operator Formula funds ♦ Proposition A and C Interest (in accordance with formula distribution policy set by MTA) ♦ Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds (Article 4) ♦ State Transit Assistance (STA) ♦ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) ♦ FTA Sections 5307.

These funding sources are programmed and allocated by Metro on an annual basis to all “Included” transit operators in Los Angeles County (including the MTA). For FY 2007, Metro allocated more than $800 million from these funding sources, for both operating and capital expenditures. These “Included” operators are required to report to State and Federal agencies on the productivity and financial status of their transit systems on a routine basis, and prepare Short Range Transit Plans. The data collection and reporting requirements for these operators are extensive; however, these operators are eligible to receive funding under this particular Federal funding (Section 5307) which is not available to other Los Angeles County cities operating transit service. Propositions A and C Local Return

In 1980 and 1990, Propositions A and C, respectively, were passed by the voters of Los Angeles County. Both ordinances enacted a one-half cent sales and use tax to be used for the development and improvement of public transit, paratransit, and the related transportation infrastructure. Each Proposition includes provisions for the allocation of a percentage of the total sales tax receipts to be returned to local jurisdictions within the County on a population-share basis (i.e. Proposition A 25% and Proposition C 20%). Each of the 88 local jurisdictions within the county receives an annual allocation of local return funds, which are currently expended for local transit projects. The funds are disbursed to cities by the County Auditor, while funds’ administration and management is the responsibility of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). Since Proposition A and C funds are allocated to local jurisdictions on the basis of population, each city receives varying amounts of funding each year based upon amount of sales taxes collected. Cities must comply with the Local Return Program Guidelines developed by the LACMTA in order to expend Prop. A and C funds. The Guidelines specify types of projects that are eligible for both Proposition A and C funding, and projects that are exclusively eligible either for Proposition A or Proposition C funding. Eligible transit project expenditures under Proposition A and C include, but are not limited to:

♦ Public transit services – operating ♦ Fixed-route services ♦ Paratransit services ♦ Recreational transit services ♦ Bus stop improvements and maintenance



70

♦ Public transit – capital ♦ Transit systems management (TSM) ♦ Transit security ♦ Fare subsidies ♦ Ridesharing ♦ Transit Marketing ♦ Park-and-Ride Lots ♦ Transit facilities ♦ Transportation Planning ♦ Synchronized Signalization

In FY 2007, Metro estimated that Proposition A and C Local Return receipts would exceed $158 million and $131 million, respectively. During FY 2007 (through May 21) projects totaling more than $678 million in Local Return funds had been approved. This total is higher than the annual allocation because of numerous multi-year projects. This amount included projects totaling more than $227 million for transit and paratransit purposes. These were for fixed route and demand response operations, recreation trips, transit and paratransit vehicles, taxi vouchers, and bus pass subsidies. In addition to Local Return funds, an estimated $13 million in Proposition A Incentive funds were allocated to subregional transportation programs, usually coordinated multi-jurisdictional paratransit programs. Proposition A Incentive Program The Proposition A Incentive Program annually provides funds to local agency paratransit operators who demonstrate that they are coordinating their services with adjoining cities. This program is important since it is a significant source of revenue to participating cities that elect to be a part of this program and meet the eligibility requirements. Where cities can also be required to coordinate with non-profit agencies that operate in their service area, this could assist in improving mobility in the county. The funding for this program has increased and now includes a mini call for projects process to allow cities to replace aging paratransit vehicles. Application-Based Funding - LACMTA Call for Projects Every two years, Metro solicits funding applications from local jurisdictions and public agencies in Los Angeles County under a number of modal categories. Applications received are evaluated and ranked by MTA staff. Staff recommendations are then reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and other committees as appropriate, and forwarded to the MTA Board for approval. Although funding for public transit in the county is considerable, there remain insufficient transportation revenues to meet the need. Recognizing that there is a scarcity of available local funds and public subsidies even for public transit, public transit can do more to leverage and maximize their local funding allocations and other transit subsidies through engaging in coordinated activities with other human service agencies in the county.



71

7.3.2. Human Services Funding for Transportation While the transportation funds expended for publicly-operated fixed route and demand responsive services are somewhat straightforward, it is more difficult to identify the level of funding expended by human service agencies/organizations for transportation in Los Angeles County. For the most part this is a result of different methods of budgeting for transportation services, as provision for transportation for clients is in many cases, included as an element of a broader organizational budget category. The survey requested that stakeholders provide budget information specific to their transportation operation, and a majority of respondents provided the project team with some information. However, since financial information may be considered proprietary by some agencies and organizations or may be included within other budgetary line items and difficult to breakout and given the low survey response rate, the funding picture of these agencies and organizations is not complete. Public Transportation Funding of Human Service Transportation Metro funds three programs which distribute taxi vouchers and bus tokens to other public and non-profit agencies. The largest program, the Immediate Needs Transportation Program, provides between $4 and $4.5 million annually in bus tokens and taxi vouchers (excluding administrative expenditures), distributed by approximately 800 public and private non-profit agencies. Metro has also provided $350,000 annually for bus tokens through the SHORE (Support for Homeless Re-Entry) program, and $700,000 annually for bus tokens distributed through the County’s Department of Public Social Services General Relief program. These budget levels were recently increased by Metro, at the time that system wide fares were increased. In addition to Metro funds allocated for bus tokens and taxi vouchers, many local jurisdictions spend part of their Proposition A and C Local Return funds to subsidize bus passes for their residents. Local Sources of Funding for Human Service Agency Transportation Senior centers in many jurisdictions are responsible for managing the paratransit services in those jurisdictions, using Proposition A and C Local Return funds, Immediate Needs Transportation Program taxi vouchers and bus passes, and other funding sources. In addition, a few of these cities have received Section 5310 funding for vehicles and related equipment. And senior centers may receive other funds for transportation. For example, three senior centers responding to the survey (two operated by a non-profit agency and one with the City of Los Angeles senior centers) indicated receiving Department of Aging transportation funds, presumably Title III(b) of the Older Americans Act, in addition to Local Return funds. The State Department of Aging budgeted $8.5 million to Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County for FY 2006 for supportive services and senior centers. Jurisdictions can spend part of these funds on transportation, which would supplement the Local Return funds which senior centers spend on transportation. An estimate could be 1% of these funds ($85,000) spent on transportation. California Department of Developmental Services Seven regional centers serve persons with developmental disabilities in Los Angeles County and provide selective transportation services for clients, funded by the state Department of



72

Developmental Services. These funds, totaling just under $49 million for the seven regional centers, support a range of transportation providers, including family member reimbursements, transportation contractors, medical transportation, public transportation, taxis, and other transportation options. Transportation services are generally provided to workshops, residential facilities, day activity centers, and other vendors serving regional center clients. Regional centers and their vendors spend a portion of their transportation funds on taxis and bus passes. Regional centers and the agencies serving their clients have also funded transportation through Section 5310 grants for vehicles and related equipment. Other Human Service Agency Funding Sources Only a small percentage of the human service agencies/organizations responding to the survey included information on both transportation fund amounts and sources of transportation funding. Several agencies identified health-related fund sources for their transportation programs. These covered both the State Department of Health Services including Medi-Cal funding and the federal Health and Human Services Department. The County Department of Public Social Services reports receiving $19 million from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), used predominately to purchase bus passes and taxi vouchers. A total of 13 agencies responding to the survey indicated receiving some Medi-Cal funds for transportation. These included health-related agencies, non-profit agencies including one regional center serving persons with developmental disabilities, adult day health care centers, and private for-profit entities. Based on the transportation expenditures reported by those agencies receiving Medi-Cal funding, an estimate can be made that they use $500,000 for transportation. The total amount expended within the county for Medi-Cal transportation is likely higher, based on the number of agencies/organizations who did not provide this information on the survey. Some agencies identified state Department of Education funding and Federal Community Development Block Grants, as these sources also account for some of the transportation revenues expended in the county. Ten agencies reported receiving donations, grants, and client fees, but no other sources of transportation funding. The total transportation expenditures for these agencies are $1.7 million; most of this amount is attributable to one for-profit entity. Non-profit agencies generally rely on grants, private donations, and client fees; thus the total amount spent from these sources on human service transportation is certainly higher than the survey results indicate. The responding faith-based agencies did not provide funding information through the survey. It can reasonably be assumed that these agencies rely on donations and other private funding sources. In addition, residential facilities and other programs serving older adults would rely on donations and fees, and possibly funds through agencies serving older adults.



73

7.4 MEETING COORDINATION FUNDING REQUIREMENTS With respect to the Federal funding of concern to this Action Plan and funding available through Section 5316, JARC and Section 5317, New Freedom9, Metro is the designated recipient in Los Angeles County of these FTA funds. As such, it is required to:

Conduct an area-wide competitive selection process Certify a fair and equitable distribution of the funds; and Certify that each project selected was derived from a locally developed

coordinated public transit and human service transportation plan The impetus for public transit to engage in coordination activities to human service agencies is fueled by Federal and State funding initiatives. As coordination plans and projects are developed, it is important that Metro serving as the designated recipient of Federal funding to remain visionary in its approach to selecting and funding coordination projects. The local involvement process undertaken by Access Services in development of the coordinated action plan, and the subsequent recommendations developed for Los Angeles County are consistent with the current FTA guidance relative to developing a comprehensive unified coordination plan, to promote community mobility for seniors, disabled and low-income individuals in accordance with FTA Sections 5310, 5316 and 5317. The survey inventory also enabled Access Services to re-establish and initiate new relationships with the larger human service agencies and organizations, including work programs. Federal guidance suggests that coordination efforts should promote active involvement of funding agencies/organizations in the on-going coordination dialogue. Some of the larger stakeholders in Los Angeles County that participated include:

Department of Public Social Services East Los Angeles Regional Center, one of 7 Los Angeles County regional centers Developmental Disabilities Area Board X Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority Los Angeles City Commission on Disability Pomona Valley Transportation Authority Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Southern California Association of Governments ITNSantaMonica

Coordination “friendly” policies must be developed by regional public transit agencies and organizations to ensure that projects developed for funding can be incorporated into the regional Program of Projects (POP). Implementation of the recommendations outlined in this report will assist SCAG, Metro and Access Services in establishing a “culture of coordination” throughout the county which is expected to promote and grow coordinated responses to the mobility needs of the target populations.

9 Section 5310 the capital grant program for seniors and persons with disabilities remains as a statewide competitive process for which Caltrans is the administrator. Grants submitted through that process are to address needs “derived from the locally developed coordination plan.



74

CHAPTER 8: RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter brings together the assessment of needs, assessment of available resources and potential strategies and actions to present these in a construct of recommended goals, objectives and strategies that begin to suggest projects. Discussion of the competitive selection process is included, with the understanding that agencies and organizations who are interested, willing and able to develop projects can now be encouraged to participate in future Calls for Projects to address the needs identified through this planning effort. 8.1 TRANSLATING NEEDS INTO PROJECTS The myriad of individualized needs that emerged through discussions with agency/organization staff representatives and with consumers, begin to suggest project responses. Projects can be discussed in relation to the type of consumer whose needs present, as with senior transportation, or the types of trips needed, as with non-emergency medical transportation, or possibly in relation to the types of improvements to transportation necessary to serve members of the target populations. Table 8-1 illustrates the connection between consumer needs and potential project responses. The table below shows the breadth of special needs and concerns typically expressed by the seniors, persons with disabilities and low income persons and their agency/organization representatives. It also shows the transit and/or specialized transportation modes and options currently used, (operated by either public transit or human service agencies) and outlines a number of potential project-oriented solutions identified as a result of the inventory and stakeholder outreach process, designed to meet specific needs. Consideration of these factors guided development of the action plan goals, objectives and strategies, including the projects these suggest, are detailed later in this chapter. Immediately following Table 8-1 there is discussion of four sample project areas, included to suggest the types of projects that could be constructed in response to identified needs. These are: Consumer Needs – Senior Transportation Projects Trip Purpose Needs – Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Projects Transportation Improvement Needs – Information Portal Projects Transportation Improvement Needs – Driver Training Projects



75

Exhibit 8-1, Consumer Transportation Needs, Resources and Possible Projects Target

Population Special Transportation Needs and

Concerns Type of

Transportation Modes

Potential Transit or Transportation Projects

Seniors, Able-Bodied

- Lack of knowledge about

resources. - Concern about safety and security - Awareness of time when driving

might be limited.

- Fixed- route transit

- Point deviation and deviated FR

- Senior DAR - Special purpose

shuttles: recreation, nutrition, shopping

- Educational initiatives, including experience

with bus riding BEFORE it is needed. - Buddy programs and assistance in “trying”

transit - Transit fairs, transit seniors-ride-free days

Seniors, Frail and Persons Chronically Ill

- Assistance to and through the

door. - On-time performance and

reliability critical to frail users. - Assistance in trip planning

needed. - Need for shelters - Need for “hand-off” for terribly frail

- ADA Paratransit - Emergency and

non-emergency medical transportation

- Escort/ Companion

Volunteer driven services

- Special purpose shuttles

- Escorted transportation options - Door-through-door assistance; outside-the-

vehicle assistance. - Increased role for volunteers. - Technology that provides feedback both to

consumer and to dispatch; procedures to identify frailest users when traveling.

- Individualized trip planning and trip scheduling assistance.

- Mileage reimbursement programs. - Appropriately placed bus shelters.

Persons with Disabilities

- Service quality and reliability - Driver sensitivity and appropriate

passenger handling procedure - Concerns about wheelchair pass-

bys - Need for shelters - Sometimes door to and through

door or issues of “hand-off”




- Escort/ Companion Volunteer driven

- Continuing attention to service performance;

importance of time sensitive service applications

- Driver education and attention to procedures about stranded or pass-by passengers with disabilities.

- Aggressive program of bus shelters - Information as universal design solution

Persons of Low Income and Homeless Persons

- Easy access to trip planning information

- Fare subsides (bus tokens or passes) that can be provided in a medium that is not cash

- Availability of tokens or passes - Breaking down the culture of

poverty that uses transportation as the difficulty for not moving about the community.

- Difficulties of mothers with multiple children

- Need to bring along shopping carts

- Fixed-route

transit - Point deviation

and deviated FR - Special purpose

shuttles (work, training, Sp Ed.)

- Train the trainers, staff who can train

consumers to access public transit. - Creative fare options available to human

services agencies. - Increased quantity of bus tokens available. - Bus passes available to those searching for

jobs or in job training programs; cost-effective.

- Special shuttles oriented to this population’s predictable travel patterns.

- Education extensive about transit; continued work to improve transit service levels (coverage, frequency, span of hours)

Persons with Sensory Impairments

- Difficulty in accessing visual or auditory information.

- Possible door-to-door for visually impaired

Same as for frail seniors

- Information in accessible formats - Guides (personal assistance) through

information - Driver training critical to respond to needs.

Persons with Behavioral Disabilities

- Medications make individuals sun-sensitive and waiting in the sun is not an option.

- Medications make for thirstiness; long hour waits in the heat can lead to dehydration.

- Mental illnesses can make it frightening to be in the public spaces such as public bus stops.

- Impaired judgment and memory makes for poor decision-making.




- Escort/ Companion Volunteer driven

- Possibly special shuttles oriented to these known predictable travel needs.

- Aggressive program of bus shelters - “Hand-off” can be critical to pass rider to a

responsible party. - Important that driver understand riders’

conditions.



76

Consumer Needs -- Senior Transportation Projects The Beverly Foundation of Pasadena has been an important contributor to the national dialogue about how best to meet the transportation needs of seniors, annually naming an innovative program for its Star Award to identify best practices in supplemental transportation programs. Many of these programs involve coordinated transportation solutions. Particularly relevant to the Action Plan are two examples of tools designed to assist in meeting the needs of seniors are as follows:

1. Development of Senior Friendly grade cards to rate transportation services The Beverly Foundation identifies the “5 As of Senior Friendly Transportation” as a way of establishing standards for transportation that truly meets the needs of seniors and their caregivers. Recently developing a “senior friendliness” grade card, the measures scored include:

• Availability (transportation services that are available to seniors) • Acceptability (transportation services that are acceptable to seniors) • Accessibility (transportation services that seniors can access) • Adaptability (transportation services that can be adapted to seniors needs) • Affordability (transportation services that are affordable for seniors and the

community) 2. Encouraging the development of volunteer services for meeting specialized transportation needs The Volunteer Driver TurnKey Kit is another tool for meeting specialized transportation needs. This is an online resource and includes planning, implementation, and evaluation materials for organizations interested in starting volunteer driver programs. The Volunteer Driver TurnKey Kit also includes resources on the Volunteer Friends model - a specialized pilot program for providing volunteer rides for seniors: www.beverlyfoundation.org/turnkeykit/index.html; Appendix G includes the Senior Friendly Grade Card, a component of the Volunteer Driver TurnKey Kit.

Trip Purpose Needs -- Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Projects The persistent unmet need identified throughout the survey inventory and the stakeholder involvement process relates to the inability to make inter-jurisdictional non-emergency medical trips. These trips tend to be longer, traveling to specialty facilities or clinicians. Such trips tend to be at times that do not serve the convenience of the rider but rather the convenience of the agency or organization providing the service. It is notable that when the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted, it made all trips equal, removing trip purpose as a gauge for measuring the “value” of a trip, recognizing that an isolated senior’s trip to the hairdresser, possibly the only trip out she might take that week, could be just as important as a work trip for a young adult with disabilities. However, because trip purpose was removed from consideration, some life-sustaining trips that are critically necessary can only be provided with greatest of difficulty.

http://www.beverlyfoundation.org/turnkeykit/index.html



77

This is due in part to the fact that public transportation funds allocated in Los Angeles County only minimally supports non-emergency medical trips. Such trips are typically across jurisdictional boundaries, more costly to operate, and serving destinations outside the city where the consumer lives. This makes it difficult to fund such trips with local tax revenue that is based upon a return-to-point-of-sale. Another viable source of funding has been largely denied to Californians, because California’s interpretation of the Title XIX, Medicaid [Medi-Cal] transportation benefit is different from most other state’s interpretation of Medicaid reimbursement. Federal regulation 42 CFR 431.53 requires all states receiving federal Medicaid funds assure transportation for Medicaid beneficiaries “to and from [medical] providers”. Most states today comply with federal mandates assuring access to covered services. It is generally accepted that the lack of access to transportation must not restrict Medicaid recipients’ access to medical services. However, states are given considerable latitude in how they meet their Medicaid transportation obligations, and as a result there is wide variation in the way they assure access to care. Notwithstanding federal requirements, California’s Medi-Cal program does little to ensure transportation to medical appointments for either managed care or fee-for-service beneficiaries. Unlike virtually every other state, eligibility for transportation assistance under the Medi-Cal program is based on physical ability and not economic need or the availability of transportation alternatives. Under California Medi-Cal rules, reimbursement of travel to medical appointments is restricted to persons who are physically unable to use conventional modes of transportation, regardless of their access to a car or ability to afford a taxi, and without regard to their access to public transit services. In short, California’s non-emergency medical transportation policies are not on par with those of other states. This fact reinforces the importance of continued attention to the topic of enforcement of the intent of Medicaid funding policies for non-emergency medical transportation in California, which is particularly important for Los Angeles County residents whose trip distances can be considerable and are far less likely to be served using other kinds of transportation options. Transportation Improvement Needs – Information Portal Projects A coordinated plan must recognize the importance of information. In the Los Angeles County transportation environment there is a definitive need to establish numerous pathways or “portals” to ensure access to transportation information for everyone. While transportation services are insufficient to meet every need, there are often more mobility options available than are known. For specialized transportation, there need to be many ways to access transportation information. In addition, information about transportation must be made available in as many formats as possible including:

Paper and printed materials (maps, schedules, informational how-to pieces, etc.); Electronic media (e.g. Internet and mass email communications strategies); Face-to-face communication (meetings, transportation marketing events); Telephone-based methods of communication; regional single number options and

the integration of 211 and 511 resources.



78

Proactive methods to ensure that information is distributed to a widespread audience should include:

• Empowering agency/organization personnel, caseworkers and front line staff who work directly with consumers in the provision of transportation information and fare media;

• Conducting periodic training sessions or workshops about available

transportation options for staff working with consumers, potentially traveling with these to groups of agency staff given their difficulty in giving transportation any priority;

• Distributing information on the web and by email, in community centers and

gathering places (such as libraries, churches and senior centers); and • Continuing to provide person-assisted solutions such as Access Services

RideInfo operator assisted transportation information to help individuals find their way through the broad array of transportation resources of Los Angeles County to a solution that will meet their needs.

Another important aspect of the information portal concept is the ability to provide information to transportation users, about the ride itself. Low income focus group participants expressed the need for real-time information on the schedule of buses. When will the bus arrive? How late will it actually be? Staff speaking on behalf of frail, disabled seniors indicated their need for better communication with paratransit dispatch about the rider and a specific trip. This issue was also related to increasing language options in the development of informational materials in this culturally and ethnically diverse region. Communication and the provision of information must be constantly reinforced so that agencies and organizations remain current with major changes to the transportation environment, even in the event of staff turnover. Transportation Improvement Needs – Driver Training Projects Many consumers discussed issues of customer service, specifically how they perceive themselves to be treated by drivers and even dispatchers. What is characterized as “poor treatment” is a recurring theme among consumers and a complicated issue to address. Rude drivers and dispatchers may sometimes be a reflection of the difficulties of providing transportation to the public in this expansive, increasingly congested, urban area. This fact is compounded when serving persons needing special assistance, and occasionally results in negative interactions between customers and transportation personnel. Consumers believe that the trip experience would be much better if customer service was improved through driver training, dispatcher sensitivity sessions and protocols that address how transit personnel relate to consumers. There are training opportunities that can assist in improving driver understanding and sensitivity to the consumer. Other strategies need to be employed for dispatcher training. The development of effective training projects designed to improve agencies/organizations customer service practices for certain population subgroups are needed. For example, working with the chronically mentally ill population is challenging, and there may well be some training modules that mental health workers could develop that will assist drivers and dispatchers.



79

8.2 PRIORITIES FOR PROJECT SELECTION Meeting the specialized transportation needs of the three diverse and often overlapping segments of the population, seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals will continue to be challenging into the future. Actions and strategies developed should be effective in incrementally improving services, by providing as many travel options as possible to the target populations based upon their individual needs, and informing them about those options. This can be accomplished by gradually building the capacity of public transit and human service agencies/organizations to develop and implement coordinated projects, plans and programs. Both public transit and human service agencies/organizations must be active partners in this capacity building process. The actions necessary to increase the capacity of public transit to offer improved access and availability to transportation options for the target populations will differ from those actions and strategies needed to build capacity for human services. For example, in Los Angeles County, public transit operators have built significant infrastructure, and are taking the initiative to build capacity by implementing technological solutions to improve service delivery and efficiency for all population segments. Infrastructure includes bus maintenance and parking/ storage facilities, bus transfer locations and customer information kiosks, among other examples. Other types of infrastructure are softer and include staffing with dedicated responsibility for vehicle maintenance, customer information or meeting transit reporting requirements. These are among the infrastructure resources available to public transit but rarely to human service transportation providers. Building the capacity and reliability of human service transportation providers to complement public transportation services is critical, since the overall mission of these agencies/organizations is to serve individualized need, including operating services that public transportation cannot (e.g., non-emergency medical, door-through-door, etc.). For this reason, project opportunities designed to strengthen the ability of human service agencies and organizations to continue to provide the hard-to-serve trip needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and low-income individuals should be encouraged. Priorities relative to the development and funding of coordinated transportation projects identified through the locally developed comprehensive unified plan should:

• Adequately address the unmet/underserved and individualized transportation needs of the targeted populations;

• Maintain consistency with current Federal and State funding regulations

and requirements;

• Be financially sustainable;

• Include measurable goals and objectives, largely developed by the applicant agencies;

• Build and/or increase overall system capacity and service quality; and

• Leverage and maximize existing transportation funding and capital

resources, including human services funding.



80

The single most important consideration in the process to prioritize and select coordinated projects and programs for funding, will lie in the project’s potential to satisfactorily address and/or resolve identified transportation need(s) of the target populations. 8.3 FRAMEWORK FOR COORDINATION The project team approach to development of recommendations is designed to provide Access Services and stakeholder agencies and organizations in Los Angeles County with additional guidance to continue their efforts to expand and strengthen this framework for coordination. Over the years, public transit operators have made significant strides in working to coordinate areas of their services (e.g. UFS, transfer arrangements). However, we believe that there remain a myriad of opportunities to work with human service agencies/organizations to plan for and to ultimately deploy newly developed coordinated plans and programs to address the changing transportation needs in the County. In previous sections of this report we have developed a rationale for prioritizing projects selected for funding, and have identified potential solutions to address the needs of the target populations. Current FTA guidance suggests that specific project recommendations relative to a Program of Projects (POP) do not need to be included in coordinated plans at this juncture. Rather plans should provide the framework for decision-making around the subsequent POP process. In addition, we believe that viable coordination projects can only be developed by those with significant understanding of the details of the transportation environment. Therefore, our recommendations are focused on building the coordinated framework and strengthening ties between public transit and human service agencies and organizations. The wholly inclusive stakeholder involvement process that was undertaken as an element of the action plan resulted in an array of actions, strategies and project recommendations that represent the next logical steps toward coordination. 8.3.1. Regional Mobility Manager Mobility Management, as articulated in the federal circulars delineating the requirements of JARC, New Freedom and Section 5310 programs, is viewed as central to the concept of coordination. As such, implementation of mobility management initiatives are eligible capital expenditures, funded at the larger Federal share of 80 percent. Specifically, the circular language states: “Mobility management techniques may enhance transportation access for populations beyond those served by one agency or organization within a community….Mobility management is intended to build coordination among existing public transportation providers and other transportation service providers with the result of expanding the availability of service. Mobility management activities may include:

(a) The promotion, enhancement, and facilitation of access to transportation services,

including the integration and coordination of services for individuals with disabilities, older adults and low-income individuals;

(b) Support for short-term management activities to plan and implement coordinated services:

(c) The support of State and local coordination policy bodies and councils;



81

(d) The operation of transportation brokerages to coordinated providers, funding agencies and customers;

(e) The provision of coordination services, including employer-oriented Transportation Management Organizations’ and Human Service Organizations’ customer-oriented travel navigator systems and neighborhood travel coordination activities such as coordinating individualized travel training and trip planning activities for customers;

(f) The development and operation of one-stop transportation traveler call centers to coordinate transportation information on all travel modes and to manage eligibility requirements and arrangements for customers among supporting programs; and

(g) Operational planning for the acquisition of intelligent transportation technologies to help plan and operate coordinated systems… “10

The Mobility Manager concept as described in the circular, are not new to California as this guidance includes many of the elements of the original AB 120 and SB 826 Social Service Transportation Improvement Act. The difference is that the mobility manager roles and responsibilities now encourage coordination between public transit and human services transportation. The mobility manager construct for Los Angeles County will to a large degree assume the persona of the responsible lead agency. In fact, organizationally mobility management can be accomplished in any number of ways which include, but are not limited to:

Integration of a new functional unit or section within an existing agency/organization; or

Creation of a new and separate organization established for mobility management purposes

Given the size of Los Angeles County and the rate of projected growth in the targeted populations over the next few years, the regional mobility manager is envisioned to play a major role in furthering coordination efforts. Figure 8-1 is a graphic that shows the conceptual roles and responsibilities of the regional mobility manager, potentially supported by sub-regional mobility management efforts within the sub-regions in the longer term. The regional mobility manager would be guided by an advisory body comprised of a representative group of public transit and human service agency/organization representatives. The regional mobility manager will initially develop an agreed upon “agenda” of actions needed to further coordination efforts in the county. This mobility manager will serve as the catalyst or guiding force in implementation of coordinated transportation plans, projects and programs.

10 FTA Circular 9045.1 New Freedom Program Guidance and Application Instructions, May 1, 2007, p. III-10 to III-11.



82

Figure 8-1

As coordination efforts between public transit and human service agencies and organizations are implemented throughout Los Angeles County, it is envisioned that the regional mobility manager will become the central mechanism for implementation of coordinated activities. It will be important that this entity remains flexible and innovative in its approaches to coordination, as its role will vary depending nature of the strategy, plan or activity to be accomplished. This role will include but is not limited to, serving in a number of capacities as partner, broker and/or coordinator of projects, plans and programs.



83

8.3.2. The Coordinated Transportation Environment Figure 8-2 graphically depicts the concept of a coordinated transportation environment. Concentric circles illustrate the relationship envisioned for the regional mobility manager within the current public transit and human service agency/organization transportation environments. The regional mobility manager with its multiplicity of roles can serve as the translator and liaison between the two systems toward the goal of mobility improvement for the target populations.

Figure 8-2



84

8.3.3. Other Coordination Issues -- Coordination Between Public Transit Providers Coordination must also mean coordination within systems, particularly within public transit programs. This perspective on coordination is equally important, especially for public transit whose sole business is to operate transportation that should be seamless and transparent to the rider. Although, there are and have been coordination initiatives undertaken by Los Angeles County public transit operators (e.g., development of a universal fare system, acceptance of transfers between agencies, joint vehicle purchases, etc.) there remain opportunities to strengthen the public transit network to better serve consumers. For example, establishing core service operating hours across a region would benefit the transit dependent low-income rider who may need to travel distances from home to work and back again, and must be certain that a return trip can be made. Other examples of potential areas of coordination could include standardization of age eligibility requirements between systems and coordinated scheduling and dispatching. 8.4 PLAN VISION AND GOALS The following overall vision is proposed for Los Angeles County’s locally developed coordination action plan:

IMPROVED COMMUNITY MOBILITY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY SENIORS, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND PERSONS OF LOW INCOME

1. Establish a coordination infrastructure to promote coordination within and between public

transit agencies and the human services organizations.

2. Build capacity to meet demand for specialized transportation needs of a growing population.

3. Promote information portals to enable numerous points of Access to transportation information and responsive to varying consumer information and transportation arranging needs.

4. Promote policies at federal, state, regional and local levels to promote specialized transportation services and programs.

8.5 PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS The project team approach to development of recommendations is designed to guide public transit and human service agencies/organizations in the creation of a coordinated framework to plan, program and allocate funding and ultimately deploy new transportation initiatives that will address the transportation needs in Los Angeles County. To this end, the project team has developed four (4) goals, supported by sixteen (16) implementing objectives to accomplish coordination in the county. In addition, a total of forty-two (42) implementing actions, strategies and projects are recommended. The goals, objectives and potential projects or strategies are presented below and outlined in Table 8-2. These goals are responsive to the Federal guidance for the locally developed plan will provide the direction through which needs of the Los Angeles County target populations can be met.



85

The implementing strategies are the methods by which gaps in services and opportunities for improved efficiencies may be addressed through coordinated strategies and initiatives. The four goals are described as follows: Goal 1 - Coordination Infrastructure Given the level and diversity of needs in the county, a regional approach to facilitating coordination is needed, as no one agency or organization has the resources to effectuate the necessary cultural, institutional and operational changes needed to accomplish coordination goals. Coordination in Los Angeles County cannot be accomplished without dedicated staff and financial resources. Projects funded under this goal should establish and/or further the development of the mobility manager concept, to be implemented at a regional level, sub-regionally and at agency levels. This includes:

FUNDING CATEGORY: COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Projects submitted under this category should generally:

1. Establish a Regional Mobility Manager capability to provide leadership on coordination of

specialized transportation within Los Angeles County.

2. Promote sub-regional Mobility Manager capabilities through the Call for Projects and through

outreach by the Regional Mobility Manager.

3. Conceptualize tools to support voluntary, agency-level mobility manager capabilities and recruit

human services and public transit agency participation.

4. Develop visibility around specialized transportation issues and needs, encouraging high level

political and agency leadership.

Eligible Projects may include: Identification of a lead agency for the regional mobility manager. Defined roles and responsibilities of the regional mobility manager Establish a high level advisory body, strategic oversight committee. Create regional mechanisms to promote coordination including the annual inventory updating

and regularly scheduled workshops for expanded training. Mechanisms to identify stakeholder partners as “member” agencies and creating strategies to

improve communication among these organizations around coordinated transportation issues.

Projects to promote visibility of Regional Mobility Manager role and functions. Conduct of an annual Mobility Summit structured to involve highest level leadership. Develop sub-regional mobility manager capabilities through pilot efforts to test inter-systems

coordination. Create mechanisms by which the Regional Mobility Manager and sub-regional mobility

managers can work together to promote the Coordination Plan vision and goals. Develop joint training opportunities to bring together human services and public transit

personnel, including driver, maintenance and information specialist training.



86

Goal 2 – Building Capacity Acknowledging that more transportation capacity is needed to meet the needs of a growing population within Los Angeles County, this goal proposes more trip options for the target populations. This goal inherently requires a strengthening of the ability of human service agencies to provide trips that public transit cannot, thereby increasing not only capacity but access to services. The notions of reliability, quality of service and service monitoring are reflected under this goal, important for both public transit and human service agency transportation providers. Projects and activities under this category could involve the following:

FUNDING CATEGORY: BUILDING CAPACITY


1. Promote policies to increase the quantity of public transit and specialized transportation provided.

2. Improve the quality of public and specialized transportation, with attention to meeting individualized

needs.

3. Improve transportation solutions between cities and between counties.

4. Make capital improvements to support safe, comfortable, efficient rides for the target populations.

5. Establish mechanisms to support transportation services provided by human services agencies.

6. Establishing procedures to measure the quantities of trips provided, existing and new.

Eligible Projects may include: Expand availability of specialized transportation into evenings, on Saturdays and on

Sundays. Promote vehicle maintenance, vehicle loaner and vehicle back-up programs for human

services agencies. Establish basic reporting tools, including driver logs, dispatch logs and standardized

definitions of terms that can be easily adopted by human services agencies and utilized in reporting on transportation services provided.

Research liability insurance options for human service organizations, including general liability for vehicle operations and for volunteer-based programs; distribute widely information about these findings and resources.



87

Goal 3 – Information Portals The need to broaden the reach of information related to transit and specialized transportation services for clients/consumers, as well as stakeholder agencies and organizations is critical. Los Angeles County has a wealth of transportation service resources. Points of access to transportation information must be expanded to make it easier for everyone to understand and use the transportation network. Activities proposed under this goal include:

FUNDING CATEGORY: INFORMATION PORTALS


4. Integration and promotion of existing information strategies, including 211, web-based tools and

Access Services RideInfo to help get public transit and specialized transportation information to

consumers.

5. Development of information portal tools for wide distribution of existing information.

6. Promoting opportunities to disseminate transportation information for human services agency line

staff and workers.

Eligible Projects may include: Establish a working group, with proper authority, to integrate the multiplicity of information

resources available related to public and specialized transportation. Develop regional, systems-level and agency-level pilot projects to test information

applications the effectively promote existing transit to the target groups. Create simple flyers and/or other media that direct agency staff of human services

organizations to the wide array of resources that can help them access transportation on behalf of their consumers.

Work with METRO subcommittees and ASI subcommittees to identify additional methods of information dissemination.

Maintain and update developed portal access tools. Ensure that Regional Mobility Manager tools, such as RideInfo, are maintained, kept current

and information about them widely distributed. Develop transit information modules geared towards agency staff and provide these at

various locations around Los Angeles County to help maintain current information among human services personnel.

Create information tools that address connections with neighboring counties. Develop bi-lingual and multi-lingual information strategies, including at transit customer

services centers.



88

Goal 4 – Coordination Policies There is a need to effectuate changes to governmental policies and practice that may discourage coordination – at local, regional, state and federal levels for the purpose of realizing coordination goals between the two systems of public transportation and human services delivery. For example, there is a continuing effort to challenge and potentially change Medi-Cal reimbursement policies at the state level. Other policies will need to be identified and addressed over time, in part through measurement of the success, failure and impacts of implemented projects. Activities developed under this goal may include:

FUNDING CATEGORY: COORDINATION POLICIES


1. Work to establish non-emergency medical transportation policies to more cost-effectively meet

medically-related trip needs.

2. Establish a Call for Projects process sufficiently flexible for applicants to construct projects

responsive to identified needs in a broad range of ways.

3. Establish processes by which implemented projects are evaluated against goals set by applicant

agencies.

4. Report on project successes and impacts at direct service levels, sub-regional levels and

countywide levels and promote project success at state and federal levels.

5. Review policies related to transportation of target population members between counties where the

policies are a deterrent to transporting individuals to medical facilities within a reasonable distance

of county borders.

Eligible Projects may include: Participate in activities that promote policy changes to California’s NEMT reimbursement

procedures to support need-based and not simply functionally-based tests, including inviting public transit providers into the Medi-Cal provider role.

Establish technical assistance roles, related to the Call for Projects, building upon the Section 5310 approach to prospective.

Measurable goals set forth by applicant organizations that identify the means by which they wish their projects’ success/ failure to be assessed.

Collect and tabulate data on implemented coordination projects, assessing implementation against goals agencies themselves have established.

Identify successes, as well as poor performance, and report on specialized transportation projects and solutions that are effective.

Document successes on a range of measures that may include cost-effectiveness, responsiveness to consumer needs, consumer satisfaction levels, responsiveness to agency personnel requirements and measure of coordination that may be identified.

Create mechanisms, including state and multi-county conferences, where lessons learned can be shared and experiences of other regions sought.


FINAL SEPTEMBER 2007 89

Table 8-2

VISION: IMPROVED COMMUNITY MOBILITY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY SENIORS, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND PERSONS OF LOW INCOME

GOAL 1.0: COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE 1.1.1 Identify lead agency for the regional mobility manager.

1.1.2 Define roles and responsibilities of the regional mobility manager.

1.1.3 Establish a high level advisory body, strategic oversight committee, or other entity to invite highest level membership by elected officials, regional human service agency leadership and public transit leadership representative of the breadth of organizations of potential stakeholder partners.

1.1.4 Establish regional mechanisms to promote coordination, including annual resource inventory updating, regularly scheduled workshops with expanded training opportunities, and promotion of adopted initiatives to stakeholders.

1.1.5 Identify “member” agencies and establish ongoing mechanisms for communication via email, surface mail and other strategies, utilizing these as a method of updating the inventory.

1.1 Establish a Regional Mobility Manager capability to provide leadership on coordination of specialized transportation within Los Angeles County.

1.1.6 Develop visibility for the Regional Mobility Manager through e-newsletters to “member” agencies, promoting understanding of this as a portal of access into coordinated specialized transportation solutions within Los Angeles County.

1.2.1 Identify and develop pilot geographic areas, agencies or groups of agencies for sub-regional mobility managers to test inter-systems coordination.

1.2.2 Identify specific action areas and activities by which the Regional Mobility Manager and the sub-regional mobility manager(s) work together to promote Coordination Plan vision and goals.

1.2 Promote sub-regional Mobility Manager capabilities through the Call for Projects and through outreach by Regional Mobility Manager

1.2.3 Develop joint training opportunities that bring together human services personnel and public transit personnel, including driver, maintenance and information specialist training.



GOAL 1.0: COORDINATION INFRASTRUCTURE (CONT’D)

1.3.1 Identify, develop and promote the mechanisms to increase the number of direct service level mobility managers, establishing procedures for getting information from the regional and sub-regional mobility managers to them.

1.3 Conceptualize tools to support voluntary, agency-level mobility manager capabilities and recruit human services and public transit agency participation. 1.3.2 Develop the inventory database into an agency-level “membership” tool to

encourage participation at all levels in mobility manager activities.

1.4 Develop visibility around specialized transportation issues and needs, encouraging high level political and agency leadership.

1.4.1 Conduct an annual summit of highest leadership levels among stakeholder partners to promote successes and address outstanding policy issues in specialized transportation.

GOAL 2.0: BUILD CAPACITY 2.1.1 With affected stakeholder partners, review policies related to token, bus pass and day pass programs to enhance the capabilities of programs serving low-income populations to get more trips to these consumers.

2.1.2 Promote policies to expand availability of specialized transportation into evenings, on Saturdays and on Sundays.

2.1.3 Promote the Call for Projects to specifically strengthen the service provision capabilities of successful applicants, in areas that may include centralized maintenance, joint vehicle procurement, parts or supplies procurement or purchase of insurance.

2.1.4 Pilot brokered specialized transportation services that invite agencies to pool resources and utilize centralized, or sub-regional, provider(s) of service.

2.1 Promote policy that increases the quantity of public transit, paratransit and specialized transportation provided.

2.1.5 Identify and encourage private sector responses to specialized transportation need, including taxi, jitney and commercial operator options.

2.2.1 Promote successful technology applications that improve paratransit on-time performance, customer communication and bus pass/ bus token purchase capabilities for target populations.

2.2 Identify and invest in strategies to improve the quality of specialized transportation, with attention to meeting individualized needs. 2.2.2 Establish driver training programs, tools, modules or resources that

emphasize effectively meeting individualized needs of the target populations.



GOAL 2.0: BUILD CAPACITY (CONT’D)

2.2.3 Promote coordination among public transit entities around coordinated policies of core service hours, days, fares, eligibility and transfer policies.

2.2.4 Promote specialized transportation applications that address door-to-door, door-through-door and escorted transportation needs.

2.2.5 Establish outreach to rail and aviation modes of transport, with attention to specialized transportation needs and issues.

2.2.6 Support same-day transportation innovations through all means available.

2.2 Identify and invest in strategies to improve the quality of specialized transportation, with attention to meeting individualized needs (cont’d.).

2.2.7 Collect data to document needs and identify potential strategies to address mobility needs of hidden populations, including incarcerated homeless persons who are released from jail.

2.3.1 Promote pilot solutions that serve major cross-county corridors and destinations, meeting target populations’ needs.

2.3.2 Promote projects to provide connections between airports with major, regional medical facilities.

2.3 Develop strategies for improving transportation solutions between cities and between counties.

2.3.3. Promote Call for Projects opportunities that invite innovative responses to specialized transportation connectivity needs, including use of volunteers.

2.4.1 Promote the broadest range of capital projects that can improve the riding experience of users, including support for bus shelters, benches, lighting at stops, information technology at stops and on vehicles.

2.4 Promote capital improvements to support safe, comfortable, efficient rides for the target populations.

2.4.2 Promote vehicle and vehicle-related capital projects that ensure safe and accessible services to the target populations.

2.5.1 Promote vehicle maintenance, vehicle loaner and vehicle back-up programs for human services agencies. 2.5 Establish mechanisms to support transportation

services provided by human services agencies. 2.5.2 Research liability insurance options for human service organizations, including general liability for vehicle operations and for volunteer-based programs; distribute widely information about these findings and resources.



GOAL 2.0: BUILD CAPACITY (CONT’D)

2.5.3 Encourage cooperative relationships between public transit providers and human services organizations around transit support functions (e.g. maintenance, training) through workshop settings, special projects and any other means devised.

2.5.4 Establish basic reporting tools, including driver logs, dispatch logs and standardized definitions of terms that can be easily adopted by human services agencies and utilized in reporting on transportation services provided.

2.5 Establish mechanisms to support transportation services provided by human services agencies, cont’d.

2.5.5 Encourage the use of basic reporting tools by human services agencies through all possible means, including the Call for Projects and liaison with other human services funding sources (regional centers, Dept. of Public Social Services, Headstart, Dept. of Mental Health and others).

2.6.1. Promote full participation in the Mobility Manager inventory process and develop other means of achieving accurate counts of all publicly-supported specialized transportation programs in Los Angeles County.

2.6.2 Require all applicants to the Call for Projects to complete inventory forms and to be in the specialized transportation database.

2.6.3 Require successful Call for Projects applicants to establish goals for trips or other units or services anticipated, reporting on actual trips/services provided

2.6 Establish procedures to measure the quantities of trips provided, existing and new.

2.6.4 Establish other mechanisms to improve the accuracy of counting trips provided by human services organizations to the target populations.

GOAL 3.0 INFORMATION PORTALS 3.1.1 Convene a working group, with proper authority and appropriate membership, to work to integrate the multiplicity of information resources available, focusing particularly on the information needs of the target populations and their caseworkers.

3.1 Integrate and promote existing information strategies, including 211, web-based tools and Access Services RideInfo to get specialized transportation information to consumers. 3.1.2 Develop regional, systems-level and agency level pilot projects to test

information applications that promote existing transit for the target populations.



GOAL 3.0 INFORMATION PORTALS, CONT’D

3.2.1. Create simple flyers and/or other media that direct human service agency staff to an array of resources that help them access specialized transportation services on behalf of their consumers.

3.2.2 Work with METRO subcommittees, including BOS, LTSS and consumer advisory groups to identify additional methods of information distribution.

3.2.3 Work with Access Services advisory committees on information distribution and explore alternative methods and enhancement to existing methods.

3.2.4 Maintain and update developed portal access tools.

3.2.5 Ensure that regional Mobility Manager information tools, such as RideInfo, are maintained, kept current with information broadly distributed.

3.2 Develop information portal tools for wide distribution, cont’d.

3.2.6 Invite through the Calls for Projects strategies that establish, promote, enhance and extend transit and specialized transit information portals.

3.3.1 Develop and promote transit introduction modules to provide periodic training to agency level staff on transportation options across the Los Angeles region, potentially including connections with neighboring counties.

3.3 Promote information opportunities for human services agency line staff and direct service workers

3.3.2 Hold periodic workshops, distributed geographically across the county and targeted to different subgroups of agency personnel to bring them current with available transportation resources and information tools.



GOAL 4.0 COORDINATION POLICIES

4.1 Work to establish non-emergency medical transportation policies and more cost-effectively meet medically-related trip needs.

4.1.1 Participate in activities that promote policy changes to California’s NEMT MediCal reimbursement to support need-based and not simply functionality-based tests, including inviting public transit providers into the MediCal provider role.

4.2.1 Ensure that the Call for Project design has sufficiently flexibility to encourage projects that innovatively respond to needs and can address needs in the widest possible way.

4.2 Establish a Call for Projects process sufficiently flexible for applicants to construct and implement projects responsive to identified needs in a broad range of ways.

4.2.2 Building upon the Section 5310 technical assistance approach, provide adequate technical assistance to prospective applicants -- during the period building up to the Call for Projects and after the announcement process, to improve the quality of the project proposals and to ensure compliance with Federal requirements.

4.3.1 Ensure that measurable goals are established for all projects, potentially inviting applicants to set forth the measurable goals against which they wish their projects to be assessed.

4.3 Establish processes by which implemented projects are evaluated against goals set by applicant agencies. 4.3.2 Collect ongoing data on coordination projects implemented, assessing

projects against goals which agencies themselves may establish.

4.4.1 Identify success, as well as poor performance, and report on specialized transportation projects and solutions that are effective.

4.4.2 Document successes on a range of measures that include cost-effectiveness, responsiveness to consumer needs, consumer satisfaction levels and responsiveness to agency personnel requirements.

4.4 Report on project successes and impacts at direct service levels, subregional level and countywide levels; pursue opportunities to promote project successes at state and federal levels

4.4.3 Create mechanisms, such as regional or state-level conferences, where system-wide lessons learned can be shared and experiences of other regions sought.



8.6 SEQUENCING AND PRIORITIZATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS Public transit and human service agency/organization transportation in Los Angeles County are documented in this plan as extensive and substantially funded. This plan proposes the enhancement and improvement of the existing network of services through coordination -- specifically for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low income. A coordination vision is proposed of improved mobility for the target populations. To accomplish this vision, several dozen implementing actions and strategies have been detailed in Table 8-2, with the expectation that there will be incremental implementation and refinement of actions and strategies over the next few years. The strategies outlined in this report should be viewed as guidance for public transit and human service agencies, as actual projects developed by these stakeholders will be based upon their specific needs, resources and ability and willingness to work to establish coordination relationships with others. The understanding that coordinated transportation projects must be tied directly to the needs demonstrated by the target populations is vital to development of coordinated projects and programs that will have measurable outcomes. Public transit and human service agencies and organizations must work together to identify and acknowledge the most pressing specialized needs demonstrated by the target populations within communities in Los Angeles County, and subsequently develop projects and programs to meet those needs. We recognize that the activities associated with building the framework for the coordinated transportation environment in Los Angeles County must be implemented gradually in order to realize sustainable benefit. Therefore, we are recommending a phased approach to implementation of the goals and accompanying activities outlined below. Phase I – Establishing Coordination Infrastructure (Goal 1) Los Angeles County Regional Mobility Manager The establishment and implementation of the regional mobility manager (RMM) function and gradual development of sub-regional mobility managers in at least 5 subregions in the county are the fundamental recommendations of the action plan. It is recommended that a regional mobility manager, including the governance body or technical advisory body discussed in the detail following be put into place within a reasonable time frame. As discussed previously, RMM roles and responsibilities can either be designated to an existing agency/organization, or a new entity can be formed. The RMM should serve to further the goals outlined in the plan, and continue efforts to establish relationships between public transit and human service agencies, including technical assistance and cooperation with subregional mobility managers for the purposes of developing coordinated transportation plans, programs and projects. This essentially means that the RMM guided by an advisory body comprised of a representative group of public transit and human service agency/organization representatives should initially serve as the clearinghouse for development of information and technical resources that can enhance accessibility for both public transit and human service agencies and organizations specific to transportation services within the county as a whole. As coordination efforts begin to



evolve, the role of the RMM can conceivably be expanded to broker services and/or direct service provision. In order to ensure that the RMM will remain committed to the development and implementation of a proactive coordination agenda, it is recommended that the advisory body of public transit and human service agencies and organizations be only those that are willing and interested in working together to accomplish pre-determined objectives aimed at addressing specialized transportation needs in Los Angeles County. Therefore, those electing to participate in the RMM advisory group would conceivably:

Be representatives of organizations, agencies and entities with an interest in addressing the issues relative to the target populations’ needs;

Have the consent and support of executive management within their own organization/agency to regularly and actively participate within the group;

Be positioned to represent their agency/organizations’ viewpoints, and have access to responsible decision-makers within their organization/agency; and

Have some knowledge of specialized transportation issues as it is manifested by the target populations represented by their organization/agency.

An initial outreach effort should be conducted to solicit stakeholder organization/agency interest and participation on an advisory body. A dialogue should be conducted with larger public transit and human service agencies and organizations to ascertain their stake and interest in transportation issues, and their willingness to work toward a coordinated “mix” of solutions. In addition, smaller agency/organization participation should also be encouraged. It is recommended that the RMM working with the advisory body develop an “action-oriented” agenda that will guide their work activities for the first year. The agenda could focus initially on the plan goals, objectives and strategies outlined above. Meetings of the advisory body should be regularly scheduled to continue to make progress toward achievement of established goals and objectives, and to ensure that the group remains focused, organized and functional. The RMM advisory body is initially envisioned as a cooperative strategic working group that operates on a volunteer basis, and is collectively convened to provide guidance to the RMM on transportation coordination issues. However, depending upon how the RMM is structured, governance and legal responsibility of the RMM may or may not be delegated to this group. Moreover, the advisory body as appropriate, may progress to development of a more formal operating structure in the future. The size of this group will depend upon the interest and level of commitment demonstrated by stakeholder organizations and agencies. Subregional Mobility Managers It has been demonstrated that although regional responses to planning can be effective in establishing the infrastructure needed to effectuate coordinated actions, knowledge of the transportation needs at the subregional level can serve to support the regional goals and more adequately address individual needs. During the development of this plan, some larger stakeholder agencies and organizations expressed general interest in taking actions to increase mobility by assuming a lead role within the subregion. This potentially opens the door to establish a network of subregional mobility managers (SMM) at the local level, working in concert with the RMM to effectuate the goal of



coordinated transportation throughout the county. The continued growth of the target populations and their diverse needs warrants a comprehensive approach that empowers a “bottoms-up” approach to coordination. Conceivably, a subregional mobility manager could be a public transit agency/organization, a human service agency/organization or a representative partnership of both agency/organization types within the same subregion. A total of five subregional mobility managers are envisioned consistent with the Metro service sector boundaries. There will likely be a developmental process to gradually increase the scope of these subregional entities to build and maintain viable partnerships. These entities would work cooperatively with and support the RMM in the development of plans and projects within their subregion, as well as, participate as members of the RMM advisory body. Phase II – Coordinated Actions, Plans, Projects and Policies (Goals 2, 3, 4) Concurrent with the full “build out” of transportation coordination activities in Los Angeles County, opportunities to develop coordinated projects that can begin to address the needs of the targeted populations should be pursued. The project team believes that there are a few “basic” strategies and project concepts that can be developed early, that will work to support and promote the framework of a coordinated transportation environment, and that can be funded in the near-term (i.e. 1-2 years). Therefore, the project team recommends that the RMM and/or other public transit and human services agencies/organizations operating at a regional level explore the feasibility of implementing these strategies/project concepts. These strategies and project concepts include:

Implementation of a Travel Training Program for Agencies/Organizations staff, their clients. Create a county-wide Travel Training program. A county-wide program will encourage greater utilization of transit for those in the targeted populations who can and would use public transportation. Human service agencies/organizations’ staff desiring to arrange transportation or refer their clients to transit, as well as, new and prospective clients and customers needing to travel to their various destinations would be candidates for training, participating in group training sessions on regularly scheduled fixed-route or paratransit services.

Public transit should develop a data collection process designed to assist

human service agencies and organizations operating transportation and their contractors establish trip counting procedures to ensure accuracy and consistency in accounting for senior, persons with disabilities and low-income trips provided in the county. At a minimum human service agencies should be collecting data in the following categories:

• One-way passenger boardings • Passenger pick-up and drop-off points by zip code • Passenger pick-up and drop-off points by street address • Passenger trip purpose • Time of day

The design of data collection methodologies should reflect an understanding of the issues relative to collecting and reporting certain categories of client information



relative to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act (i.e. street address, etc.). Implementation of this type of project will provide information on the level of services operated in the county, and will help to identify patterns of travel. This will also encourage participation of human service agencies as partners with public transit in the planning and development of coordinated services. Moreover, data collection efforts should also be used as justification for Metro in their efforts to gain the necessary financial support and resources from Federal and State agencies and as a means to more clearly identify client and consumer needs in the county.

Assess the potential to implement coordinated service delivery models in the

future that employ the use of volunteer labor in a structured, close geographic setting.

Conduct an annual inventory process to continue to build and nurture the

coordination environment. This activity will serve to ensure that the data and information on transportation services, resources and needs is updated, which will provide a relatively sound basis for coordinated planning activities.

Develop additional processes to facilitate bus pass and/or token purchase

programs for human service agencies. Plan Approval and Adoption Process The process for Access Services approval and adoption of this plan include the following activities:

Presentation of the draft plan to Access Services’ Transit Providers Advisory Committee (TPAC) on April 12, 2007 and its Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) on May 8, 2007;

Coordination Plan Summit at Access Services on June 26, 2007 with CalACT and FTA’s

Coordination Ambassador, as well as METRO staff, neighboring counties’ staff persons responsible for plan development, and Caltrans headquarters staff.

Final plan presentation to Access Services Board of Directors at their October 2007 meeting.

Documents

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) PROGRAM GUIDANCEmedia.metro.net/projects_studies/images/Coord Plan CH 5-8.pdf · systems reporting paratransit data for the FTA National Transit