--- type: document title: Coordinated-Human-Service-Mobility-Plan file: ../Coordinated-Human-Service-Mobility-Plan.pdf tags: - Cumberland_Plateau_Planning_District_Commission docDate: null contentType: application/pdf contentLength: 5042159 sha256sum: bf38c3dbe2de73268c06be73e5c33ec08c562db9bab5816afd633320310dd382 sha1sum: 43454cc939fc840deec03d8046fc8e9280aea807 --- Cumberland Plateau (PDC 2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan September 2013 Counties: Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell, and Tazewell prepared for Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation prepared by KFH Group, Inc. under subcontract to Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Cumberland Plateau (PDC 2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan September 2013 Counties: Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell, and Tazewell BUCHANAN Sa Pocahontas intwood neheo La DICKENSON r TAZEWELL Trew INE carat aypoot ah onaker RUSSELL Lebanon prepared for Virgil ia Department of Rail and Public Transportation [prepared by KFH Group, Inc. under subcontract to Cambridge Systematics, Inc. LEE Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan i Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Outreach Efforts ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Demographic Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 10 Assessment of Available Transportation Services and Resources ....................................................... 19 Assessment of Unmet Transportation Needs and Gaps ..................................................................... 21 Identified Strategies ......................................................................................................................... 23 Priorities for Implementation and Potential Projects......................................................................... 25 Appendix A – FTA Guidance on Coordinated Planning Requirements ................................................. 33 Appendix B – Federal Programs Available for Use in Coordinated Transportation Arrangements ........ 43 Appendix C – Population Statistics .................................................................................................... 64 Appendix D – Demographics of Potentially Transit Dependent Persons ............................................. 67 ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan Table of Contents Introduction.....cscnesearesee Backgroun Outreach Efforts 7 Demographic Analysis Assessment of Available Transportation Services and Resources... Assessment of Unmet Transportation Needs and Gaps v..esisessesneereeneenne Identified Strategies. Priorities for Implementation and Potential Projects......... ‘Appendix A ~ FTA Guidance on Coordinated Planning Requirements... Appendix B - Federal Programs Available for Use in Coordinated Transportation Arrangements. sessserssesneeneens 64 7 Appendix C— Population Statistics....sssussseeaseenneneeneennentenneeaneneennte Appendix D - Demographics of Potentially Transit Dependent Persons ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan i Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan ii List of Figures Figure 1. Geography of Cumberland Plateau Planning District (PDC2) ........................................ 3 Figure 2. Population Density................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Persons Age 65 and Older Per Census Block Group .................................................... 13 Figure 4. Persons With Disabilities Per Census Block Group ..................................................... 14 Figure 5. Persons Below Poverty Per Census Block Group ........................................................ 15 Figure 6. Autoless Households Per Census Block Group ........................................................... 16 Figure 7. Transit Need by Ranked Density of Transit Dependent Persons ................................. 17 Figure 8. Transit Need by Ranked Percentage of Transit Dependent Persons ........................... 18 Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. List of Figures Geography of Cumberland Plateau Planning District (PDC2) Population Density. Persons Age 65 and Older Per Census Block Group. ....ssse Persons With Di: s Per Census Block Group Persons Below Poverty Per Census Block Grou Autoless Households Per Census Block Group Transit Need by Ranked Density of Transit Dependent Persons... Transit Need by Ranked Percentage of Transit Dependent Persons .. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan ii Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 1 Introduction On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) that went into effect on October 1, 2012. The program changes in this legislation included the repeal of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Section 5316 (Job Access and Reverse Commute – JARC Program) and Section 5317 (New Freedom Program) and the establishment of an enhanced Section 5310 that serves as a single formula program to support the mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities. This legislation continued the coordinated transportation planning requirements established in previous law. Specifically, the current Federal legislation notes that the projects selected for funding through the Section 5310 Program must be “included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” and this plan must be “developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and other members of the public.” In 2008, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) worked with rural and small urban areas around the Commonwealth to develop Coordinated Human Service Mobility (CHSM) Plans that met the coordinated transportation planning requirements, and DRPT supported the development of such plans in large urban areas. The CHSM Plans are organized geographically around 21 Planning District Commissions (PDC’s) throughout the Commonwealth. The PDC’s have been chartered by the local governments of each planning district under the Regional Cooperation Act to conduct planning activities on a regional basis. With the enactment of the MAP-21 legislation, DRPT began a process of consultation with local stakeholders to update the CHSM Plans for their respective regions. This process included extensive discussion of MAP-21 changes to human service transportation funding and careful review and updating of local and regional transportation needs and issues. Through a series of initial regional meetings held from September through November 2012, and series of a follow up meetings conducted in June and July 2013 to review plan revisions and gather additional input, Virginia’s CHSM planning effort provided a structure and process intended to:  Provide a forum to gain consensus on the transportation priorities in the region and facilitate input from seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of Introduction On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) that went into effect on October 1, 2012. The program changes in this legislation included the repeal of the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5316 (Job Access and Reverse Commute - JARC Program) and Section 5317 (New Freedom Program) and the establishment of an enhanced Section 5310 that serves as a single formula program to support the mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities. This legislation continued the coordinated transportation planning requirements established in previous law. Specifically, the current Federal legislation notes that the projects selected for funding through the Section 5310 Program must be “included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” and this plan must be “developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and other members of the public.” In 2008, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) worked with rural and small urban areas around the Commonwealth to develop Coordinated Human Service Mobility (CHSM) Plans that met the coordinated transportation planning requirements, and DRPT supported the development of such plans in large urban areas. The CHSM Plans are organized geographically around 21 Planning District Commissions (PDC’s) throughout the Commonwealth. The PDC’s have been chartered by the local governments of each planning district under the Regional Cooperation Act to conduct planning activities on a regional basis. With the enactment of the MAP-21 legislation, DRPT began a process of consultation with local stakeholders to update the CHSM Plans for their respective regions. This process included extensive discussion of MAP-21 changes to human service transportation funding and careful review and updating of local and regional transportation needs and issues. Through a series of initial regional meetings held from September through November 2012, and series of a follow up meetings conducted in June and July 2013 to review plan revisions and gather additional input, Virginia's CHSM planning effort provided a structure and process intended to: * Provide a forum to gain consensus on the transportation priorities in the region and facilitate input from seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 1 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 2 public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and others.  Take into account previous transportation planning efforts,  Foster local partnerships and provide an opportunity for the development of new ones,  As appropriate, identify examples of projects and programs initiated since issuance of 2008 plans which demonstrate human service transportation enhancements and coordination efforts, i.e. mobility management efforts and new services,  Continue an ongoing structure to support coordination efforts or help establish new coordination structures,  Serve as a tool for educating local decision makers, elected officials, and other stakeholders on unmet transportation needs in the region. This planning process also drove the development of updated CHSM Plans meeting the Federal coordinated transportation planning requirements and facilitating access to critical FTA monies. This CHSM Plan is for the Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2). As shown in Figure 1, PDC 2 is located in the southwest corner of the Commonwealth, and includes Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell, and Tazewell Counties. PDC 2 is rural in nature with scattered populations and dispersed destinations, presenting distinct transportation needs for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes. public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and others. Take into account previous transportation planning efforts, Foster local partnerships and provide an opportunity for the development of new ones, As appropriate, identify examples of projects and programs initiated since issuance of 2008 plans which demonstrate human service transportation enhancements and coordination efforts, i.e. mobility management efforts and new services, Continue an ongoing structure to support coordination efforts or help establish new coordination structures, Serve as a tool for educating local decision makers, elected officials, and other stakeholders on unmet transportation needs in the region. This planning process also drove the development of updated CHSM Plans meeting the Federal coordinated transportation planning requirements and facilitating access to critical FTA monies. This CHSM Plan is for the Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission. (PDC2). As shown in Figure 1, PDC 2 is located in the southwest corner of the Commonwealth, and includes Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell, and Tazewell Counties. PDC 2s rural in nature with scattered populations and dispersed destinations, presenting distinct transportation needs for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes. Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 2 S M Y T H W I S E S C O T T W A S H I N G T O N W Y T H E B L A N D G R A Y S O N N O R T O N B R I S T O L K E N T U C K Y R U S S E L L T A Z E W E L L B U C H A N A N D I C K E N S O N Raven Vansant Bluefield Grundy Castlewood Lebanon Tazewell Pound Clinchco Claypool Hill Richlands Cedar Bluff Clintwood Haysi St. Paul Honaker Pocahontas Cleveland W E S T V I R G I N I A Figure 1: Base Map for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 0 105 Miles ¤ Figure 1: Base Map for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 CHANAN ue Vansant DICKENSON / WASHINGTON GRAYSON BRISTOL Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 4 Background/Requirements This section provides background information on the coordinated transportation planning process based on previous FTA guidance and draft Section 5310 FTA guidance released in July 2013. It should be noted that final FTA guidance on the revised Section 5310 Program had not been released prior to issuance of this Plan. Coordinated Plan Elements Currently effective FTA guidance defines a coordinated public transit human service transportation plan as one that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes; provides strategies for meeting those local needs; and prioritizes transportation services for funding and implementation. In total, there are four required plan elements: • An assessment of available services that identifies current providers (public, private, and non-profit); and, • An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes. • Strategies, activities, and/or projects to address the identified gaps and achieve efficiencies in service delivery; and, • Relative priorities for implementation based on resources, time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies/activities identified. Note: FTA’s proposed Section 5310 circular, published in July 2013, modifies coordinated plan elements. Modifications include removing specific reference to people with low incomes and using the term “seniors” in place of the term “older adults.” See Appendix A for further details. Section 5310 Program (Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program) As noted in the Introduction, the MAP-21 legislation established a modified FTA Section 5310 Program that consolidates the previous New Freedom and Elderly and Disabled Programs. The purpose of the Section 5310 Program is to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special needs of transit-dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services. Section 5310 Program recipients must continue to certify that projects selected are included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. The plan must undergo a development and approval process that includes seniors and people with disabilities, transportation providers, among others, Background/Requirements This section provides background information on the coordinated transportation planning process based on previous FTA guidance and draft Section 5310 FTA guidance released in July 2013. It should be noted that final FTA guidance on the revised Section 5310 Program had not been released prior to issuance of this Plan. Coordinated Plan Elements Currently effective FTA guidance defines a coordinated public transit human service transportation plan as one that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes; provides strategies for meeting those local needs; and prioritizes transportation services for funding and implementation. In total, there are four required plan elements: + An assessment of available services that identifies current providers (public, private, and non-profit); and, + Anassessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities, older adults, and people with low incomes. * Strategies, activities, and/or projects to address the identified gaps and achieve efficiencies in service delivery; and, * Relative priorities for implementation based on resources, time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies/ activities identified Note: FTA’s proposed Section 5310 circular, published in July 2013, modifies coordinated plan elements. Modifications include removing specific reference to people with low incomes and using the term “seniors” in place of the term “older adults.” See Appendix A for further details. Section 5310 Program (Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program) As noted in the Introduction, the MAP-21 legislation established a modified FTA Section 5310 Program that consolidates the previous New Freedom and Elderly and Disabled Programs. The purpose of the Section 5310 Program is to enhance mobility for seniors and persons with disabilities by providing funds for programs to serve the special needs of transit-dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services. Section 5310 Program recipients must continue to certify that projects selected are included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. The plan must undergo a development and approval process that includes seniors and people with disabilities, transportation providers, among others, ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 4 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 5 and is coordinated to the maximum extent possible with transportation services assisted by other federal departments and agencies. Funding Funds through the Section 5310 Program are apportioned for urbanized and rural areas based on the number of seniors and individuals with disabilities, with 60 percent of the funds apportioned to designated recipients in urbanized areas with populations larger than 200,000, 20 percent to states for use in urbanized areas of fewer than 200,000 persons, and 20 percent to states for use in rural areas. The federal share for capital projects is 80 percent, and for operating grants is 50 percent. (Note: designated recipients in large urban areas can include the state. By mutual agreement, DRPT will serve as the designated recipient for Hampton Roads, Richmond/Petersburg, and Roanoke). The local share for Section 5310 Program projects can be derived from other federal non-DOT transportation sources. Examples of these programs that are potential sources of local match include employment training, aging, community services, vocational rehabilitation services, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). More information on these programs is available in Appendix B, and on the United We Ride Website at http://www.unitedweride.gov. United We Ride is the Federal initiative to improve the coordination of human services transportation. Eligible Subrecipients Under the MAP-21 legislation eligible subrecipients for the Section 5310 Program include states or local government authorities, private non-profit organizations, or operators of public transportation services that receive a grant indirectly through a recipient. Eligible Activities MAP-21 also modified eligible activities under the Section 5310 Program:  At least 55% of program funds must be used on capital projects that are: - Public transportation projects planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities when public transportation is insufficient, inappropriate, or unavailable.  The remaining 45% may be used for purposes including: - Public transportation projects that exceed ADA requirements, and is coordinated to the maximum extent possible with transportation services assisted by other federal departments and agencies. Funding Funds through the Section 5310 Program are apportioned for urbanized and rural areas based on the number of seniors and individuals with disabilities, with 60 percent of the funds apportioned to designated recipients in urbanized areas with populations larger than 200,000, 20 percent to states for use in urbanized areas of fewer than 200,000 persons, and 20 percent to states for use in rural areas. The federal share for capital projects is 80 percent, and for operating grants is 50 percent. (Note: designated recipients in large urban areas can include the state. By mutual agreement, DRPT will serve as the designated recipient for Hampton Roads, Richmond/Petersburg, and Roanoke). The local share for Section 5310 Program projects can be derived from other federal non-DOT transportation sources. Examples of these programs that are potential sources of local match include employment training, aging, community services, vocational rehabilitation services, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). More information on these programs is available in Appendix B, and on the United We Ride Website at http://www.unitedweride.gov. United We Ride is the Federal initiative to improve the coordination of human services transportation. Eligible Subrecipients Under the MAP-21 legislation eligible subrecipients for the Section 5310 Program include states or local government authorities, private non-profit organizations, or operators of public transportation services that receive a grant indirectly through a recipient. Eligible Activities MAP-21 also modified eligible activities under the Section 5310 Program: + Atleast 55% of program funds must be used on capital projects that are: - Public transportation projects planned, designed, and carried out to meet the special needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities when public transportation is insufficient, inappropriate, or unavailable. ©) The remaining 45% may be used for purposes including: - Public transportation projects that exceed ADA requirements, Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 5 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 6 - Public transportation projects that improve access to fixed-route service and decrease reliance by individuals with disabilities on complementary paratransit, - Alternatives to public transportation that assist seniors and individuals with disabilities. - Public transportation projects that improve access to fixed-route service and decrease reliance by individuals with disabilities on complementary paratransit, - Alternatives to public transportation that assis with disabilities. seniors and individuals ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 6 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 7 Outreach Efforts and Plan Development Currently available FTA guidance notes that States and communities may approach the development of a coordinated transportation plan in different ways. Potential approaches suggested by FTA include community planning sessions, focus groups, and surveys. DRPT took a broad approach with the initial CHSM planning efforts to help ensure the participation of key stakeholders at the local level. This included the development of an extensive mailing list, a series of local workshops, and numerous opportunities for input and comments on unmet transportation needs and potential strategies and projects to improve mobility in the region. Overall, eight broad categories of agencies were included in initial outreach activities: • Community Services Boards (CSBs) and Behavioral Health Authorities (BHAs). These boards provide or arrange for mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services within each locality. • Employment Support Organizations (ESOs). These organizations provide employment services for persons with disabilities within localities around the State. • Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs). These organizations offer a variety of community-based and in-home services to older adults, including senior centers, congregate meals, adult day care services, home health services, and Meals-on- Wheels. • Public Transit Providers. These include publicly or privately-owned operators that provide transportation services to the general public on a regular and continuing basis. They have clearly published routes and schedules, and have vehicles marked in a manner that denotes availability for public transportation service. • Disability Services Boards. These boards provide information and referrals to local governments regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and develop and make available an assessment of local needs and priorities of people with physical and sensory disabilities. • Centers for Independent Living (CIL). These organizations serve as educational/resource centers for persons with disabilities. Outreach Efforts and Plan Development Currently available FTA guidance notes that States and communities may approach the development of a coordinated transportation plan in different ways. Potential approaches suggested by FTA include community planning sessions, focus groups, and surveys. DRPT took a broad approach with the initial CHSM planning efforts to help ensure the participation of key stakeholders at the local level. This included the development of an extensive mailing list, a series of local workshops, and numerous opportunities for input and comments on unmet transportation needs and potential strategies and projects to improve mobility in the region. Overall, eight broad categories of agencies were included in initial outreach activities: Community Services Boards (CSBs) and Behavioral Health Authorities (BHAs). These boards provide or arrange for mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services within each locality. Employment Support Organizations (ESOs). These organizations provide employment services for persons with disabilities within localities around the State. Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs). These organizations offer a variety of community-based and in-home services to older adults, including senior centers, congregate meals, adult day care services, home health services, and Meals-on- Wheels. Public Transit Providers. These include publicly or privately-owned operators that provide transportation services to the general public on a regular and continuing basis. They have clearly published routes and schedules, and have vehicles marked in a manner that denotes availability for public transportation service. Disability Services Boards. These boards provide information and referrals to local governments regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and develop and make available an assessment of local needs and priorities of people with physical and sensory disabilities. Centers for Independent Living (CIL). These organizations serve as educational/resource centers for persons with disabilities. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 7 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 8 • Brain Injury Programs. These programs serve as clubhouses and day programs for persons with brain injuries. • Other appropriate associations and organizations. These include Alzheimer’s Chapters, AARP, and the VA Association of Community Services Boards (VACSB). This initial CHSM planning and outreach process resulted in twenty-one CHSM Plans, finalized in June 2008. The initial CHSM planning process also led to the development of an ongoing core group of this PDC’s stakeholders that has met several times a year. Efforts of this group have included: • Serving as a forum for reports from providers in the region who received Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funding for projects, • Holding preliminary discussions on possible changes to the projects and current strategies included in the current CHSM Plan, • Discussing applications and potential projects for the region in conjunction with DRPT, • Identifying training opportunities that would benefit the regional providers and reporting them to DRPT, and • Holding discussions to identify new and on-going projects to apply for in the region. With the enactment of MAP-21 in mid-2012, DRPT began working with stakeholders in each PDC, including participants in initial plan development meetings, to update the existing CHSM plans. Throughout the fall of 2012, DRPT hosted fourteen local planning sessions with diverse groups of stakeholders in communities across the Commonwealth, with the goal of gathering up-to-date data and information, including perspectives from local seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and other transportation providers and organizations and agencies. In the fall meetings, participants reviewed the issues and strategies included in the original CHSM Plans, and discussed how transportation needs, gaps, and services have changed in their communities over the last five years. Participants identified current services and resources, shared best practices, and prioritized strategies and potential projects going forward. + Brain Injury Programs. These programs serve as clubhouses and day programs for persons with brain injuries. * Other appropriate associations and organizations. These include Alzheimer’s Chapters, AARP, and the VA Association of Community Services Boards (VACSB). This initial CHSM planning and outreach process resulted in twenty-one CHSM Plans, finalized in June 2008. ‘The initial CHSM planning process also led to the development of an ongoing core group of this PDC’s stakeholders that has met several times a year. Efforts of this group have included: + Serving as a forum for reports from providers in the region who received Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funding for projects, + Holding preliminary discussions on possible changes to the projects and current strategies included in the current CHSM Plan, + Discussing applications and potential projects for the region in conjunction with DRPT, « Identifying training opportunities that would benefit the regional providers and reporting them to DRPT, and + Holding discussions to identify new and on-going projects to apply for in the region. With the enactment of MAP-21 in mid-2012, DRPT began working with stakeholders in each PDC, including participants in initial plan development meetings, to update the existing CHSM plans. Throughout the fall of 2012, DRPT hosted fourteen local planning sessions with diverse groups of stakeholders in communities across the Commonwealth, with the goal of gathering up-to-date data and information, including perspectives from local seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and other transportation providers and organizations and agencies. In the fall meetings, participants reviewed the issues and strategies included in the original CHSM Plans, and discussed how transportation needs, gaps, and services have changed in their communities over the last five years. Participants identified current services and resources, shared best practices, and prioritized strategies and potential projects going forward. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 8 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 9 In the spring and summer of 2013 DRPT conducted 12 follow-up meetings to gather additional input and finalize the draft updated plans. In correspondence and communications announcing the fall and spring stakeholder meetings (a total of 26 meetings were held), and in post meeting follow up activities, DRPT emphasized the importance of soliciting and incorporating perspectives from local seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and other transportation providers, and encouraged all recipients to broadly disseminate meeting notices and encourage community participation. Participant comments and recommendations were extensively discussed during the regional meetings, and consensus was developed regarding specific additions and amendments to each plan. Incorporating such feedback into each plan was a crucial component in updating and improving the plans and the willingness of stakeholders to participate in this process and share their perspectives is sincerely appreciated. In the spring and summer of 2013 DRPT conducted 12 follow-up meetings to gather additional input and finalize the draft updated plans. In correspondence and communications announcing the fall and spring stakeholder meetings (a total of 26 meetings were held), and in post meeting follow up activities, DRPT emphasized the importance of soliciting and incorporating perspectives from local seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and other transportation providers, and encouraged all recipients to broadly disseminate meeting notices and encourage community participation. Participant comments and recommendations were extensively discussed during the regional meetings, and consensus was developed regarding specific additions and amendments to each plan. Incorporating such feedback into each plan was a crucial component in updating and improving the plans and the willingness of stakeholders to participate in this process and share their perspectives is sincerely appreciated. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 9 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 10 Demographic Analysis The following section provides an extensive overview of the demographic composition of PDC 2. It examines population density as well as data on potentially transit dependent populations, including older adults, individuals with disabilities, those living below the federal poverty level, and autoless households. It also presents two indices based on the density and percentage of transit dependent persons. The analysis in this section draws on recent data from American Community Survey five-year estimates (2005 - 2009) and the 2010 Decennial Census. The underlying data, at the block group level, are included in Appendices C and D. For each potentially transit dependent population, block groups are classified relative to the PDC as a whole, using a five-tiered scale of very low to very high. Mapped and summarized below, the results of the analysis highlight those geographic areas of the PDC with the greatest transportation need. Population Density Population density is an important indicator of how rural or urban an area is, which in turn affects the types of transportation that may be most viable. While fixed- route transit is more practical and successful in areas with 2,000 or more persons per square mile, specialized transportation services are typically a better fit for rural areas with less population density. As shown in Figure 2, almost all of PDC 2 has a population density of less than 100 persons per square mile. However, areas of higher density occur near Lebanon in Russell County, and near Bluefield and Richlands in Tazewell County. Older Adults, Persons with Disabilities, and Low-Income Individuals Older adults (65 and above), persons with disabilities (16 and above), and low- income individuals (living below the federal poverty level) must be identified and accounted for when considering transit need. Figures 3, 4, and 5 display the relative concentrations of these populations in the PDC. The scale of “very low” to “very high” is based on the average for the PDC. A block group classified as “very low” can still have a significant number of potentially transit dependent persons; “very low” only means below the PDC average. At the other end of the spectrum, “very high” means greater than twice the PDC average. As shown in Figure 3, the block groups classified as having a very high number of older adults are located primarily in Tazewell and Russell Counties, as well as just to the west of Vansant in Buchanan County. Figure 4 displays the relative number of individuals with disabilities. The central portion of Dickenson County, the southwestern corner of Buchanan County, and several parts of Tazewell County have Demographic Analysis ‘The following section provides an extensive overview of the demographic composition of PDC 2. It examines population density as well as data on potentially transit dependent populations, including older adults, individuals with disabilities, those living below the federal poverty level, and autoless households. It also presents two indices based on the density and percentage of transit dependent persons. The analysis in this section draws on recent data from American Community Survey five-year estimates (2005 - 2009) and the 2010 Decennial Census. The underlying data, at the block group level, are included in Appendices C and D. For each potentially transit dependent population, block groups are classified relative to the PDC as a whole, using a five-tiered scale of very low to very high. Mapped and summarized below, the results of the analysis highlight those geographic areas of the PDC with the greatest transportation need. Population Density Population density is an important indicator of how rural or urban an area is, which in turn affects the types of transportation that may be most viable. While fixed- route transit is more practical and successful in areas with 2,000 or more persons per square mile, specialized transportation services are typically a better fit for rural areas with less population density. As shown in Figure 2, almost all of PDC 2 has a population density of less than 100 persons per square mile. However, areas of higher density occur near Lebanon in Russell County, and near Bluefield and Richlands in Tazewell County. Older Adults, Persons with Disabilities, and Low-Income Individuals Older adults (65 and above), persons with disabilities (16 and above), and low- income individuals (living below the federal poverty level) must be identified and accounted for when considering transit need. Figures 3, 4, and 5 display the relative concentrations of these populations in the PDC. The scale of “very low” to “very high” is based on the average for the PDC. A block group classified as “very low” can still have a significant number of potentially transit dependent persons; “very low” only means below the PDC average. At the other end of the spectrum, “very high” means greater than twice the PDC average. As shown in Figure 3, the block groups classified as having a very high number of older adults are located primarily in Tazewell and Russell Counties, as well as just to the west of Vansant in Buchanan County. Figure 4 displays the relative number of individuals with disabilities. The central portion of Dickenson County, the southwestern corner of Buchanan County, and several parts of Tazewell County have ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 10 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 11 block groups classified as very high. As shown in Figure 5, block groups with the highest relative number of low-income persons are dispersed throughout the entire PDC. Number/Percentage of Vulnerable Persons or Households Score Based on Potential Transit Dependence <= the PDC average 1 (Very Low) > average and <= 1.33 times average 2 (Low) > 1.33 times average and <= 1.67 times average 3 (Moderate) > 1.67 times average and <= 2 times average 4 (High) > 2 times the PDC average 5 (Very High) Autoless Households Households without at least one personal vehicle are more likely to depend on the mobility offered by public transit and human service organizations than those households with access to a car. Figure 6 displays the relative number of autoless households. Similar to the low-income classification, block groups with a very high number of autoless households are scattered throughout the PDC. Transit Dependence Indices For each block group in the PDC, the socioeconomic characteristics described above were combined into aggregate measures of transportation need: the Transit Dependence Index (TDI) and the Transit Dependence Index Percentage (TDIP). Both measures are based on the prevalence of the vulnerable populations in the PDC (older adults, youth, individuals with disabilities, low-income persons, and autoless households). However, the TDI accounts for population density and the TDIP does not. By removing the persons per square mile factor, the TDIP measures degree rather than amount of vulnerability. Both the TDI and the TDIP follow the same “very low” to “very high” classification scale as the maps described above. Figures 7 and 8 display the overall TDI and TDIP rankings for the PDC. As shown in Figure 7, the block groups that have a TDI classification of very high are located in central Dickenson County and in Tazewell County between Tazewell and Raven. Figure 8 displays the TDIP; those block groups classified as having high to moderate need occur in every county of the PDC. block groups classified as very high. As shown in Figure 5, block groups with the highest relative number of low-income persons are dispersed throughout the entire PDC. Number/Percentage of Vulnerable Persons or Score Based on Potential Transit Households Dependence <= the PDC average 1 (Very Low) > average and <= 1.33 times average 2 (Low) > 1.33 times average and <= 1.67 times average 3 (Moderate) > 1.67 times average and <= 2 times average 4 (High) > 2 times the PDC average 5 (Very High) Autoless Households Households without at least one personal vehicle are more likely to depend on the mobility offered by public transit and human service organizations than those households with access to a car. Figure 6 displays the relative number of autoless households. Similar to the low-income classification, block groups with a very high number of autoless households are scattered throughout the PDC. Transit Dependence Indices For each block group in the PDC, the socioeconomic characteristics described above were combined into aggregate measures of transportation need: the Transit Dependence Index (TDI) and the Transit Dependence Index Percentage (TDIP). Both measures are based on the prevalence of the vulnerable populations in the PDC (older adults, youth, individuals with disabilities, low-income persons, and autoless households). However, the TDI accounts for population density and the TDIP does not. By removing the persons per square mile factor, the TDIP measures degree rather than amount of vulnerability. Both the TDI and the TDIP follow the same “very low” to “very high” classification scale as the maps described above. Figures 7 and 8 display the overall TDI and TDIP rankings for the PDC. As shown in Figure 7, the block groups that have a TDI classification of very high are located in central Dickenson County and in Tazewell County between Tazewell and Raven. Figure 8 displays the TDIP; those block groups classified as having high to moderate need occur in every county of the PDC. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 11 S M Y T H W I S E S C O T T W A S H I N G T O N W Y T H E B L A N D G R A Y S O N N O R T O N B R I S T O L K E N T U C K Y R U S S E L L T A Z E W E L L B U C H A N A N D I C K E N S O N W E S T V I R G I N I A Figure 2: 2010 Population Density for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 0 105 Miles ¤ Population Density Persons per Square Mile 0 - 100 101 - 500 501 - 1,000 1,001 - 2,000 2,001 and above S M Y T H W I S E S C O T T W A S H I N G T O N W Y T H E B L A N D G R A Y S O N N O R T O N B R I S T O L K E N T U C K Y R U S S E L L T A Z E W E L L B U C H A N A N D I C K E N S O N W E S T V I R G I N I A Figure 3: Relative Number of Senior Adults (65+) for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 0 105 Miles ¤ Senior Adult Classification Relative to Study Area Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Figure 3: Relative Number of Senior Adults (65+) for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 KENTUCKY Senior Adult Classification Relative to Study Area [1] very tow [i ow TE Moderate i High HE Very High S M Y T H W I S E S C O T T W A S H I N G T O N W Y T H E B L A N D G R A Y S O N N O R T O N B R I S T O L K E N T U C K Y R U S S E L L T A Z E W E L L B U C H A N A N D I C K E N S O N W E S T V I R G I N I A Figure 4: Relative Number of Disabled Persons for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 0 105 Miles ¤ Disabled Classification Relative to Study Area Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Figure 4: Relative Number of Disabled Persons for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 Ty KENTUCKY VIRGI Disabled Classification Relative to Study Area [7] very Low (be [| Moderate i High I Very High S M Y T H W I S E S C O T T W A S H I N G T O N W Y T H E B L A N D G R A Y S O N N O R T O N B R I S T O L K E N T U C K Y R U S S E L L T A Z E W E L L B U C H A N A N D I C K E N S O N W E S T V I R G I N I A Figure 5: Relative Number of Below Poverty Residents for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 0 105 Miles ¤ Poverty Classification Relative to Study Area Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Figure 5: Relative Number of Below Poverty Residents for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 Tz, KENTUCKY WEST VIRG Poverty Cla: ion Relative to Study Area Very Low Low Moderate a Hien I Very High S M Y T H W I S E S C O T T W A S H I N G T O N W Y T H E B L A N D G R A Y S O N N O R T O N B R I S T O L K E N T U C K Y R U S S E L L T A Z E W E L L B U C H A N A N D I C K E N S O N W E S T V I R G I N I A Figure 6: Relative Number of Autoless Households for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 0 105 Miles ¤ Autoless Households Relative to Study Area Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Figure 6: Relative Number of Autoless Households for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 p d KENTUCKY y a _ BUCHANAN TAZEWERL oe Autoless Households Relative to Study Area Very Low Low \ [MM Moderate y Mm High a) I Very High S M Y T H W I S E S C O T T W A S H I N G T O N W Y T H E B L A N D G R A Y S O N N O R T O N B R I S T O L K E N T U C K Y R U S S E L L T A Z E W E L L B U C H A N A N D I C K E N S O N W E S T V I R G I N I A Figure 7: Transit Dependence Index for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 0 105 Miles ¤ TDI Classification Relative to Study Area Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Figure 7: Transit Dependence Index for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 KENTUCKY TDI Classification Relative to Study Area i ver tow El ow Moderate igh roa I very High S M Y T H W I S E S C O T T W A S H I N G T O N W Y T H E B L A N D G R A Y S O N N O R T O N B R I S T O L K E N T U C K Y R U S S E L L T A Z E W E L L B U C H A N A N D I C K E N S O N W E S T V I R G I N I A Figure 8: Transit Dependence Index Percentage for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 0 105 Miles ¤ TDI Percent Classification Relative to Study Area Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Figure 8: Transit Dependence Index Percentage for Cumberland Plateau PDC 2 Ty KENTUCKY Relative to Study Area Very Low El tow imi Moderate I High I Very High Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 19 Assessment of Available Transportation Services and Resources In planning for the development of future strategies to address service gaps, it is important to first perform an assessment of the transportation services available in PDC 2. This process included collection of basic descriptive and operational data for the various programs during the initial workshop. It was achieved through a facilitated session where participants were guided through a catalog of questions. The table below highlights the identified public transit, human service transportation, and private transportation providers in the region: Available Transportation Services and Resources (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Service Area (6) (7) Agency/ Provider Client Type # of Vehicles Trip Characteristics (Times, Fees, etc.) # of Trips Provide Medicaid Trips? Contact Information Four County Transit General public, disabled, seniors, college transportation service, and nutrition clients 47 vehicles (all accessible) Deviated fixed-route service runs Monday – Friday 5:30AM to 6:00PM. Fare is $0.25 per trip. Connects to District Three Public Transit’s New Freedom Service in Abingdon. 148,036 trips in FY 2012 Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell and Tazewell Counties No Phone: (276) 964-7180 Website: www.fourcountytransit.org Graham Transit General public 4 vehicles (all accessible) Deviated fixed-route service runs Monday – Friday 7:00AM to 6:00PM. Fare is $0.25 per trip. 39,226 trips in FY 2010 The Towns of Bluefield and Pocahontas No Phone: (276) 322-4628 Website: www.bluefieldva.org LogistiCare (serves all of VA through 7 regions) Broker for non- emergency transportation for Medicaid; Only transports eligible Medicaid recipients and some Medicare Reservations 24/7 by call center 60,000 trips per week statewide Statewide Yes Website: www.logisticare.com Assessment of Available Transportation Services and Resources In planning for the development of future strategies to address service gaps, it is important to first perform an assessment of the transportation services available in PDC 2. This process included collection of basic descriptive and operational data for the various programs during the initial workshop. It was achieved through a facilitated session where participants were guided through a catalog of questions. The table below highlights the identified public transit, human service transportation, and private transportation providers in the region: Available Transportation Services and Resources 0 ® c) ® ) ) ) ‘Agency/ Provider Client type #of Vehicles | Trip Characteristics (Times, | #of trips | Service Area | Provide Contact Information Fees, etc.) Medicaid Tips? Four County Transit _ |General public, [a7 vehicles _[Devioted ned-route service | 148,086 tips [Buchanan, [NO Phone: disabled, seniors (all accessible) |runs Monday - Friday in FY 2012. | Dickenson, (276) 964-7180 college transportation 5:30AM to 6:00PM. Fare is Russell ond service, and nutrition $0.25 per trip. Connects to Tazewell Website: clients District Three Public Transits ‘Counties \yeww fourcountytransit.org New Freedom Service in JAbingdon. Graham transit | General public Avehicles —_|Devioted fixedt-route service | 39,226 trips |The Towns of [No Phone: (all accessible) |runs Monday - Friday inFY 2010 |Bivefield ana (276) 322-4628 7:00AM to 6:00PM. Fare is Pocahontas '$0.25 per tip. Website: www bluefieldve.org LogistiCore (serves | Broker for non- Reservations 24/7 by call 40,000 tips |Statewide —_|Yes Website: allof VA thyough7 [emergency center perweek ‘www logisticare.com transportation for statewide regions) Medicaid: Only ‘transports eligiole Medicaid recipients and some Medicare: ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 19 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 20 Private Transportation Providers In addition, the following private transportation providers were identified:  Cimarron Coach of Virginia, Bluefield and Tazewell County, VA  Medicaid Taxi, Honaker, VA  Mullin’s Cab, Tazewell, VA Private Transportation Providers In addition, the following private transportation providers were identified: * Cimarron Coach of Virginia, Bluefield and Tazewell County, VA * Medicaid Taxi, Honaker, VA. * Mullin’s Cab, Tazewell, VA Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 20 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 21 Assessment of Unmet Transportation Needs and Gaps While an analysis of demographic data is important for understanding the overall mobility needs in PDC 2, it is vital to gain the insight of local stakeholders who are acutely aware of the transportation challenges faced by residents. Participants from the initial CHSM planning process provided input on specific unmet needs in the region. This information was gained by focusing on the targeted population groups for the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom Programs (older adults, people with disabilities, people with lower incomes) and specific need characteristics (trip purpose, time, place/destination, information/ outreach, travel training/orientation, or others). The vast majority of needs identified were described as “cross-cutting” – a need of all three population groups. In the fall of 2012 and the summer of 2013 DRPT convened meetings of local stakeholders to review and discuss the original list of unmet needs and gaps in transportation services. The following list provides an update of unmet needs based on the group’s comments. Trip Purpose  Local and long-distance transportation for non-emergency medical trips for people not eligible for Medicaid.  Expanded access to specialized services, i.e. one-on-one trips and door-through- door assistance.  Rideshare options and vanpools to enable people with low incomes to access employment opportunities. Time  Expanded transportation options on evenings and weekends.  Expanded same-day transportation service for people with disabilities. Place/Destination  Transportation to clinics and regional medical facilities in Johnson City, Roanoke, Bristol, and Charlottesville.  Expanded public transportation out of the region.  Expanded inter-system connections to access more destinations in the region.  Transportation to places of worship. Assessment of Unmet Transportation Needs and Gaps While an analysis of demographic data is important for understanding the overall mobility needs in PDC 2, it is vital to gain the insight of local stakeholders who are acutely aware of the transportation challenges faced by residents. Participants from the initial CHSM planning process provided input on specific unmet needs in the region. This information was gained by focusing on the targeted population groups for the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom Programs (older adults, people with disabilities, people with lower incomes) and specific need characteristics (trip purpose, time, place/ destination, information/ outreach, travel training/orientation, or others). The vast majority of needs identified were described as “cross-cutting” ~ a need of all three population groups In the fall of 2012 and the summer of 2013 DRPT convened meetings of local stakeholders to review and discuss the original list of unmet needs and gaps in transportation services. The following list provides an update of unmet needs based on the group’s comments. Trip Purpose © Local and long-distance transportation for non-emergency medical trips for people not eligible for Medicaid. + Expanded access to specialized services, i.e. one-on-one trips and door-through- door assistance. * Rideshare options and vanpools to enable people with low incomes to access employment opportunities. Time * Expanded transportation options on evenings and weekends. * Expanded same-day transportation service for people with disabilities. Place/Destination * Transportation to clinics and regional medical facilities in Johnson City, Roanoke, Bristol, and Charlottesville. * Expanded public transportation out of the region. * Expanded inter-system connections to access more destinations in the region. * Transportation to places of worship. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 21 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 22 Information/Outreach  Information to taxi companies about funding, leasing, and coordinating opportunities.  Branding to let customers know services are open to the public, i.e., routes that serve community college.  Coordinated marketing of services.  Greater education for elected officials on community transportation benefits and need for local funding to support services. Travel Training/Orientation  Training for groups on how to ride public transportation.  Having an attendant or aide on vehicles as needed. Other  Expanded access to accessible vehicles.  Designated regional coordinator for transportation; State level funding source to support this service.  Expanded taxi service, especially accessible taxi service, by exploring partnerships between private taxi companies and local transportation providers; and by examining state regulatory barriers such as insurance.  Funding to expand or establish volunteer driver programs.  Expanded local match money for Federal and State funding.  Continuous and reliable source of funding if locality does not have funds.  Exploration of opportunities to use other funding sources for matching requirement.  Reduced local match for operating funding.  Greater human service or public health focus on infrastructure, including accessibility improvements (i.e., build and maintain sidewalks) and bus shelters (i.e. at medical facilities).  Expanded multi-modal options in a rural context, i.e., bike racks on transit vehicles and accessible infrastructure. Informa n/Outreach Information to taxi companies about funding, leasing, and coordinating opportunities. Branding to let customers know services are open to the public, ie., routes that serve community college. Coordinated marketing of services. Greater education for elected officials on community transportation benefits and need for local funding to support services. Travel Training/Orientation Training for groups on how to ride public transportation. Having an attendant or aide on vehicles as needed. Expanded access to accessible vehicles. Designated regional coordinator for transportation; State level funding source to support this service. Expanded taxi service, especially accessible taxi service, by exploring partnerships between private taxi companies and local transportation providers; and by examining state regulatory barriers such as insurance. Funding to expand or establish volunteer driver programs. Expanded local match money for Federal and State funding. Continuous and reliable source of funding if locality does not have funds. Exploration of opportunities to use other funding sources for matching requirement. Reduced local match for operating funding. Greater human service or public health focus on infrastructure, including accessibility improvements (i.e., build and maintain sidewalks) and bus shelters (ie. at medical facilities). Expanded multi-modal options in a rural context, ie., bike racks on transit vehicles and accessible infrastructure. Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 22 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 23 Identified Strategies Coupled with the need to identify unmet needs and gaps in transportation services is the need to identify corresponding strategies to help improve mobility in the region. Based on the assessment of demographics and the unmet transportation needs obtained from key local stakeholders, a variety of strategies were generated through the original CHSM planning process. These strategies were reassessed by stakeholders during the fall 2012 and summer 2013 CHSM meetings and updated accordingly. As noted in the previous version of this CHSM Plan, these strategies are intended to broadly describe how needs and gaps could be addressed. Specific project proposals would require identification of agency sponsors, specific expenditures, etc., and therefore more details would be provided through the application process for appropriate funding. 1. Continue to support capital needs of coordinated human service/public transportation providers. 2. Expand availability of demand-response service and specialized transportation services to provide additional trips for older adults, people with disabilities, veterans and people with lower incomes. 3. Build coordination among existing public transportation and human service transportation providers. 4. Provide targeted shuttle services to access employment opportunities. 5. Establish a ride-sharing program for long-distance medical transportation. 6. Expand outreach and information on available transportation options in the region, including establishment of a central point of access. 7. Implement new public transportation services or operate existing public transit services on a more frequent basis. 8. Provide flexible transportation options and more specialized transportation services or one-to-one services through the use of volunteers. 9. Expand access to taxi and other private transportation operators. Identified Strategies Coupled with the need to identify unmet needs and gaps in transportation services is the need to identify corresponding strategies to help improve mobility in the region. Based on the assessment of demographics and the unmet transportation needs obtained from key local stakeholders, a variety of strategies were generated through the original CHSM planning process. These strategies were reassessed by stakeholders during the fall 2012 and summer 2013 CHSM meetings and updated accordingly. As noted in the previous version of this CHSM Plan, these strategies are intended to broadly describe how needs and gaps could be addressed. Specific project proposals would require identification of agency sponsors, specific expenditures, etc., and therefore more details would be provided through the application process for appropriate funding. 1. Continue to support capital needs of coordinated human service/ public transportation providers. 2. Expand availability of demand-response service and specialized transportation services to provide additional trips for older adults, people with disabilities, veterans and people with lower incomes. 3. Build coordination among existing public transportation and human service transportation providers. 4. Provide targeted shuttle services to access employment opportunities. 5. Establish a ride-sharing program for long-distance medical transportation. 6. Expand outreach and information on available transportation options in the region, including establishment of a central point of access. 7. Implement new public transportation services or operate existing public transit services on a more frequent basis. 8, Provide flexible transportation options and more specialized transportation services or one-to-one services through the use of volunteers. 9. Expand access to taxi and other private transportation operators. Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 23 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 24 10. Establish or expand programs that train customers, human service agency staff, medical facility personnel, and others in the use and availability of transportation services. 11. Bring new funding partners to public transit/human service transportation. 10. Establish or expand programs that train customers, human service agency staff, medical facility personnel, and others in the use and availability of transportation services. 11. Bring new funding partners to public transit/human service transportation. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 24 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 25 Priorities for Implementation and Potential Projects Through the initial CHSM planning process, the region identified priorities for implementation based on determined strategies. These priorities were updated to reflect the revised list of strategies provided in the previous section. In addition, they account for changes to the funding programs that resulted from the MAP-21 legislation. Similar to the previous version of this CHSM Plan, the strategies in this section detail the multiple unmet transportation needs or issues that they address. The strategies also include potential projects, though it should be noted that the listing is not comprehensive and other projects that meet the strategy would also be considered. Strategy: Continue to Support and Maintain Capital Needs of Coordinated Human Service/Public Transportation Providers Maintaining and building upon current capital infrastructure is crucial to expanding mobility options for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes in the region. This strategy involves appropriate vehicle replacement, vehicle rehabilitation, vehicle equipment improvements, and acquisition of new vehicles to support development of a more coordinated community transportation network. Unmet Need/Issue Strategy Will Address:  Maintain existing transportation services and available mobility options for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes. Potential Projects:  Capital expenses to support the provision of transportation services to meet the special needs of older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes.  Capital needs to support new mobility management and coordination programs among public transportation providers and human service agencies providing transportation. Priorities for Implementation and Potential Projects Through the initial CHSM planning process, the region identified priorities for implementation based on determined strategies. These priorities were updated to reflect the revised list of strategies provided in the previous section. In addition, they account for changes to the funding programs that resulted from the MAP-21 legislation. Similar to the previous version of this CHSM Plan, the strategies in this section detail the multiple unmet transportation needs or issues that they address. The strategies also include potential projects, though it should be noted that the listing is not comprehensive and other projects that meet the strategy would also be considered. Strategy: Continue to Support and Maintain Capital Needs of Coordinated Human Service/Public Transportation Providers Maintaining and building upon current capital infrastructure is crucial to expanding mobility options for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes in the region. This strategy involves appropriate vehicle replacement, vehicle rehabilitation, vehicle equipment improvements, and acquisition of new vehicles to support development of a more coordinated community transportation network. Unmet Need/Issue Strategy Will Address: © Maintain existing transportation services and available mobility options for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes. Potential Projects: * Capital expenses to support the provision of transportation services to meet the special needs of older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes. + Capital needs to support new mobility management and coordination programs among public transportation providers and human service agencies providing transportation. Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 25 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 26 Strategy: Expand Availability of Demand-Response Service and Specialized Transportation Services to Provide Additional Trips for Older Adults, People with Disabilities, Veterans, and People with Lower Incomes The expansion of current demand-response and specialized transportation services is a logical strategy for improving mobility for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes. This strategy would meet multiple unmet needs and issues while taking advantage of existing organizational structures. Operating costs -- driver salaries, fuel, vehicle maintenance, etc. -- would be the primary expense for expanding services, though additional vehicles may be necessary for providing same-day transportation services or serving larger geographic areas. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Expanded transportation options on evenings and weekends.  Expanded same-day transportation service for people with disabilities.  Expanded public transportation out of the region.  Transportation to places of worship. Potential Projects:  Expand current demand-response system to serve additional trips (within same hours of operation/service).  Expand hours and days of current demand-response system to meet additional service needs. Strategy: Build Coordination Among Existing Public, Private, and Human Service Transportation Providers Once existing services are inventoried, opportunities may exist to improve connections among providers and expand access both within and outside the region. A mobility management strategy can be employed that provides the support and resources to explore these possibilities and put into action the necessary follow-up activities. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Expanded inter-system connections to access more destinations in region.  Mobility manager to contact various agencies, providers, customers, especially to coordinate occasional weekend/evening service or service to special events.  Expanded access to accessible vehicles.  Designated regional coordinator for transportation. Strategy: Expand Availability of Demand-Response Service and Specialized Transportation Services to Provide Additional Trips for Older Adults, People with Disabilities, Veterans, and People with Lower Incomes The expansion of current demand-response and specialized transportation services is a logical strategy for improving mobility for older adults, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes. This strategy would meet multiple unmet needs and issues while taking advantage of existing organizational structures. Operating costs -- driver salaries, fuel, vehicle maintenance, etc. -- would be the primary expense for expanding services, though additional vehicles may be necessary for providing same-day transportation services or serving larger geographic areas. Unmet Needs/ Issues Strategy Will Address: Expanded transportation options on evenings and weekends. Expanded same-day transportation service for people with disabilities. Expanded public transportation out of the region. Transportation to places of worship. Potential Projects: * Expand current demand-response system to serve additional trips (within same hours of operation/service). + Expand hours and days of current demand-response system to meet additional service needs. Strategy: Build Coordination Among Existing Public, Private, and Human Service Transportation Providers Once existing services are inventoried, opportunities may exist to improve connections among providers and expand access both within and outside the region. A mobility management strategy can be employed that provides the support and resources to explore these possibilities and put into action the necessary follow-up activities. Unmet Needs/ Issues Strategy Will Address: ¢ Expanded inter-system connections to access more destinations in region. * Mobility manager to contact various agencies, providers, customers, especially to coordinate occasional weekend /evening service or service to special events. * Expanded access to accessible vehicles. © Designated regional coordinator for transportation. Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 26 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 27 Potential Projects:  Mobility Facilitator to facilitate cooperation between transportation providers, including: - Helping establish inter-agency agreements for connecting services or sharing rides. - Arranging trips for customers as needed. - Exploring technologies that simplify access to information on services. - Coordinate services among providers with wheelchair accessible vans so that these resources can be better accessed throughout the community. - Use of human service agency transportation providers as feeder service to fixed routes.  Implement voucher programs through which human service agencies are reimbursed for trips provided for other agencies based on pre-determined rates or contractual arrangements. Strategy: Provide Targeted Shuttle Services to Access Employment Opportunities Limited transportation services to employment opportunities could be addressed through the implementation of shuttle services designed around concentrated job centers. Locating a critical mass of workers is the key for this strategy to be effective. This strategy may also provide a mechanism for employer partnerships. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Rideshare options and vanpools to enable people with low incomes to access employment opportunities.  Expanded transportation options on evenings and weekends. Potential Projects:  Operating assistance to fund specifically-defined, targeted shuttle services.  Capital assistance to purchase vehicles to provide targeted shuttle services. Strategy: Establish a Ride-Sharing Program for Long Distance Medical Trips This strategy involves using the commuter-oriented model as a basis for developing a ride-sharing program for long distance medical trips. A database of potential drivers and riders could be kept by the mobility manager who would match the trip needs with Potential Projects: * Mobility Facilitator to facilitate cooperation between transportation providers, includin, ~ Helping establish inter-agency agreements for connecting services or sharing rides. - Arranging trips for customers as needed. - Exploring technologies that simplify access to information on services. - Coordinate services among providers with wheelchair accessible vans so that these resources can be better accessed throughout the community. - Use of human service agency transportation providers as feeder service to fixed routes. * Implement voucher programs through which human service agencies are reimbursed for trips provided for other agencies based on pre-determined rates or contractual arrangements. Strategy: Provide Targeted Shuttle Services to Access Employment Opportunities Limited transportation services to employment opportunities could be addressed through the implementation of shuttle services designed around concentrated job centers. Locating a critical mass of workers is the key for this strategy to be effective. This strategy may also provide a mechanism for employer partnerships. Unmet Needs/ Issues Strategy Will Address: * Rideshare options and vanpools to enable people with low incomes to access employment opportunities. + Expanded transportation options on evenings and weekends Potential Projects: © Operating assistance to fund specifically-defined, targeted shuttle services. * Capital assistance to purchase vehicles to provide targeted shuttle services. Strategy: Establish a Ride-Sharing Program for Long Distance Medical Trips This strategy involves using the commuter-oriented model as a basis for developing a ride-sharing program for long distance medical trips. A database of potential drivers and riders could be kept by the mobility manager who would match the trip needs with ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 27 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 28 the available participating drivers. The riders would share the expenses with the drivers on a per-mile basis (i.e. similar to mileage reimbursement). This strategy could be a cost-effective way to provide long-distance medical trips without sending a human service or public transit vehicle out of the region for a day. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Local and long-distance transportation for non-emergency medical trips for people not eligible for Medicaid.  Transportation to clinics and regional medical facilities in Johnson City, Roanoke, Bristol, Charlottesville, and Winston-Salem.  Expanded public transportation out of the region. Potential Projects:  Development of a ride-share matching database that could be used to effectively match potential drivers with people who need rides.  Development of volunteer driver programs to provide long distance medical trips.  Funding of new inter-regional routes or connecting services to link with the national network of intercity bus services. Strategy: Expand Outreach and Information on Available Transportation Options in Each Area of the Region, Including Establishment of a Central/Single Point of Access A greater emphasis can be placed not just on the coordination of actual services, but also on outreach and information sharing to ensure people with limited mobility are aware of the transportation services available to them. This strategy also presents an opportunity for a mobility manager project that includes the promotion of available transportation services. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Branding to let customers know services are open to the public, i.e., routes that serve community college.  Coordinated marketing of services.  Greater education for elected officials on community transportation benefits and need for local funding support. Potential Projects:  Implement new or expand outreach programs that provide customers and human service agency staff with training and assistance in use of current transportation services. the available participating drivers. The riders would share the expenses with the drivers on a per-mile basis (i. similar to mileage reimbursement). This strategy could be a cost-effective way to provide long-distance medical trips without sending a human service or public transit vehicle out of the region for a day. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address: * Local and long-distance transportation for non-emergency medical trips for people not eligible for Medicaid. * Transportation to clinics and regional medical facilities in Johnson City, Roanoke, Bristol, Charlottesville, and Winston-Salem. * Expanded public transportation out of the region. Potential Projects: * Development of a ride-share matching database that could be used to effectively match potential drivers with people who need rides. * Development of volunteer driver programs to provide long distance medical trips. «Funding of new inter-regional routes or connecting services to link with the national network of intercity bus services. Strategy: Expand Outreach and Information on Available Transportation Options in Each Area of the Region, Including Establishment of a Central/Single Point of Access A greater emphasis can be placed not just on the coordination of actual services, but also on outreach and information sharing to ensure people with limited mobility are aware of the transportation services available to them. This strategy also presents an opportunity for a mobility manager project that includes the promotion of available transportation services. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address: ., routes that * Branding to let customers know services are open to the public, i serve community college. * Coordinated marketing of services. © Greater education for elected officials on community transportation benefits and need for local funding support. Potential Projects: + Implement new or expand outreach programs that provide customers and human service agency staff with training and assistance in use of current transportation services. Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 28 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 29  Implement mentor/advocate program to connect current riders with potential customers for training in use of services. Strategy: Implement New Public Transportation Services or Operate Existing Public Transit Services on a More Frequent Basis The service hours for public transit in PDC 2, as noted in earlier section, are limited. New or expanded services in the evenings and weekends should be considered to expand mobility options in the region, especially to work locations. This strategy should be implemented in conjunction with the Transit Development Plans (TDPs) conducted for Graham Transit and Four County Transit, both in 2009, and with specific service improvement recommendations included in the TDPs. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Expanded transportation options on evenings and weekends.  Expanded public transportation out of the region. Potential Projects:  Increase frequency of public transit services as possible.  Convert demand-response services to fixed schedule or fixed-route services as possible. Strategy: Provide Flexible Transportation Options and More Specialized or One-To-One Services through Expanded Use of Volunteers A variety of transportation services are needed to meet the mobility needs of older adults, people with disabilities, veterans, and people with lower incomes in the region. Customers may need more specialized services beyond those typically provided through general public transit services, especially in rural portions of the region. The use of volunteers may offer transportation options that are difficult to otherwise provide. Volunteers can also provide a more personal and one-to-one transportation service for customers who may require additional assistance. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Expanded access to specialized services, i.e. one-on-one trips and door-through- door assistance. * Implement mentor/advocate program to connect current riders with potential customers for training in use of services. Strategy: Implement New Public Transportation Services or Operate Existing Public Transit Services on a More Frequent Basis The service hours for public transit in PDC 2, as noted in earlier section, are limited. New or expanded services in the evenings and weekends should be considered to expand mobility options in the region, especially to work locations. This strategy should be implemented in conjunction with the Transit Development Plans (IDPs) conducted for Graham Transit and Four County Transit, both in 2009, and with specific service improvement recommendations included in the TDPs. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address: * Expanded transportation options on evenings and weekends. * Expanded public transportation out of the region. Potential Projects: * Increase frequency of public transit services as possible. * Convert demand-response services to fixed schedule or fixed-route services as possible, Strategy: Provide Flexible Transportation Options and More Specialized or One-To-One Services through Expanded Use of Volunteers A variety of transportation services are needed to meet the mobility needs of older adults, people with disabilities, veterans, and people with lower incomes in the region. Customers may need more specialized services beyond those typically provided through general public transit services, especially in rural portions of the region. The use of volunteers may offer transportation options that are difficult to otherwise provide. Volunteers can also provide a more personal and one-to-one transportation service for customers who may require additional assistance. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address: * Expanded access to specialized services, i.e. one-on-one trips and door-through- door assistance. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 29 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 30  Funding to expand or establish volunteer driver programs.  Having an attendant or aide on vehicles as needed. Potential Projects:  Implement new or expanded volunteer driver programs to meet specific geographic, trip purpose, or time frame needs.  Implement escort/aide program for customers who may need additional assistance to travel. Strategy: Expand Access to Taxi and Other Private Transportation Operators Several taxi services and private transportation providers serve the region. For evenings and weekends and for same-day transportation needs, these services may be the best options for area residents; albeit one that is more costly to use. By subsidizing user costs, possibly through a voucher program, there can be expanded access to taxis and other private transportation services. This approach has been employed successfully in other rural areas of the country, particularly as a means to provide people with disabilities with more flexible transportation services. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Information to taxi companies about funding/leasing/coordinating opportunities.  Expanded taxi service, especially accessible taxi service, by exploring partnerships between private taxi companies and local transportation providers, and examining state regulatory barriers such as insurance. Potential Projects:  Implement voucher programs to subsidize rides for taxi trips or trips provided by private operators. Strategy: Establish or Expand Programs that Train Customers, Human Service Agency Staff, Medical Facility Personnel, and Others in the Use and Availability of Transportation Services In addition to expanding transportation options in the region, it is important that customers, as well as caseworkers, agency staff, and medical facility personnel are familiar with available transportation services. Efforts can include travel training programs to help individuals use public transit services, and outreach programs to + Funding to expand or establish volunteer driver programs. * Having an attendant or aide on vehicles as needed. Potential Projects: + Implement new or expanded volunteer driver programs to meet specific geographic, trip purpose, or time frame needs. * Implement escort/aide program for customers who may need additional assistance to travel. Strategy: Expand Access to Taxi and Other Private Transportation Operators Several taxi services and private transportation providers serve the region. For evenings and weekends and for same-day transportation needs, these services may be the best options for area residents; albeit one that is more costly to use. By subsidizing user costs, possibly through a voucher program, there can be expanded access to taxis and other private transportation services. This approach has been employed successfully in other rural areas of the country, particularly as a means to provide people with disabilities with more flexible transportation services. Unmet Needs/ Issues Strategy Will Address: * Information to taxi companies about funding/leasing / coordinating opportunities. * Expanded taxi service, especially accessible taxi service, by exploring partnerships between private taxi companies and local transportation providers, and examining state regulatory barriers such as insurance. Potential Projects: * Implement voucher programs to subsidize rides for taxi trips or trips provided by private operators. Strategy: Establish or Expand Programs that Train Customers, Human Service Agency Staff, Medical Facility Personnel, and Others in the Use and Availability of Transportation Services In addition to expanding transportation options in the region, it is important that customers, as well as caseworkers, agency staff, and medical facility personnel are familiar with available transportation services. Efforts can include travel training programs to help individuals use public transit services, and outreach programs to ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 30 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 31 ensure people helping others with their transportation issues are aware of mobility options in the region. In addition, the demand for transportation services to dialysis treatment facilities necessitates the need for a strong dialogue between transportation providers and dialysis locations so that treatment openings and available transportation are considered simultaneously. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Training for groups on how to ride public transportation.  Having an attendant or aide on vehicles as needed. Potential Projects:  Implement new or expand outreach programs that provide customers and human service agency staff with training and assistance in use of current transportation services.  Implement mentor/advocate program to connect current riders with potential customers for training in use of services. Strategy: Bring New Funding Partners to Public Transit/Human Service Transportation The demand for public transit-human service transportation is growing daily. One of the key obstacles the industry faces is how to pay for additional service. This strategy would meet multiple unmet needs and issues by tackling non-traditional sources of funding. Hospitals, supermarkets, and retailers who want the business of the region’s riders may be willing to pay for part of the cost of transporting those riders to their sites. This approach is applicable to both medical and retail establishments already served, as well as new businesses. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address:  Expanded local match money for federal and state funding.  Exploration of opportunities to use other funding sources for matching requirement Potential Projects:  Employer funding support programs, either directly for services and/or for local share.  Employer sponsored transit pass programs that allow employees to ride at reduced rates. ensure people helping others with their transportation issues are aware of mobility options in the region. In addition, the demand for transportation services to dialysis treatment facilities necessitates the need for a strong dialogue between transportation providers and dialysis locations so that treatment openings and available transportation are considered simultaneously. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address: + Training for groups on how to ride public transportation. © Having an attendant or aide on vehicles as needed. Potential Projects: + Implement new or expand outreach programs that provide customers and human service agency staff with training and assistance in use of current transportation services. + Implement mentor/advocate program to connect current riders with potential customers for training in use of services Strategy: Bring New Funding Partners to Public Transit/Human Service Transportation The demand for public transit-human service transportation is growing daily. One of the key obstacles the industry faces is how to pay for additional service. This strategy would meet multiple unmet needs and issues by tackling non-traditional sources of funding. Hospitals, supermarkets, and retailers who want the business of the region’s riders may be willing to pay for part of the cost of transporting those riders to their sites. This approach is applicable to both medical and retail establishments already served, as well as new businesses. Unmet Needs/Issues Strategy Will Address: * Expanded local match money for federal and state funding. * Exploration of opportunities to use other funding sources for matching requirement Potential Projects: + Employer funding support programs, either directly for services and/or for local share. + Employer sponsored transit pass programs that allow employees to ride at reduced rates. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 31 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 32  Partnerships with private industry, i.e. retailers and medical centers.  Partnerships with private providers of transportation, i.e. intercity bus operators and taxi operators. * Partnerships with private industry, i. retailers and medical centers. * Partnerships with private providers of transportation, i.e. intercity bus operators and taxi operators. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 32 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 33 Appendix A – FTA Guidance on Coordinated Planning Requirements The following excerpt is from the U.S. DOT/FTA – Proposed Circular: Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program Guidance and Application Instructions – FTA C 9070.1 G – posted by FTA on July 9, 2013. (Note: At the time of CHSM plan publication, the Proposed Circular had not been finalized. The following proposed language represents the most current FTA guidance available, as of the CHSM plan publication date). COORDINATED PLANNING 1. THE COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN. Federal transit law, as amended by MAP-21, requires that projects selected for funding under the Section 5310, program be “included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” and that the plan be “developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers and other members of the public.” The experiences gained from the efforts of the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM), and specifically the United We Ride (UWR) Initiative, provide a useful starting point for the development and implementation of the local public transit-human services transportation plan required under the Section 5310 program. Many States have established UWR plans that may form a foundation for a coordinated plan that includes the required elements outlined in this chapter and meets the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5310. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN. a. Overview. A locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan (“coordinated plan”) identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, seniors, and people with low incomes, provides strategies for meeting those local needs, and prioritizes transportation services for funding and implementation. Local plans may be developed on a local, regional, or statewide level. The decision as to the boundaries of the local planning areas should be made in consultation with the State, designated recipient, and the MPO, where applicable. The agency leading the planning process is decided locally and does not have to be the State or designated recipient. Appendix A - FTA Guidance on Coordinated Planning Requirements The following excerpt is from the U.S. DOT/FTA - Proposed Circular: Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program Guidance and Application Instructions ~ FTA C 9070.1 G - posted by FTA on July 9, 2013. (Note: At the time of CHSM plan publication, the Proposed Circular had not been finalized. The following proposed language represents the most current FTA guidance available, as of the CHSM plan publication date). COORDINATED PLANNING 1, THE COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN. Federal transit law, as amended by MAP-21, requires that projects selected for funding under the Section 5310, program be “included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” and that the plan be “developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers and other members of the public.” The experiences gained from the efforts of the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM), and specifically the United We Ride (UWR) Initiative, provide a useful starting point for the development and implementation of the local public transit-human services transportation plan required under the Section 5310 program, Many States have established UWR plans that may form a foundation for a coordinated plan that includes the required elements outlined in this chapter and meets the requirements of 49 US.C. 5310. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLAN. a. Overview. A locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan (“coordinated plan”) identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, seniors, and people with low incomes, provides strategies for meeting those local needs, and prioritizes transportation services for funding and implementation. Local plans may be developed on a local, regional, or statewide level. The decision as to the boundaries of the local planning areas should be made in consultation with the State, designated recipient, and the MPO, where applicable. The agency leading the planning process is decided locally and does not have to be the State or designated recipient. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 33 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 34 In urbanized areas where there are multiple designated recipients, there may be multiple plans and each designated recipient will be responsible for the selection of projects in the designated recipient’s area. A coordinated plan should maximize the programs’ collective coverage by minimizing duplication of services. Further, a coordinated plan must be developed through a process that includes participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public and private and non-profit transportation and human services transportation providers, and other members of the public. While the plan is only required in communities seeking funding under the Section 5310 program, a coordinated plan should incorporate activities offered under other programs sponsored by Federal, State, and local agencies to greatly strengthen its impact. b. Required Elements. Projects selected for funding shall be included in a coordinated plan that minimally includes the following elements at a level consistent with available resources and the complexity of the local institutional environment: (1) An assessment of available services that identifies current transportation providers (public, private, and non-profit); (2) An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities and seniors. This assessment can be based on the experiences and perceptions of the planning partners or on more sophisticated data collection efforts, and gaps in service; (3) Strategies, activities, and/or projects to address the identified gaps between current services and needs, as well as opportunities to achieve efficiencies in service delivery; and (4) Priorities for implementation based on resources (from multiple program sources), time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities identified. c. Local Flexibility in the Development of a Local Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan. The decision for determining which agency has the lead for the development and coordination of the planning process should be made at the State, regional, and local levels. FTA recognizes the importance of local flexibility in developing plans for human service transportation. Therefore, the lead agency for the coordinated planning process may be different from the State or the agency that will serve as the designated recipient for the Section 5310 program. Further, FTA recognizes that many communities have conducted assessments of transportation needs and resources regarding individuals with disabilities and seniors. FTA also recognizes that some communities have taken steps to develop a comprehensive, coordinated, In urbanized areas where there are multiple designated recipients, there may be multiple plans and each designated recipient will be responsible for the selection of projects in the designated recipient's area. A coordinated plan should maximize the programs’ collective coverage by minimizing duplication of services. Further, a coordinated plan must be developed through a process that includes participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public and private and non-profit transportation and human services transportation providers, and other members of the public. While the plan is only required in communities seeking funding under the Section 5310 program, a coordinated plan should incorporate activities offered under other programs sponsored by Federal, State, and local agencies to greatly strengthen its impact. b. Required Elements. Projects selected for funding shall be included in a coordinated plan that minimally includes the following elements at a level consistent with available resources and the complexity of the local institutional environment: (1) An assessment of available services that identifies current transportation providers (public, private, and non-profit); (2) An assessment of transportation needs for individuals with disabilities and seniors. This assessment can be based on the experiences and perceptions of the planning partners or on more sophisticated data collection efforts, and gaps in service; (3) Strategies, activities, and/or projects to address the identified gaps between current services and needs, as well as opportunities to achieve efficiencies in service delivery; and (4) Priorities for implementation based on resources (from multiple program sources), time, and feasibility for implementing specific strategies and/or activities identified. c. Local Flexibility in the Development of a Local Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan. The decision for determining which agency has the lead for the development and coordination of the planning process should be made at the State, regional, and local levels. FTA recognizes the importance of local flexibility in developing plans for human service transportation. Therefore, the lead agency for the coordinated planning process may be different from the State or the agency that will serve as the designated recipient for the Section 5310 program. Further, FTA recognizes that many communities have conducted assessments of transportation needs and resources regarding individuals with disabilities and seniors. FTA also recognizes that some communities have taken steps to develop a comprehensive, coordinated, Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 34 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 35 human service transportation plan either independently or through United We Ride efforts. FTA supports communities building on existing assessments, plans, and action items. As new Federal requirements must be met, communities may need to modify their plans or processes as necessary to meet these requirements. FTA encourages communities to consider inclusion of new partners, new outreach strategies, and new activities related to the targeted programs and populations. Plans will vary based upon the availability of resources and the existence of populations served under these programs. A rural community may develop its plans based on perceived needs emerging from the collaboration of the planning partners, whereas a large urbanized community may use existing data sources to conduct a more formal analysis to define service gaps and identify strategies for addressing the gaps. This type of planning is also an eligible activity under four other FTA programs—the Metropolitan Planning (Section 5303), Statewide Planning (Section 5304), Formula Grants for Rural Areas (Section 5311), and Urbanized Area Formula (Section 5307) programs, all of which may be used to supplement the limited (10 percent) planning and administration funding under this program. Other resources may also be available from other entities to fund coordinated planning activities. All “planning” activities undertaken in urbanized areas, regardless of the funding source, must be included in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) of the applicable MPO. d. Tools and Strategies for Developing a Coordinated Plan. States and communities may approach the development of a coordinated plan in different ways. The amount of available time, staff, funding, and other resources should be considered when deciding on specific approaches. The following is a list of potential strategies for consideration: (1) Community planning session. A community may choose to conduct a local planning session with a diverse group of stakeholders in the community. This session would be intended to identify needs based on personal and professional experiences, identify strategies to address the needs, and set priorities based on time, resources, and feasibility for implementation. This process can be done in one meeting or over several sessions with the same group. It is often helpful to identify a facilitator to lead this process. Also, as a means to leverage limited resources and to ensure broad exposure, this could be conducted in cooperation, or coordination, with the applicable metropolitan or statewide planning process. human service transportation plan either independently or through United We Ride efforts. FTA supports communities building on existing assessments, plans, and action items. As new Federal requirements must be met, communities may need to modify their plans or processes as necessary to meet these requirements. FTA encourages communities to consider inclusion of new partners, new outreach strategies, and new activities related to the targeted programs and populations. Plans will vary based upon the availability of resources and the existence of populations served under these programs. A rural community may develop its plans based on perceived needs emerging from the collaboration of the planning partners, whereas a large urbanized community may use existing data sources to conduct a more formal analysis to define service gaps and identify strategies for addressing the gaps. This type of planning is also an eligible activity under four other FTA programs—the Metropolitan Planning (Section 5303), Statewide Planning (Section 5304), Formula Grants for Rural Areas (Section 5311), and Urbanized Area Formula (Section 5307) programs, all of which may be used to supplement the limited (10 percent) planning and administration funding under this program. Other resources may also be available from other entities to fund coordinated planning activities. All “planning” activities undertaken in urbanized areas, regardless of the funding source, must be included in the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) of the applicable MPO. d. Tools and Strategies for Developing a Coordinated Plan. States and communities may approach the development of a coordinated plan in different ways. The amount of available time, staff, funding, and other resources should be considered when deciding on specific approaches. The following is a list of potential strategies for consideration: (1) Community planning session. A community may choose to conduct a local planning session with a diverse group of stakeholders in the community. This session would be intended to identify needs based on personal and professional experiences, identify strategies to address the needs, and set priorities based on time, resources, and feasibility for implementation. This process can be done in one meeting or over several sessions with the same group. It is often helpful to identify a facilitator to lead this process. Also, as a means to leverage limited resources and to ensure broad exposure, this could be conducted in cooperation, or coordination, with the applicable metropolitan or statewide planning process. ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 35 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 36 (2) Self-assessment tool. The Framework for Action: Building the Fully Coordinated Transportation System, developed by FTA and available at www.unitedweride.gov, helps stakeholders realize a shared perspective and build a roadmap for moving forward together. The self-assessment tool focuses on a series of core elements that are represented in categories of simple diagnostic questions to help groups in States and communities assess their progress toward transportation coordination based on standards of excellence. There is also a Facilitator’s Guide that offers detailed advice on how to choose an existing group or construct an ad hoc group. In addition, it describes how to develop elements of a plan, such as identifying the needs of targeted populations, assessing gaps and duplications in services, and developing strategies to meet needs and coordinate services. (3) Focus groups. A community could choose to conduct a series of focus groups within communities that provides opportunity for greater input from a greater number of representatives, including transportation agencies, human service providers, and passengers. This information can be used to inform the needs analysis in the community. Focus groups also create an opportunity to begin an ongoing dialogue with community representatives on key issues, strategies, and plans for implementation. (4) Survey. The community may choose to conduct a survey to evaluate the unmet transportation needs within a community and/or available resources. Surveys can be conducted through mail, e-mail, or in-person interviews. Survey design should consider sampling, data collection strategies, analysis, and projected return rates. Surveys should be designed taking accessibility considerations into account, including alternative formats, access to the Internet, literacy levels, and limited English proficiency. (5) Detailed study and analysis. A community may decide to conduct a complex analysis using inventories, interviews, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping, and other types of research strategies. A decision to conduct this type of analysis should take into account the amount of time and funding resources available, and communities should consider leveraging State and MPO resources for these undertakings. 3. PARTICIPATION IN THE COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS. Recipients shall certify that the coordinated plan was developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and other members of the public. Note that the required participants include not only http://www.unitedweride.gov/ (2) Self-assessment tool. The Framework for Action: Building the Fully Coordinated Transportation System, developed by FTA and available at www.unitedweride.gov, helps stakeholders realize a shared perspective and build a roadmap for moving forward together. ‘The self-assessment tool focuses on a series of core elements that are represented in categories of simple diagnostic questions to help groups in States and communities assess their progress toward transportation coordination based on standards of excellence. There is also a Facilitator’s Guide that offers detailed advice on how to choose an existing group or construct an ad hoc group. In addition, it describes how to develop elements of a plan, such as identifying the needs of targeted populations, assessing gaps and duplications in services, and developing strategies to meet needs and coordinate services. (3) Focus groups. A community could choose to conduct a series of focus groups within communities that provides opportunity for greater input from a greater number of representatives, including transportation agencies, human service providers, and passengers. This information can be used to inform the needs analysis in the community. Focus groups also create an opportunity to begin an ongoing dialogue with community representatives on key issues, strategies, and plans for implementation. (4) Survey. The community may choose to conduct a survey to evaluate the unmet transportation needs within a community and/or available resources. Surveys can be conducted through mail, e-mail, or in-person interviews. Survey design should consider sampling, data collection strategies, analysis, and projected return rates. Surveys should be designed taking accessibility considerations into account, including alternative formats, access to the Internet, literacy levels, and limited English proficiency. (6) Detailed study and analysis. A community may decide to conduct a complex analysis using inventories, interviews, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping, and other types of research strategies. A decision to conduct this type of analysis should take into account the amount of time and funding resources available, and communities should consider leveraging State and MPO resources for these undertakings. 3. PARTICIPATION IN THE COORDINATED PUBLIC TRANSIT-HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS, Recipients shall certify that the coordinated plan was developed and approved through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers, and other members of the public. Note that the required participants include not only ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 36 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 37 transportation providers but also providers of human services, and members of the public who can provide insights into local transportation needs. It is important that stakeholders be included in the development and implementation of the local coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. A planning process in which stakeholders provide their opinions but have no assurance that those opinions will be considered in the outcome does not meet the requirement of “participation.” Explicit consideration and response should be provided to public input received during the development of the coordinated plan. Stakeholders should have reasonable opportunities to be actively involved in the decision-making process at key decision points, including, but not limited to, development of the proposed coordinated plan document. The following possible strategies facilitate appropriate inclusion: a. Adequate Outreach to Allow for Participation. Outreach strategies and potential participants will vary from area to area. Potential outreach strategies could include notices or flyers in centers of community activity, newspaper or radio announcements, e-mail lists, website postings, and invitation letters to other government agencies, transportation providers, human services providers, and advocacy groups. Conveners should note that not all potential participants have access to the Internet and they should not rely exclusively on electronic communications. It is useful to allow many ways to participate, including in- person testimony, mail, e-mail, and teleconference. Any public meetings regarding the plan should be held in a location and time where accessible transportation services can be made available and adequately advertised to the general public using techniques such as those listed above. Additionally, interpreters for individuals with hearing impairments and English as a second language and accessible formats (e.g., large print, Braille, electronic versions) should be provided as required by law. b. Participants in the Planning Process. Metropolitan and statewide planning under 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 require consultation with an expansive list of stakeholders. There is significant overlap between the lists of stakeholders identified under those provisions (e.g. private providers of transportation, representatives of transit users, and representatives of individuals with disabilities) and the organizations that should be involved in preparation of the coordinated plan. The projects selected for funding under the Section 5310 program must be “included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” that was “developed through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers and participation by other members of the public.” The requirement for developing the local public transit-human services transportation plan is intended to transportation providers but also providers of human services, and members of the public who can provide insights into local transportation needs, It is important that stakeholders be included in the development and implementation of the local coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. A planning process in which stakeholders provide their opinions but have no assurance that those opinions will be considered in the outcome does not meet the requirement of “participation.” Explicit consideration and response should be provided to public input received during the development of the coordinated plan. Stakeholders should have reasonable opportunities to be actively involved in the decision-making, process at key decision points, including, but not limited to, development of the proposed coordinated plan document. The following possible strategies facilitate appropriate inclusion: a. Adequate Outreach to Allow for Participation. Outreach strategies and potential participants will vary from area to area. Potential outreach strategies could include notices or flyers in centers of community activity, newspaper or radio announcements, e-mail lists, website postings, and invitation letters to other government agencies, transportation providers, human services providers, and advocacy groups. Conveners should note that not all potential participants have access to the Internet and they should not rely exclusively on electronic communications. It is useful to allow many ways to participate, including in- person testimony, mail, e-mail, and teleconference. Any public meetings regarding the plan should be held in a location and time where accessible transportation services can be made available and adequately advertised to the general public using techniques such as those listed above. Additionally, interpreters for individuals with hearing impairments and English as a second language and accessible formats (e.g,, large print, Braille, electronic versions) should be provided as required by law. b. Participants in the Planning Process. Metropolitan and statewide planning under 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304 require consultation with an expansive list of stakeholders. There is significant overlap between the lists of stakeholders identified under those provisions (e.g. private providers of transportation, representatives of transit users, and representatives of individuals with disabilities) and the organizations that should be involved in preparation of the coordinated plan. The projects selected for funding under the Section 5310 program must be “included in a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” that was “developed through a process that included participation by seniors, individuals with disabilities, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers and participation by other members of the public.” The requirement for developing, the local public transit-human services transportation plan is intended to ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 37 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 38 improve services for people with disabilities and seniors. Therefore, individuals, groups, and organizations representing these target populations should be invited to participate in the coordinated planning process. Consideration should be given to including groups and organizations such as the following in the coordinated planning process if present in the community: (1) Transportation partners: (a) Area transportation planning agencies, including MPOs, Councils of Government (COGs), Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs), Regional Councils, Associations of Governments, State Departments of Transportation, and local governments; (b) Public transportation providers (including ADA paratransit providers and agencies administering the projects funded under FTA urbanized and rural programs); (c) Private transportation providers, including private transportation brokers, taxi operators, van pool providers, school transportation operators, and intercity bus operators; (d) Non-profit transportation providers, including volunteer programs; (e) Past or current organizations funded under the Section 5310, JARC, and/or the New Freedom programs; and (f) Human service agencies funding, operating, and/or providing access to transportation services. (2) Passengers and advocates: (a) Existing and potential riders, including both general and targeted population passengers (individuals with disabilities and seniors); (b) Protection and advocacy organizations; (c) Representatives from independent living centers; and (d) Advocacy organizations working on behalf of targeted populations. (3) Human service partners: (a) Agencies that administer health, employment, or other support programs for targeted populations. Examples of such agencies include but are not limited to Departments of Social/Human Services, Employment One-Stop Services, Vocational Rehabilitation, Workforce Investment Boards, improve services for people with disabilities and seniors. Therefore, individuals, groups, and organizations representing these target populations should be invited to participate in the coordinated planning process. Consideration should be given to including groups and organizations such as the following in the coordinated planning process if present in the community: (1) Transportation partners: (a) Area transportation planning agencies, including MPOs, Councils of Government (COGs), Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs), Regional Councils, Associations of Governments, State Departments of Transportation, and local governments; (b) Public transportation providers (including ADA paratransit providers and agencies administering the projects funded under FTA urbanized and rural programs); (0) Private transportation providers, including private transportation brokers, taxi operators, van pool providers, school transportation operators, and intercity bus operators; (d) Non-profit transportation providers, including volunteer programs; () Past or current organizations funded under the Section 5310, JARC, and/or the New Freedom programs; and (f) Human service agencies funding, operating, and/or providing access to transportation services. (2) Passengers and advocates: (a) Existing and potential riders, including both general and targeted ig and p g both g 8 population passengers (individuals with disabilities and seniors); (b) Protection and advocacy organizations; (0) Representatives from independent living centers; and (d) Advocacy organizations working on behalf of targeted populations. (3) Human service partners: (a) Agencies that administer health, employment, or other support programs for targeted populations. Examples of such agencies include but are not limited to Departments of Social /Human Services, Employment One-Stop Services, Vocational Rehabilitation, Workforce Investment Boards, ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 38 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 39 Medicaid, Community Action Programs (CAP), Agency on Aging (AoA); Developmental Disability Council, Community Services Board; (b) Non-profit human service provider organizations that serve the targeted populations; (c) Job training and placement agencies; (d) Housing agencies; (e) Health care facilities; and (f) Mental health agencies. (4) Other: (a) Security and emergency management agencies; (b) Tribes and tribal representatives; (c) Economic development organizations; (d) Faith-based and community-based organizations; (e) Representatives of the business community (e.g., employers); (f) Appropriate local or State officials and elected officials; (g) School districts; and (h) Policy analysts or experts. Note: Participation in the planning process will not bar providers (public or private) from bidding to provide services identified in the coordinated planning process. This planning process differs from the project selection process, and it differs from the development and issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) as described in the common grant rule (49 CFR part 18). c. Levels of Participation. The suggested list of participants above does not limit participation by other groups, nor require participation by every group listed. Communities will have different types of participants depending on population and size of community, geographic location, and services provided at the local level. FTA expects that planning participants will have an active role in the development, adoption, and implementation of the plan. Participation may remain low even though a good faith effort is made by the lead agency to involve passengers, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and Medicaid, Community Action Programs (CAP), Agency on Aging (AoA); Developmental Disability Council, Community Services Board; (b) Non-profit human service provider organizations that serve the targeted populations; (0) Job training and placement agencies; (d) Housing agencies; (c) Health care facilities; and () Mental health agencies. (4) Other: (a) Security and emergency management agencies; (b) Tribes and tribal representatives; () Economic development organizations; (d) Faith-based and community-based organizations; (c) Representatives of the business community (e.g., employers); () Appropriate local or State officials and elected officials; (g) School districts; and (h) Policy analysts or experts Note: Participation in the planning process will not bar providers (public or private) from bidding to provide services identified in the coordinated planning process. This planning process differs from the project selection process, and it differs from the development and issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) as described in the common grant rule (49 CFR part 18). c. Levels of Participation. The suggested list of participants above does not limit participation by other groups, nor require participation by every group listed. Communities will have different types of participants depending on population and size of community, geographic location, and services provided at the local level. FTA expects that planning participants will have an active role in the development, adoption, and implementation of the plan. Participation may remain low even though a good faith effort is made by the lead agency to involve passengers, representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 39 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 40 human services providers, and others. The lead agency convening the coordinated planning process should document the efforts it utilized, such as those suggested above, to solicit involvement. In addition, Federal, State, regional, and local policy makers, providers, and advocates should consistently engage in outreach efforts that enhance the coordinated process because it is important that all stakeholders identify the opportunities that are available in building a coordinated system. To increase participation at the local levels from human service partners, State Department of Transportation offices are encouraged to work with their partner agencies at the State level to provide information to their constituencies about the importance of partnering with human service transportation programs and the opportunities that are available through building a coordinated system. d. Adoption of a Plan. As a part of the local coordinated planning process, the lead agency in consultation with participants should identify the process for adoption of the plan. A strategy for adopting the plan could also be included in the State’s State Management Plan (SMP) and the designated recipient’s Program Management Plan (PMP) further described in Chapter VII. FTA will not formally review and approve coordinated plans. The recipient’s grant application (see Appendix A) will document the plan from which each project listed is derived, including the lead agency, the date of adoption of the plan, or other appropriate identifying information. This may be done by citing the section of the plan or page references from which the project is derived. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESSES. a. Relationship Between the Coordinated Planning Process and the Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Planning Processes. The coordinated plan may either be developed separately from the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes and then incorporated into the broader plans, or be developed as a part of the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes. If the coordinated plan is not prepared within the broader process, the lead agency for the coordinated plan should ensure coordination and consistency between the coordinated planning process and metropolitan or statewide planning processes. For example, planning assumptions should not be inconsistent. Projects identified in the coordinated planning process, and selected for FTA funding must be incorporated into both the TIP and STIP in urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more; and incorporated into the STIP for rural areas under 50,000 in population. In some areas, where the coordinated plan or project selection is not completed in a timeframe that coincides with the development of human services providers, and others. The lead agency convening the coordinated planning process should document the efforts it utilized, such as those suggested above, to solicit involvement. In addition, Federal, State, regional, and local policy makers, providers, and advocates should consistently engage in outreach efforts that enhance the coordinated process because it is important that all stakeholders identify the opportunities that are available in building a coordinated system. To increase participation at the local levels from human service partners, State Department of Transportation offices are encouraged to work with their partner agencies at the State level to provide information to their constituencies about the importance of partnering with human service transportation programs and the opportunities that are available through building a coordinated system. d. Adoption of a Plan. As a part of the local coordinated planning process, the lead agency in consultation with participants should identify the process for adoption of the plan. A strategy for adopting the plan could also be included in the State's State Management Plan (SMP) and the designated recipient's Program Management Plan (PMP) further described in Chapter VIL FTA will not formally review and approve coordinated plans. The recipient's grant application (see Appendix A) will document the plan from which each project listed is derived, including the lead agency, the date of adoption of the plan, or other appropriate identifying information. This may be done by citing, the section of the plan or page references from which the project is derived. 4, RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESSES. a. Relationship Between the Coordinated Planning Process and the Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Planning Processes. The coordinated plan may cither be developed separately from the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes and then incorporated into the broader plans, or be developed as a part of the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes. If the coordinated plan is not prepared within the broader process, the lead agency for the coordinated plan should ensure coordination and consistency between the coordinated planning process and metropolitan or statewide planning processes. For example, planning assumptions should not be inconsistent. Projects identified in the coordinated planning process, and selected for FTA funding must be incorporated into both the TIP and STIP in urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more; and incorporated into the STIP for rural areas under 50,000 in population. In some areas, where the coordinated plan or project selection is not completed in a timeframe that coincides with the development of ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 40 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 41 the TIP/STIP, the TIP/STIP amendment processes will need to be utilized to include selected projects in the TIP/STIP before FTA grant award. The lead agency developing the coordinated plan should communicate with the relevant MPOs or State planning agencies at an early stage in plan development. States with coordination programs may wish to incorporate the needs and strategies identified in local coordinated plans into statewide coordination plans. Depending upon the structure established by local decision-makers, the coordinated planning process may or may not become an integral part of the metropolitan or statewide transportation planning processes. State and local officials should consider the fundamental differences in scope, time horizon, and level of detail between the coordinated planning process and the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes. However, there are important areas of overlap between the planning processes, as well. Areas of overlap represent opportunities for sharing and leveraging resources between the planning processes for such activities as: (1) needs assessments based on the distribution of targeted populations and locations of employment centers, employment-related activities, community services and activities, medical centers, housing, and other destinations; (2) inventories of transportation providers/resources, levels of utilization, duplication of service and unused capacity; (3) gap analysis; (4) any eligibility restrictions; and (5) opportunities for increased coordination of transportation services. Local communities may choose the method for developing plans that best fits their needs and circumstances. b. Relationship Between the Requirement for Public Participation in the Coordinated Plan and the Requirement for Public Participation in Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Planning. Title 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(6) and 5304(f)(3), as amended by MAP-21, require MPOs and States to engage interested parties in preparing transportation plans, TIPs, and STIPs. “Interested parties” include, among others, affected public agencies, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, and representatives of individuals with disabilities. MPOs and/or States may work with the lead agency developing the coordinated plan to coordinate schedules, agendas, and strategies of the coordinated planning process with metropolitan and statewide planning in order to minimize additional costs and avoid duplication of efforts. MPOs and States must still provide opportunities for participation when planning for transportation related activities beyond the coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. the TIP/STIP, the TIP/STIP amendment processes will need to be utilized to include selected projects in the TIP/STIP before FTA grant award. The lead agency developing the coordinated plan should communicate with the relevant MPOs or State planning agencies at an early stage in plan development. States with coordination programs may wish to incorporate the needs and strategies identified in local coordinated plans into statewide coordination plans. Depending upon the structure established by local decision-makers, the coordinated planning process may or may not become an integral part of the metropolitan or statewide transportation planning processes. State and local officials should consider the fundamental differences in scope, time horizon, and level of detail between the coordinated planning process and the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes. However, there are important areas of overlap between the planning processes, as well. Areas of overlap represent opportunities for sharing and leveraging resources between the planning processes for such activities as: (1) needs assessments based on the distribution of targeted populations and locations of employment centers, employment-related activities, community services and activities, medical centers, housing, and other destinations; (2) inventories of transportation providers/ resources, levels of utilization, duplication of service and unused capacity; (3) gap analysis; (4) any eligibility restrictions; and (5) opportunities for increased coordination of transportation services. Local communities may choose the method for developing plans that best fits their needs and circumstances. b. Relationship Between the Requirement for Public Participation in the Coordinated Plan and the Requirement for Public Participation in Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Planning. Title 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(6) and 5304(£)(3), as amended by MAP-21, require MPOs and States to engage interested parties in preparing transportation plans, TIPs, and STIPs. “Interested parties” include, among others, affected public agencies, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, and representatives of individuals with disabilities. MPOs and/or States may work with the lead agency developing the coordinated plan to coordinate schedules, agendas, and strategies of the coordinated planning process with metropolitan and statewide planning in order to minimize additional costs and avoid duplication of efforts. MPOs and States must still provide opportunities for participation when planning for transportation related activities beyond the coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 41 Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 42 c. Cycle and Duration of the Coordinated Plan. At a minimum, the coordinated plan should follow the update cycles for MTPs (i.e., four years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas and five years in air quality attainment areas). States, MPOs, designated recipients, and public agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation should set up a cycle that is conducive to and coordinated with the metropolitan and statewide planning processes, to ensure that selected projects are included in the TIP and STIP, to receive funds in a timely manner. d. Role of Transportation Providers that Receive FTA Funding Under the Urbanized and Rural Area Formula Grant Programs in the Coordinated Planning Process. Recipients of Section 5307 and Section 5311 assistance are the “public transit” in the public transit-human services transportation plan and their participation is assumed and expected. Further, 49 U.S.C. 5307(b)(5), as amended by MAP-21, requires that, “Each recipient of a grant shall ensure that the proposed POP provides for the coordination of public transportation services … with transportation services assisted from other United States Government sources.” In addition, 49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)(C)(ii) requires the Secretary of DOT to determine that a State’s Section 5311 projects “provide the maximum feasible coordination of public transportation service … with transportation service assisted by other Federal sources.” Finally, under the Section 5311 program, States are required to expend 15 percent of the amount available to support intercity bus service. FTA expects the coordinated planning process in rural areas to take into account human service needs that require intercity transportation. The schematic below illustrates the relationship between the coordinated plan and the metropolitan and statewide planning processes. Coordinated Plan Program of Projects (POP) & Grant Application SELECTION PROCESS Long Range Plan Minimum 20 years TIP/STIP Minimum 4 years c. Cycle and Duration of the Coordinated Plan. Ata minimum, the coordinated plan should follow the update cycles for MTPs (i.e., four years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas and five years in air quality attainment areas). States, MPOs, designated recipients, and public agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation should set up a cycle that is conducive to and coordinated with the metropolitan and statewide planning processes, to ensure that selected projects are included in the TIP and STIP, to receive funds in a timely manner. d. Role of Transportation Providers that Receive FTA Funding Under the Urbanized and Rural Area Formula Grant Programs in the Coordinated Plannin; Process. Recipients of Section 5307 and Section 5311 assistance are the “public transit” in the public transit-human services transportation plan and their participation is assumed and expected. Further, 49 U.S.C. 5307(b)(5), as amended by MAP-21, requires that, “Each recipient of a grant shall ensure that the proposed POP provides for the coordination of public transportation services with transportation services assisted from other United States Government sources.” In addition, 49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)(C) (ii) requires the Secretary of DOT to determine that a State's Section 5311 projects “provide the maximum feasible coordination of public transportation service ... with transportation service assisted by other Federal sources.” Finally, under the Section 5311 program, States are required to expend 15 percent of the amount available to support intercity bus service. FTA expects the coordinated planning process in rural areas to take into account human service needs that require intercity transportation. The schematic below illustrates the relationship between the coordinated plan and the metropolitan and statewide planning processes. ° Long Coordinated a : Range TIPISTIP Program of Plan Projects Plan ” Minium 20 years wom (pop) & Grant SELECTION PROCESS |__4 ‘Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (PDC2) Coordinated Human Service Mobility Plan 42 FEDERAL PROGRAMS AVAILABLE FOR USE IN COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION ARRANGEMENTS In its 2003 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified 62 federal programs as having the greatest extent or potential for being used in partnership with Federal Transit Administration programs for serving “transportation disadvantaged” populations. In 2011, GAO revisited this question, and identified 80 such programs in that year’s report and testimony to Congress. On the following pages is a table summarizing salient information about these programs as of FY 2010, plus a dozen others, including the following elements: • Agency and program name, and web site for additional program information • Outlays of federal funds in FY 2010, as reported by the Office of Management and Budget, and the amount of federal funds spent specifically on transportation in FY 2009, if known, as reported by GAO. • Indications as to primary target populations (key: “D” = individuals with disabilities, “E” = elderly persons, “L” = low-income persons or households, “V” = veterans, “Y” = children or youth) • Indication as to whether the program has a planning mechanism at either a state or metropolitan level • Indication as to whether the program’s funds can be used for mobility management activities as defined at 49 USC 5302(3)(K) • Indication as to whether the program’s funds can be used to support call centers or one- call services • Indication as to whether the program’s funds can be used to purchase transit fares, vouchers, or similar media • Indication as to whether the program’s funds can be used to help purchase vans, buses or other vehicles In reviewing and updating this table, these points emerge: • The GAO 2003 methodology may not be perfect (for instance, it excludes a few agencies and programs, such as Indian Health Service, Indian Reservation Roads and other FHWA programs, that have documented histories of coordinated transit-human services partnerships), but has become a widely referenced basis of discussion. • Most of the programs identified in 2003 by GAO are still in place (four have dropped, the United We Ride initiative identified two programs that have been added, and the 2011 GAO study identified 18 additional programs which have been added to this inventory). • Aside from FTA programs, all others are restricted in the populations to be served, such as: persons at poverty or in low-income households (9 programs), youth and children (9 Holly Chase Typewritten Text Appendix B - Federal Programs Available for Use in Coordinated Transportation Arrangements Holly Chase Typewritten Text Holly Chase Typewritten Text Holly Chase Typewritten Text Holly Chase Typewritten Text Holly Chase Typewritten Text Holly Chase Typewritten Text Holly Chase Typewritten Text Holly Chase Typewritten Text Appendix B - Federal Programs Available for Use in Coordinated Transportation Arrangements FEDERAL PROGRAMS AVAILABLE FOR USE IN COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION ARRANGEMENTS In its 2003 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified 62 federal programs as having the greatest extent or potential for being used in partnership with Federal Transit ‘Administration programs for serving “transportation disadvantaged” populations. In 2011, GAO revisited this question, and identified 80 such programs in that year’s report and testimony to Congress. On the following pages is a table summarizing salient information about these programs as of FY 2010, plus a dozen others, including the following elements: © Agency and program name, and web site for additional program information * Outlays of federal funds in FY 2010, as reported by the Office of Management and Budget, and the amount of federal funds spent specifically on transportation in FY 2009, if known, as reported by GAO. # Indications as to primary target populations (key: “D” = individuals with disabilities, “E” = elderly persons, “L” = low-income persons or households, “V” = veterans, “Y” = children or youth) © Indication as to whether the program has a planning mechanism at either a state or metropolitan level, Indication as to whether the program’s funds can be used for mobility management activities as defined at 49 USC 5302(3)(K) * Indication as to whether the program’s funds can be used to support call centers or one- call services * Indication as to whether the program’s funds can be used to purchase transit fares, vouchers, or similar media © Indication as to whether the program’s funds can be used to help purchase vans, buses or other vehicles In reviewing and updating this table, these points emerge: * The GAO 2003 methodology may not be perfect (for instance, it excludes a few agencies and programs, such as Indian Health Service, Indian Reservation Roads and other FHWA programs, that have documented histories of coordinated transit-human services partnerships), but has become a widely referenced basis of discussion. © Most of the programs identified in 2003 by GAO are still in place (four have dropped, the United We Ride initiative identified two programs that have been added, and the 2011 GAO study identified 18 additional programs which have been added to this inventory). * Aside from FTA programs, all others are restricted in the populations to be served, such as: persons at poverty or in low-income households (9 programs), youth and children (9 NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR HUMAN SERVICE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION INVENTORY OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES APPENDIX, PAGE 2 programs), clientele of specific public health programs (7 programs), persons with disabilities (6 programs), veterans (4 programs), elderly individuals (3 programs), Native Americans (3 programs), and adult job-seekers (3 programs). • Most of these programs are administered by states, with varying degrees of decision- making at local level. Some programs have planning structures that could, in theory, mesh with DOT statewide transportation planning (18 programs, not including DOT programs), and only 3 non-DOT programs have planning structures that could theoretically mesh with DOT metropolitan planning processes and DOT coordinated human services transportation plans. • Mobility management activities are at least theoretically allowable under 40 of these programs. • The establishment and provision of “one-call” coordinated service delivery is allowable under 34 of these programs. • Transit passes, vouchers, or other forms of fare payment are allowed uses of 35 of these programs’ federal funds. • Vehicles or other transit-related capital assets can be purchased with 18 of these programs’ federal funds. Agency & Program FY2010 Funding (& trans- portation amount, if known) Pri- mary Target Popu- lation Who are the main direct recipi- ents of Federal funds? Statewide and/or Metropol- itan (or equiv) Planning? Is Mobility Manage- ment Eligible? Can One- Call Services be Funded? Can Transit Fares/ Vouchers be Purch- ased? Can Vehicles be Purch- ased? U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service SNAP Employment and Training Program (formerly Food Stamp Employment and Training Program) http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/Sup port/employment-training.htm State nutrition agencies may receive grants from USDA to provide employment and training services for participants in their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as “Food Stamps”). Transportation services connected with participants’ job search, job training and job retention can be eligible uses of these funds, at a state’s discretion. $344m L States N N N N N Hunger-Free Communities http://www.fns.usda.gov/outreach/grants/hfc_gr ants.htm The Hunger-Free Communities grants are a one-time opportunity for funds aimed at helping communities increase food access by promoting coordination and partnerships between public, private and non-profit partners. $5m L Local entities N N Y Y Y USDA Rural Development Community Facilities Loans and Grants http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HCF_CF.html Community Facilities Programs provide loans and grants and loan guarantees for water and environmental projects, as well as community $490m (in lending authority) Other Local entities N N N N Y http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/Support/employment-training.htm http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Memo/Support/employment-training.htm http://www.fns.usda.gov/outreach/grants/hfc_grants.htm http://www.fns.usda.gov/outreach/grants/hfc_grants.htm http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HCF_CF.html NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR HUMAN SERVICE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION INVENTORY OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES APPENDIX, PAGE 2 programs), clientele of specific public health programs (7 programs), persons with disabilities (6 programs), veterans (4 programs), elderly individuals (3 programs), Native Americans (3 programs), and adult job-seekers (3 programs). Most of these programs are administered by states, with varying degrees of decision- making at local level. Some programs have planning structures that could, in theory, mesh with DOT statewide transportation planning (18 programs, not including DOT programs), and only 3 non-DOT programs have planning structures that could theoretically mesh with DOT metropolitan planning processes and DOT coordinated human services transportation plans. Mobility management activities are at least theoretically allowable under 40 of these programs The establishment and provision of “one-call” coordinated service delivery is allowable under 34 of these programs. Transit passes, vouchers, or other forms of fare payment are allowed uses of 35 of these programs” federal funds Vehicles or other transit-related capital assets can be purchased with 18 of these programs’ federal funds. “Agency & Program F010 | Prk] Whoare | Statewide | 1s Gan One- | Can Can Funding | mary | themain | andior | Mobifty | Call | Transit | Vehicles (Girans- | Target | direct | Metropol. | Manage- | Services | Fares/ | be portaion | Popu- | recip: | itan(or | ment | be Purch. amount | lation | ents of | equiv) | Eligible? | Fundea? sed? known) Federal | Planning? sed? funds? U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service ‘SNAP Employment and Training Program | $a44m JL | Stites | N N W N N {formety Food Stamp Employment and Training Program) Jes! potlemploymentraning him ‘Stat nton agencies may receive grants ‘fom USDA to provide employment and training series for partipansi heir Supplemental Nutrton Assistance Program ormery known 2a Food Stamps’). Transportation services ‘connected wih partcipans jb search job trinng and job retention canbe eligible uses ofthese fund, ata tales cscreton, Hunger-Free Communities. Sim fT W N Y Y Y him Ans. usta coviouteachiranshic ar entities anishim ‘The Hunger-Free Communities grants area ‘onesie opportuni for funds imed a helng communities increase food access by ‘promoting coordination and partnerships between publ, private and non-poft paners. USDA Rural Development ‘Community Faciiies Loans and Grants | $490m | Other | Local | N N N W Y usd go nt | tn entities ‘Community Facies Programs provide loans. | lending ‘and grants and loan guarantees for water and | authorty) environmental projects, as well as community NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR HUMAN SERVICE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION INVENTORY OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES APPENDIX, PAGE 3 Agency & Program FY2010 Funding (& trans- portation amount, if known) Pri- mary Target Popu- lation Who are the main direct recipi- ents of Federal funds? Statewide and/or Metropol- itan (or equiv) Planning? Is Mobility Manage- ment Eligible? Can One- Call Services be Funded? Can Transit Fares/ Vouchers be Purch- ased? Can Vehicles be Purch- ased? facilities projects. Community facilities projects develop essential community facilities for public use in rural areas and may include hospitals, fire protection, safety, as well as many other community-based initiatives, including rural transit facilities. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 21st Century Community Learning Centers http://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.ht ml This program supports the creation of community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non- school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools. The program helps students meet state and local student standards in core academic subjects, such as reading and math; offers students a broad array of enrichment activities that can complement their regular academic programs, including transportation services related to these activities; and offers literacy and other educational services to the families of participating children. $1.2b Y States N N N N N Office of Innovation and Improvement Voluntary Public School Choice http://www2.ed.gov/programs/choice/index.html This program supports efforts to establish or expand intradistrict, interdistrict, and open enrollment public school choice programs to provide parents, particularly parents whose children attend low-performing public schools, with expanded education options. Programs and projects assisted are required to use a portion of the grant funds to provide the students selected to participate in the program with transportation services, or the cost of transportation, to and from the public elementary schools and secondary schools, including charter schools, which the students choose to attend under the program. The nature of how funds may be spent on transportation services will hinge, in large part, on each state’s unique requirements concerning school bus transportation. $26m Y States, local entities N N N N N Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Special Education State Grants (Assistance for Education of All Children with Disabilities) Special Education Pre-School Grants Special Education Grants for Infants and Families http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep /programs.html The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) supports a comprehensive array of $11.5b Y States State N N N Y http://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/choice/index.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/programs.html http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/programs.html NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR HUMAN SERVICE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION INVENTORY OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES APPENDIX, PAGE 3 ‘Agency & Program F010] Pre] Whoare | Statewide | 1s Gan One- | Can Can Funding | mary | themain | andior | Mobifty | Call | Transit | Vehicles (Gitrans- | Target | direct | Metropok | Manage- | Services | Fares/ | be portation | Popu- | recip: | itan(or | ment | be Vouchers | Purch. ‘amount. | lation | ents of | equi) | Eligible? | Funded? | be Purch- | asea? known) Federal | Planning? ased? funds? ‘Boles rojeds.Cornmuniy aaesprojecs