USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Florida five-year transportation disadvantaged plan, 1992-1996

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Florida five-year transportation disadvantaged plan, 1992-1996
Physical Description:
viii, 88 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Florida -- Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
People with disabilities -- Transportation -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Paratransit services -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Older people -- Transportation -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 83-88).
Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and the Florida Dept. of Transportation by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"September 1990."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028467962
oclc - 747506163
usfldc doi - C01-00194
usfldc handle - c1.194
System ID:
SFS0032294:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 028467962
005 20110822183704.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110822s1990 fluab b s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00194
035
(OCoLC)747506163
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HV3023.F6
b F56 no.1 1990
0 245
Florida five-year transportation disadvantaged plan, 1992-1996.
n Technical memorandum no. 1,
p Introduction and historical perspective /
prepared for the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and the Florida Dept. of Transportation by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1990.
300
viii, 88 p. :
ill., maps ;
28 cm.
500
"September 1990."
5 FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. 83-88).
530
Also issued online.
FTS
650
People with disabilities
x Transportation
z Florida
Planning.
Paratransit services
Florida
Planning.
Older people
Transportation
Florida
Planning.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1
Florida.
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.194
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001909532;
FTS



PAGE 1

FLORIDA FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLAN 1992-1996 Technical Memorandum No. 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective Prepared for the Florida Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and the Florida Department of Transportation by the Center for Urban Transportation Resea'reh College of Engineering University of South Florida September 1990

PAGE 2

PREFACE This is the first of five technical memoranda to be produced by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) for the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and the Florida Department of Transportation. These memoranda, along with a final report, will comprise the Florida Five Year Transportation Disadvantaged Plan that is mandated by Chapter 427.013 (14), Florida Statutes. Technical Memorandum No. 1 provides an introduction and historical perspective to transportation disadvantaged services in Florida. Technical Memorandum No 2 will report on statewide operating data, on results of an attitudinal and needs survey, and on an evaluation of the existing transportation disadvantaged system in Florida. Technical Memorandum No. 3 will present demand forecasts for transportation disadvantaged transportation services over the next five years. Technical Memorandum No. 4 will provide estimates of the cost of meeting the demand and will explore the ability of current funding resources to meet that Technical Memorandum No. 5 will discuss policy issues, goals and objectives, and implementation strategies. The preparat i on of this report has been financed in part through a grant from the U.S. Department of Transponation, Urban Mass Tra n sportat ion Administration, under the Urban Mass T r ansponation Act of 1964, as amended. ii

PAGE 3

FLORIDA F'IVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLAN Technical Memorandum No. 1 Over the past 25 years, the U.S. government has pursued the deve lopment of public transportation that is accessible and usable by the elderly and handicapped. Through a variety of federal statutes and regulations in the areas of transportation and civil rights, great progress has been made in attaining this goal. Just recently, for example, Congress passed, and the President signed, a major piece of civil rights legislation --the Americans with Disabilities Act--which significantly extended the prohibition of discrimination against the handicapped. This type of legislation also has been pursued i n Florida. A number of studies were conducted and support was generated for the development of services for the elderly and handicapped. This led to the passage in 1979 of Florida Statute Chapter 427, Part I which addressed the needs of the transportation disadvantaged"'. In 1989 and 1990, this law was amended to expand the definition of the transportation disadvantaged population. Two major changes in the legislation in 1989 were the elevation of the Coordinating Council on the Transportation Disadvantaged to an independent commission (the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission) and the establishment of the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund. The legislation significantly increased the responsibilities of the 1D Commission and increased the involvement of the metropolitan planning organizations (or official planning agencies in non-urban areas) in the TD planning process. It also provided for the establishment of localiD coordinating boards in each designated service area to oversee and provide guidance to the local providers of TD services The 1989 and 1990 amendments provided the commission with its first dedicated sources of funds. These are a 50-cent surcharge on the registration o f automobiles and light trucks, a fifteen-percent share of the new public transi t block grant program, and $5 of the $15 fee for each temporary handicapped parking permit. These funds are expected to total $9 million in FY 1991 and are projected to increase to $12 million by FY 1996. This will ill

PAGE 4

be in addition to the federal, state, and local funds received from other social-service and transportation funding sources for 1D transportation services. I n 1989, the state's 1D coordinators reported that those sources of funds provided a total of $34 million, of which $13.6 million were federal, $7.6 million state, and $13.0 million local. Not included in these numbers are an unknown but possibly quite large number of 1D transportation dollars that are not channelled through the coordinated TO program. Reports received from the local1D coordinators suggest that there are continuing increases in the coordination of TO services in the state as well as in the reporting of 1D operations data. In 1985, 1D annual operating reports were submitted for 34 counties; by 1989 this had increased to 62 counties. These reports also s uggest continuing increases in the usage of 1D transportation services Over six mill ion passenger trips on specialized 1D transportation services were reported in 1989, compared with fewer than two million reported in 1985. AdditionallD trips were provided on fiXed-route transit services and on services that were not part of the coordinated 1D transportation system. The quality and quantity of local 1D operating data have increased considerably in recent years but there continue to be deficiencies in the data that make both longitudinal and cross-sectional comparisons of individuallD systems and of the coordinated system as a whole, difficult. Previous state-level 1D studies in Florida have identified these data deficiencies, along with the need for additional funding and the development of performance measures with which to evaluate 1D services, as major issues. Although several important issues need to be addressed further, a survey of other states conducted by t he Center for Urban Transportation Research suggests that Florida is in the forefront of addressing the issues involved in the delivery of TO transportation services and in meeting the needs of its transportation disadvantaged citizens . IV

PAGE 5

CONTENTS Preface 0 0 0 0 0 II Exe cu ti ve Su mm a ry 0 0 0 \ iii List of Figures 0 0 vii L..ist of T ables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii In troduction 0 0 1 l..egisJation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Federal Florida Progra m Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T ransportation Disadvantaged Commission Stat e A gencies . . . .. Offici a l P lanning Agencies Coo r dinating Boards C o mmuni ty Transportati o n Coord inators Transporta t ion Opera t ors ........... Previous Studies 0 0 Description of Studies D escription of I ssues Oth e r Reports . . S ervice Dellvecy 0 2 4 5 8 11 12 12 13 14 14 15 18 21 23 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Federal Funding Sources Stat e Funding Sources Local F unding Sources v 29 31 33

PAGE 6

CONTENTS (Cont.) National Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix A 1990 National Experiences Survey Summary . . . . . . . 41 Appendix B 1990 National Experiences Survey Respondent s . . . . . . 50 Appendix C Official P lanning Agencies and Community Transportation Coordinators for Each County . . . . . . . 57 Appendix D Chapter427, F lorida Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Appendix E Rule 41-2 Florida Administrative Code . . . . . . . . . 67 Lis t of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Glossacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 vi

PAGE 7

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 F igure 10 Figure 11 LIST OF FIGURES Primary administrative and funding interrelationships in Florida's 1D program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Membership and staffing of the 1D Commission . . . . . . 9 1988 estimates of overlapping 1D populations from previous five-year plan . . . . . . . . . 24 Florida total population, 1985-198 9 ...................... 24 Florida elderly population, 1985-1989 .................... 24 1D passenger trips 1985-1989 . ................... . 25 1D vehicle mi les, 1 985-1989 ........... ................ 25 1D operating expense, 1985-1989 . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1D fleet size, 1985-1989 .............................. 26 Percentage of 1D population in counties covered by MOAs and AORs, 1985-1989 . . . . . . . . 27 1D Trust Fund projections, 1991-1996 ................... 33 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Milestones in the Coordination of Florida TD Service, 1975 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 T able 2 TD Commission Key Date s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 3 Issues Identified in Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 4 TO Planning Requirement s in Florida . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 5 Number of Counties Covered by MOAs and AORs, 1 983-1989 ....................... 26 Table 6 TD Funding Sources and Amounts R eported in 1989 AO Rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 7 Comparison of TD Fundin g Amounts Reponed i n 1989 ABEs and AORs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 8 Federal TD Funding Sour ces and Amounts Reported in 1989 AORs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 9 Urban Mass Transportatio n Administration Grants . . . . . 30 Table 1 0 State TD F unding Sources and Amounts Reported in 1989 AORs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Table 11 Local TD Funding Sou rces and Amounts Reported in 1989 AOR s .... : . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 T able 12 Populations Included in State TD Definitions . . . . . . . 38 VlU

PAGE 9

FLORIDA FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLAN Technical Memorandum No. 1 INTRODUCTION In 1989 the state of Florida took another major step forward in meeting the mobility needs of its elderly, handicapped, and low-income citizens. The Coordinating Council on the Transportation Disadvantaged, created in 1979 as a unit of the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT), was elevated to an independent commission reporting directly to the Governor and the l egislature. The 1989 legislation that created the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission also provided it with a dedicated source of fundi ng. Additional sources of funding for the commission were provided during the 1990 legislative session. Included in the 1989legislation are mandates that substantially increase the role and responsibilities of the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Commission and increase the commission's ability to ensure that coordinated 1D transportation services are available throughout the state. The eligibility criteria also were changed so that significantly greater numbers of transportation disadvantaged persons are now eligible to use 1D transportation services. Florida's legislation defines transportation disadvantaged as ... those persons who because of physical or mental disability, income status, or age or who for other reasons are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, soc i al activities, or other life-sustaining activities, or children who are handicapped or high-risk or at-risk as defined in s. 411.202." The phrase "or who for other reasons" was added to the legislation in 1989. The phrase that begins "or children who are handicapped" was added in 1990. Income status and age requirements have not been explicitly stated but in practice it appears that anyone who falls be low the federally-defined poverty level or who is over 60 years of age meets the eligibility requirements. Reports filed by providers of 1D transportation services suggest that there have been steady increases over the past several years in the amount of 1D services provided and in their availability around the state According to the providers' reports, more than 6.2 1

PAGE 10

million 1D passenger trips were provided by specialized transportation services t hat were part of the coordinated transportation system in 1989. Additional 1D trips were provided on fixed-route transit services and on services that were not part of the coordinated transportation system. During the next few years, the number of 1D passenger trips could increase substantially due to continuing increases in the state's population, increases in the number of segments of the general population who are eligible to use 1D services, and increases in state funding for TD services. The statewide five-year 1D plan, which is one of the mandates of the new legislation, will project what the demand for TD services will be over the next five years and will compare the cost of meeting that demand with the projected availability of funds. The plan also will develop goals, objectives, and im plementation strategies for meeting the needs of t he transportation disadvantaged. This technical memorandum, the first of five that will form the basis of the five-year plan, provides an introduction to 1D services It presents a his tory of federal and state legisla tion rela ted to 1D services and describes the organization of the stat e 's 1D program. I t discusses previous 1D reports prepared for the state and the funding and delivery of 1D services in Florida. The results of a survey of 1D services in other states also are presented. A Jist of abbreviations and a glossary of terms used in the technical memorandum are provided following the appendices. LEGISLATION Federal The impetus for the d eve lopment of a fede.ral transportatio n policy for transportation disadvantaged individuals can be found in several pieces of legislation. The main policy direction has been from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA ) through its promulgation of regulations based on transportation and civil rights statutes. While federal policy is somewhat narr ower in scope than t he Florida legislation (since it applies to the elderly and handicapped but not other transportation disadvantaged persons), it has provided the basis and the impetus for Florida's adoption of 1D legislat ion. The major pieces of federal legis lation and their dates of enactment are: 2

PAGE 11

1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act 1973 Rehabilitation Act, Section 504 1983 Surface Transportation Assistance Act, Section 317(c) 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act Urban Mass Transportation Act. This act established the first federal agency, the Urban Mass Transportation Adntinistration (UMTA), concerned with the provision a nd funding of public transportation services. Section 16( a) of the act states that it is national policy that elderly and handicapped persons have equal ri g hts to use mass transportation facilities and services. Section 16(b )(2) provides for federal capital assistance to private nonprofit providers of elderly and handicapped services and encourages the coordination of such services. Section 18 provides for federal capital and operating assistance to non urban public transportation systems that serve, but are not lintited to, the elderly and handicapped. It also requires the coordination of non-urban t ransit systems. Section 5(m) requires that non-peak hour rates for elderly and handicapped persons be no more than one-half of regular peak-hour rates. The 1964 act has been amended to refe rence Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and to require that all recipients of federal mass transportation assistance meet the requirements of Section 504. Rehabilitation Act. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against handicapped persons in any program that receives federal financial assistance. In its implementing rule, UMTA allows urban transit systems to meet the r equ irement of Section 504 by providing either a special service for the handicapped or by making the regular service accessible to the handicapped or by some combination of the two. Non urban transit systems need only certify that special efforts are being made to serve the handicapped. Private nonprofit organizations that provide transportation services only to elderly and/or handicapped persons are not required to submit any special certification. Surface Transportation Assistance Act. Section 317(c) required UMTA to establish minlmum criteria for the provision of elderly and handicapped transportation services by recip ients of federal aid. It also established a cap on the amount of money an urban transit system could be required to spend to provide service specifically for the handicapped. The minimum criteria that UMTA subsequently established for special urban services for the handicapped include: 3

PAGE 12

1. Service must be provided within 24 hours of request. 2. No trip purpose may be given priority over another trip purpose. 3. Fares must be comparable to the fares for the regular service. 4. Service must be provided, at a minimum, during the same hours and within the same geographic area as the regular service. The comparability of special-service fares with regular bus service fares is determined on a case-by-case basis, but UMT A generally will accept as comparable a special-service fare that does not exceed two to three times the regular fare. It is important to note, however, that the fare comparability requi rement applies only to the fare paid by the passenger (i.e., non-sponsored trips). UMTA does not regulate the cost of sponsored trips charged to social-service agencies. Americans with Disabilities Act. This act requires that, over time, all public transportation systems be made fully accessible to the handicapped, including wheelchair users. The act applies to both public and private entities that provide transportation services to the general public. Among its provisions is that all new public transportation vehicles (rail cars, buses, vans, etc.) solicited for purchase or lease more than 30 days after the effective date of the act (July 26, 1990) must be accessible to the handicapped. All fiXed route systems also would be required to offer comparable para transit service to handicapped persons or, perhaps, to ensure its availability. The exact requirements of the act will be determined in rule-making proceedings during the next year. F]orida The major Florida legislatio n regarding the transportation disadvantaged is contained in Part I of Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes (see Appendix D). This legislation was enacted in 1979, amended in 1980, reenacted in 1984, amended and reenacted in 1989, and amended in 1990. The 1979 legislation created the Coordinating Council for the Transportation Disadvantaged in the Department of Transportation and gave it the responsibility to coordinate TD transportation services throughout the state. Although not defmed in the 1979 legislation coordina t ion was defined in the 1989 legislation as" ... the arrangement for the provision of transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged in a m a nner that is cost-effective, efficient, and reduces fragmentation and duplication of services." The 1980 amendment expanded the membership of the council and increased its responsibilities relative to the use of school buses in the provision of TD transportation services. 4

PAGE 13

The 1989 revisions of Chapter 427 elevated the council to an independent commission reporting directly to the Governor iilld the legislature. The commission was assigned to the Department of Transportation for administrative and fiscal accountability purposes. The legislation also established the TD Trust Fund, provided a dedicated funding source, and gave the commission authority to allocate monies from the trust fund. Through its implementing rule, Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code, (see Appendix E) the commission has, in part, made the allocation of trust fund monies among local TD coordinators a function of certain performance criteria. The trust fund monies, pursuant to Rule 41-2, PAC, may be used for administrative and planning activities and to subsidize TD trips that are not otherwise funded. Rule 41-2 also calls for the creation within each county of a local coordinating board whose purpose is to oversee the provision of TD services in that county Another significant change in the 1989 legis l ation was the expansion of the definition of transportation disadvantaged to in clude persons who for any reason are unable to purchase or provide their own transportation. The definition of transportation disadvantaged was expanded again in 1990 to include children who are "handicapped or high-risk or at-risk". Legislative and planning milestones in Florida TD coordination from 1975 to 1990 are shown in Table 1. The first report listed in Table 1, Part III of the proceedings of the Fourth Annual Transportation Disadvantaged Conference held in 1974, is devoted to the extensive discussions that occurred at that conference regarding the need for TD coordination in Florida. These discussions, in part, led to the joint agreement signed in 1975, which represents the first formal effort to coordinate TD services. The joint agreement was later replaced by Chapter 427, FS. The other reports listed in Tabl e 1 are discussed in a later section of this report. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION The principal participants in the delivery of TD services in Florida are the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission, government agencies, planning organizations, local coordinators transportation operators, and purchasers of service. The emphasis on coordination of TD services in Florida requires extensive interaction between these participants. The TD Commission is the basic forum for communication and cooperation among the participants 5

PAGE 14

TABLE 1. Maestones I n the Coordination of Florida TO Service, 1975. Year Governmenta l Actions 1975 HAS/FOOT Joint Agreement on TO Transportation 1979 FS Ctlapter 427 enacted 1980 FS 427 amended 1961 FAC Rule 41-1 adopted 1984 FS C h apter 427 reena.eted 1986 FAC Rul e 41-1 amended 1967 1989 FS Chapter 427 amendtd and reenacted 1990 FAC Rul e 41-2 adopted, FS Chapter 427 amended Ma;or ReportS or Studies "Toward a Unification of National and State Polley on the Transportation D isadvantaged: Part ttl the Florida {Ptoeeedlngs of tne Fourth Annual Co.U.renoe on the Tt&n"l'Ortation Disadvantaged.) "Publ'ic Transportation Coordination tor the Disadvantaged in Aorlda: "Aorida Sta1ewide Ave-Yea r Transit and Paratran8it Development Plan for the Transportation Disadvantaged." "Statewide Transi t NMds Plan Pha&e 1." (a) "Aorida Statewide Transit System Plan Development-Phase II." (b) Audit of the Transportation for the Oiudvantaged P rogtam of lhe Coordinating Council on the Transponat!on Disadvantaged and the Department of Transportation. (a) A Review of the Coordinating Cou n ci l on the Transportation Oisactvantaged I n the Department of Tran11ponatlon." (b) -A Program AnaiV$111 for the Coordinating Council on IM Ttan1!ponatlon Disadvantaged. The primary adm inis trative and funding interrelationships in Florida's 1D program are shown in Figure 1. Each of the major participants is des cribed in the sections that follow The 1D Commission is the state-level policy-setting board that is legislatively charged with the responsibility of accomplishing coord i nation. At the local level, the coordinating board is the primary policy group The community transportation coordinators (CTCs) administer the local 1D programs and provide and/or contract with others to provide the actual transportatio n services. Funds from the 1D Trust Fund administered by the 1D Commission are distributed to the OP As for planning purposes and to staff the local coordinating boards. 1D trust funds also are used to purchase nonsponsored 1D passenger trips from the CTCs Othe r funding is provided directly to the purchasers of transportation and the operators of transportation by various federal, state, and l ocal agencies. In some cases, the purchaser and operator are actually the same agency. 6

PAGE 15

Tra naportatlo n D n lt" ' Dlaadwantagad Commlaalon &ftd Vftd O Olflctal Pla nfllftCI AapoiUI Coordlna tlftCI Cotractl ........ Agancy ... ,., .,,. Board w AIIIMiftl o t utl.,. &IIIII c a l Aeee111 t a.attty to TDC COMmunity Tra n apor t a U on coordlaator t o ),.,,, PIIUCII& OIO TtaftOJI t htllft ... Other Fadaral Other 8tata Looal UMTA ' . FDOT Funding Fund I n o Fundlno OHHS TO Trut t Fund ,., .,L . DOL Ganar a l Ravanua Ot"ar Othe r T l alt"lca l Atahtaltaa ... .. ,., ... .. ,.. .... ' . Purohuan Operator TO Coram l uloa Tra n alt Aoanclaa HAS Other Publlo Other 8oolal Oparatore 8 arvloa Aganolaa Prlnta Nonprotlt lndlvldualt Prhata For-Profit ,., ...... Tr &fiiP!tlaiiOft H aftaporUtloe DIUdYata g a d P a r ton FIGURE 1. Primary adm inistrative a n d funding Interrelationships in Florida's T O program. 7

PAGE 16

trans!!Oitatjon Disadvantaeed Commissio n The Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (IDC) is an independent agency serving as the policy development and implementing agency for Florida's TD program Prior to bei ng elevated to a commission, the organization was called the Coordinating Council on the Transportation Disadvantaged and was funded a nd staffed by FOOT. The commission now has its own source of funds, the TD Trust Fund, and has an independent staff. The commission maintains its offices In the FOOT building in Tallah assee and the commission and FOOT staffs continue to work closely together. Administrative and fiscal accountab ility are provided for the commission by t he office of the Secretary of FOOT, which submits the commission's budget -as prepared by the commission --to the Govern or along with FDOT's budget. The commission s membership and staff organization are shown in F igure 2. The current staff consists of the executive director, two administrators, an administrative assistant, a part-time analyst, and a temporary word processor operator. The commissio n's membershi p is significantly different from the membership of the orig inal six -person coordina ting council. In 1979 the co uncil's membership was established to Include the secreta ries of the state departments of Transportation, Health and Rehabilitativ e Services, and Community Affairs, the president of the Florida Association for Community Action, a person over the age of 60 to represent the elderly, and a handicapped person to represent the handicapped. In 1980 the Commi ssioner of Education and a citizen advocate were added. In 1989 the membership of the commission was revised 10 eliminate the Department of Community Affairs, at DCA's request, and to add the secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment Security, the executive director of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, bo th a rural citizen advocate and an urban citizen advocate (in place of the singl e citizen advocate added in 1980), and a representative of the community transportation coordinators (the local TD coordinators). Fi ve of the commission members are appointed by the Governor for four-year terms. These are the repre sentatives of the elderly and the handicapped, the two citizen advocates, and the CTC representative. The o ther members have no ftxed term. The chairman of the o l d coo rdinating council was the Secr e tary of Transporta tion; the chairman and vice chairman of the commission now are elected annually by the members. The commission is required to meet at least quarterly and currently meets monthly. 8

PAGE 17

T R A NSPORTATION DI8ADW.NTAOED OOMMI8810N S o oret e r y o l DOT Proaldent o l Florid S ooret.ry o l HRS A uoolatlon for Counlty Action Comm i i iiOIIO f Of EchtOi tiOn A e pr u ontatho of Elderly CltlHnl 8torttlry ol D LES R e pr e untathe ot H endloappod Cltlz.tna -.eoutlvo Dlr eotor ol O'A R eprotontathe o f Rura l Cltl" n Ropro a a ntatlv. of CTCt R opreeentatlv t of Urbt n Cltlune Eocutlve Dlr ootor I Admlnlltr t tor of S e nior A4mlnltlttlor o t Pfannlna & Prog r a n u Admlnlatntlvo Flnonce & Aooounllng Attl t t ant A n alyat Word Prooe a a o r Operator (perttlmo ) ( t e mporary) FIGURE 2 Membershi p and ataffl n g of the TO Commiaa lon. Chapter 427, FS,lists 21 specific duties of the commission (se e Appendix D) Among these duties are: Compiling information on TO services and needs. Establishing statewide objectiv e s for TO services. Developing policies and procedures for the coordination of TO funding. Identifying and e liminating barriers t o coordination and accessibility of TO services. Serving as an information clearinghouse. Assistin g communities in develo ping TO systems. Developing performan ce sta ndards for TO services. Approving the appointment of community transporta t i on coordinators. 9

PAGE 18

Preparing a statewide five-year TD plan. Approving memoranda of agreement. Developing TD training programs. Designating an official planning agency in areas where there is no MPO. A major responsibility of the commission is to contract with local community transportation coordinat ors for the delivery of TD services. The contract between the commission and th e cres is referred to as a memorandum o f agreement (MOA). It is a one-year contract tha t in cludes: An operations plan explaining how the ere will provide service Estimates of the amount of service to be supplied. An organizational chart for the ere and any subcontractors. A vehicle inventory. A system finance plan. Fully-allocated operating cost per vehicle mile, per passenger trip, "nd per driver hour. Also included in t h e MOA are service agreements th a t e ach organization that purchases TD services wit h government funds must ma k e wit h t he ere. These agreements (referred to as "attachment l's") include: A description of the types of service needed and the anticipated frequency. Special conditions of service delivery needed. Reporting requirements. Methods of service de livery. Fares to be paid. Each ere is required to submit to the commission an annual operating repor t (AOR). The commiss i o n presents a summary and analysis of these AORs in its annual operating status report. The commission also prepares for the Governor, the President of the Senate, and th e Sp eaker of the House of R epresen t a t ive s an annual report that describes: The accomplishments of the commission during the preceding fiscal year. Operating statistics for TD services. 10

PAGE 19

Unmet 1D needs. The financial condition of the 1D Trust Fund. Some of the key dates and the correspondi ng activities during the commi ssion' s fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 TO. Commlsslon Key Dates. .-.ty 1 October 1 AnnuaJ operating reports by CTCa due to TOC. Annual repom by coordinating bollds dut to roc. Annual transit system data du t to CTCs by fix ed-route transit systems Semi-annual vehlcl &'tlailabit ity end oott data due 10 CTCs by local school bolrds. ..... .. doparlmlrlt$ due to roc. Annual budget estimates by and 10011 govemmen1 agencies dul to coordinating boatds. December 1 AnnuaJ budge1 estimate s by coordinating boards due to TOO. 15 TOC allocates TO Trusl Fund grants. January 1 Annut TO oomplianot plant by mtmbtt departments d ue 110 TOC. Mard\1 roc.,.,.,--. Api SO Son'Hnnualvehide ovOIIabo"lily lnd ccm dMa duo to CTCa by locol school bo ... ds. June 30 TDC ll&cal year eods. State Aeencies Althougb numerous state agencies are actively involved in the sta t e 1D program (e.g., the state departments of Education, Veterans' Affairs, and Labor and Employment Security), the depa rtments of Transportation and Health and Rehabilita tive Services have the largest role s. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the major purchaser of 1D services, purcha s in g approximately 60 percent o f total 1D trips provided in 1989. 11

PAGE 20

HRS currently assigns one person part-time to coord i nation of lD service in each of its eleven districts and one person part time in its central office. Chapter 427, FS, requires that HRS have at least one full-time lD position in each district and one full time lD position in the central office, but the department has not yet received the authorization or funding to do so. The lD Commission is assigned to the Department of Transportation for administrative and fisca l accountability purposes and FOOT continues to provide technical assistance and training programs for lD providers. The department has a person designated at each district office and in its central office to assist in the coordinat ion of lD services. The department also administers the UMTA grants used by lD providers. Official Plannlne Aencies In each of Florida s 67 c o unties an officia l planning agency has been designated by the lD Commission to assist in the planning of lD services. The officia l planning agency (OPA) is responsible for: Preparing a transportation improvement program that includes a TD element. Recommend i ng a commun ity transportation coordinator to the TDC. Appointing a lD coordinating board. Provid i ng staff support to the TD coordinating board. Preparing and submitting grant applications to the lDC. In urban areas the OPA is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO). In non urban areas, which have no MPO, the OPA is designated by the lD Commission. In 1990, MPOs were the OP As for 25 counties, regional planning councils were the OP As for 32 co u nties, county commissions were the OP As for 8 counties, a n d, i n one county, a city was named the OP A. At the time of this report, the OPA had not yet been designated for one county. A list of the official planning agencies and community transportation coordinators for each county is provided in Appendix C. Coordinatine Boards In each county a lD coordinating board is appointed by the OP A. The coordinating boards are required to meet at least q u arterly. Necessary staff support is provided, pursuant 12

PAGE 21

to Chapter 427.0157, FS, by the OPA. The boards' duties are described in Chapter 427, FS, and Rule 41-2, FAC (see Appendices D and E). Among the duties are: Approving the local MOA. Reviewing local funding applications. Compiling estimates of local TD funding. Approving subcontracts between the community transportation coordinator and transportation operators. Annually evaluating transportation operators Assisting and annually evaluating the community transportation coordinator. Preparing an annual r eport. The membership of the coordinating boards is very similar to that of the TD Commission and includes representatives from several agencies and user groups. Voting members include a chairman who is both an e l ected official and a member of the OPA; representatives from the departments of Transportation, Health and Rehabilitative Services, and Labor and Employment Security; and a representative of the pubiic education community. Voting members representing various user groups i nclude a veterans' representative a representative of the economically disadvantaged, a representative of the elderly, a representative of the handicapped, and two citizen advocates, one of whom must be a user of TD services. Nonvoting members may a lso be appointed to the boards, and Rule 41-2 specifically recommends that a public mass transit operator be appointed as a non-voting member. After initial appointments of one, two, or three years (to produce staggered terms), all members are appointed to three-year terms, except the chairman who serves at the pleasure of the OP A. Community Transportation Coord inators Based either on negotiations or a competitive proposal process, the OPA selectS a community transportation coordinator for recommendation to the 1D Commission, which has final approval. The ere is the perso n or organ i zation responsible for ensuring that 1D services are delivered to the transportation disadvantaged in each county The service area for which a ere is responsible is at a minimum, the entire county, and it can include more than one county. The ere also can be a transportation operator and actually provide TD transportation service, or the ere can contract out some or all of the 1D service to other transportation operators. All agencies and transportation operators that receive federal, state, or local government 1D funds are required to contract with the ere for 1D services. 13

PAGE 22

The duties of the ere include: Completing an MOA. Executing agreements to provide service for purchasing agencies. Executing contracts for service with transportation operators. Conducting annual reviews of transportation o perators. Reviewing local funding applications. Preparing and submitting grant applications to the TDC. Preparing an annual operating report The annual operating reports prepared by the eres are the primary source of data on the delivery of TD services in Florida and are the basis for the operating status report issued annually by the TD Commission Transportation Operators The actual providers of TD transportation are the transportation operators. Any public, private for-profit, or private nonprofit provider of TD transportation services under contract with a ere is considered a transportatio n operator. Any social-service agency that operates its own vehicles for the delivery of TD service is also considered a transportation operator if the vehicles are purchased or operated with feder al, state, or local government funds, and it must contract \vith the ere. The ere is itself a transportation operator if it provides--wh ich most of them do--some or all of the service in addition to brokering service delivery. In total, several hundred TD transpor.tation operators have been identified in the state. PREVIOUS STUDIES Since the passage of Chapter 427, FS, several state-level studies relating t o TD services have been conducted. The major studies were: 1981 Public Transportation Coordination for the Disadvantaged in Florida. 1984 Florida Statewide FiveYear Transit and Para transit Development Plan for the Transportation Disadvantaged. 1986 Statewide Transit Needs Plan Phase I. 1987a Florida Statewide Transit System Plan Development Phase ll. 14

PAGE 23

1987b P erformance Audi t of the Transportation for the Disad vantaged Program of the Coordinating Council for the Transportation D isadvantaged and the Depa rtmen t of T ransp ortati on. 1989a A R eview of the Coordinating Council on the Transportatio n Disadvantaged in th e D epart ment of Transportation. 1989b A Pro gram Analysis for the Coordinating Council on the Transpor tation Disad vantaged. Each of these studies is described below. FoUowing the description of the studies is a description of the major issues identified by the studies. Des criutjon of Studies Public Transporta tion Coord ination f o r the Disadva ntaged in Florida (1981). This study was conducted for the Coo rdinating Council on the Transportation Disadvan taged (CCTD) by an independent consultant. The purpose of the report was to provide overaU and initial guidance for the development of coordinated transportation disadvantaged service in the stat e of Florida. The report included an overview of the general development of coo rdinated service concepts and a d iscussion of the opera tional issues that affect the p rovision of coordinat ed TD service. Coordinati on objecti ves a nd strategie s were listed, as w ere measures to u se in tracing progress made. In addition, a guide for determining the needs of the disadvant aged within a county wa s presented. Issues identified in this rep ort include d : The existence of inaccurate cost perceptions. The need for specific strategies and objectives. The need for adequate billing and accounting procedures. The need for a commitm ent by local government o fficials. The need for fundin g for start up, plann ing and technical assistance. The need to collect operat ing data that would permit evaluati o n and monitoring of system operations The need for a common set of performance standards Statewide Five Y ea r Pla n for the Transportati o n Disadv antaged (1984). This study was co nducted for the Florida Department of Transportation by an independent consultant. The report discussed legislative origins, accompli s hm ents t o date, and th e direction the program was expect ed to t a ke during the nex t five years. In addition, a summary of transportati o n disadvantaged servi ces was present ed. Other important data included in the 15

PAGE 24

report wer e projections of eac h county's TO popula ti on and 1D trip demand. F unding projections were presented, and the current o f the program in terms of needs and avail able funds was discussed. The study defined a five-yea r transportation improveme nt program for the provi sion of coordinated transportation services in Florid a . It a l so dealt with policy issues rela ted to the development of the 1D p ro gram in the future. The major issues identified in this report were: The need for funding for start-up, pl a nning. and technical assistance. The need for technical assistance in the areas o f funding and financing. The need for consistent accounting, reporting, and opera tions practices. The non-com pliance in reporting due to l ac k of resources at th e local level. The need to perform prog r amming for se rvice growth and enh a ncem ent. The need to increase the invo l vement of the private sector. The need for a program to evaluate services. S tatewi d e Trans it Needs Plan Phase I ( 1986). This study was conducted for the Florida Departme nt of Transportation by an independent consultant. The report was a general plan for all transit in the state, including services espe cially f or t he transportation disadvantaged. The goals of agencies involved in providing service to the transportation disadvan t aged were analyzed to determine where conflicts exis t ed within and between agenci es As an example, goals to increase service often conflict with goals to reduce costs. The report also identified available data and methodologies that could be used to measure performance. Some examples of t hese were the percent of the TO population within a service area that receives 1D services, the percent of 1D user agencies being coordin ated by the coordinated community transportation provider (CCJP), and passenge rs per vehicle mile. These were field-tested to determin e their usefulness. Issues identified by the report included: The need for funding. The lack of accurate, consistent records. The need for private-sector involvement providing more cost-effective services. The lack of strong manag ement skills in coo r dination. The need for consistent accounting, reporting, and operations practices. The need to reduce cost of service to the operator and the rider. The need to develop goals and standard s 16

PAGE 25

Florida Statewide Transit Syste m P lan Developmen t Phase II (1987a). This study was conducted for the Florida Department of Transportation by an independent consultant. The report set forth a "Statewide Transit System Planning Framework" that was geared toward ensuring that the essentia l needs for mobility were satisfied. Only a portion of the entire siudy was dedicated to services for the transportation disadvantaged. Uke the Phase I study, it looked at all transit in Florida. The plan focused on the determination of statewide mobility needs and desired intermodallinkages. The report presented operating data for demand responsive systems, as well as operating trends in ridership revenue miles, fleet size, operating costs, and overall system performance. Issues identified included: The need to establish level of service standards. The need for studies to improve TD service. The lack of technical assistance. The lack of funding. The need for data collection to support planning and programming. The lack of private-sector participat i on. Perfonnance Audit of the TD Program (198 7b ). This study was conducted for the Florida Legislature by the Office of the Auditor General. The report was a performance audit of the state TD program, which included an assessment of how well th e program was meeting its goals of expanding the availability and reducing the costs of client transportation services. The program's design and management also were reviewed to identify any changes that would improve i ts ability to achieve those goals. As pan of the study, financial reports of the CCI'Ps were reviewed to determine the impact of the program on costs and service availability A survey was conducted to determine the program impact at the local level. The issues identified in this report were: The lack of consistent, accurate data. The lack of reduction in costs of providing TD services The lack of sufficient manpower resources at the district level. The need for performance indicators that measure the extent of coord i nation. The lack of funding. The lack of identification of TD expenditures by social service programs. 1 7

PAGE 26

A Review of the CCTD (198 9a). This study was conducted for th e Flori da Senate by the staff of the Senate Committ ee on Transportatio n The report was intended to assist the legis lature in determining whether Chapter 4 27, FS should be reenacted, revised, or repealed The study recommend e d that Chapt e r 427 be amende d and reenacted. The study a lso foun d that the council n eeded to add ress particula r res ponsibilit ies that had n o t yet been dealt with. Issues identified in c luded: The need fo r local plannin g t o be perfo rmed as required by Rule 41-1. The need for trans porta tion costs to be a specific line item in each program budget. A Program Analysts f o r the CCTD ( 1989 b ). This s tudy wa s conducted for the Coordinating Council on the Trans portation Disadvantaged by an independent consultan t. The study reported the extent to w hich the objectives of Chapter 427, FS, had been achieved, as de termine d by interviews with FDOT staff, HRS staff, CCTD staff, and CCTD members It also iden tified the problems, i ssues and con cerns expres sed by those working with the program including users, operators, and othe rs. Recommendations on how to improve the legislation were presented. Issues raised wit hin this report included: The lack of funding for start-up, planning, and techni cal ass ista nce. The need for establi shment of service standa rds. The lack of sufficient manpower resources at the HRS and FDOT district levels. The need fo r involvement of local gove rnment . The lac k of an adequate data ba se. Desc:riotion or I ssues The is sues identified in the above repor ts are grouped into general area s an d summarized in T able 3. Many of the issues continued to surface over time Planning. In 1 981, t h e concern abou t planning was that there was a n eed to have specific strategies and obj ectives. By 1984 the issu e was about th e need to perform programming for servi ce growth and enh anceme nt. This issue had not been resolved by 1986, when that study stated that there was a n ee d t o develo p goa ls and standards. A smaller portion of the issue wa s targ eted in the 1987a report, where th e need for studi es to improve TD servi ce was presented. Whe n the CCTD was reviewed in the 1 989a rep ort, the study con clu ded that local planning, as required by R ule 41-1, was not being performed . 18

PAGE 27

Planning at the sta te level has been an ongoing concern an d activity of the lD Commis sion, and the recen t r e visions of Chapte r 427, FS, and Rul e 41, FAC. st rengthe n considerably the requirements for local planning. TABLE 3 Issues Identified In Pr8111ous Studies. Ytlt of Study ld0<111fled 1981 1984 1986 19871 1967b 1989& 19891> Planning I I I I I Accoun1JngPI'oetdum I I I "-'-l'lw!Yom<11'11 I I FUnding I I I I I I Technical Assistance I I I I 0.10 Collte1lon I I I ( ( ( Private Soc1or inYo!Yomtn1 I I I Econctnk:l of Coo --AiJdit allho Trlntj>Of1ll11on I lho llioadYantJGOd "'ovram ol the CooCf\&11on 1geg, A ANew of the Coordinating Council for the Transpottttion Clsadva ntaged in the OtPIInmen t of Transportation 1969b A Program Analysis of the Cootdlnat lng Council f th Tt1na.ponaUon Disadvantaged A cco un t in g Procedures The accountin g procedures issue was first presented in the 1981 report, which was written at the beginning of Florida's coordination process. It addressed the need for adeq ua t e billing and account ing pro cedures. Later, this issue became a concern about the lack of uniform procedures among tho se involve d in lD services (as discussed in the 1984 and 1986 studies). Subsequently, the Commission adopted the Rural Tran.sponation AccounJing manua l for use in the lD program and has included in its FY 1992 budget req uest the development o f a uniform accounting system. Local Government Involv eme nt. The issue of local government involvement has appeared in two of the reports. In 1981, the report expressed a need for a commitm ent of 19

PAGE 28

local government officials to the coordin a tion process. The issue does not appear again until early in 1989, when the study stated that there was a need for local government involvement in the TD program. This issue was addressed when Chapter 427, FS, was revised in 1989 to add "local government" to several sections and when Rule 41, FAC. was revised in 1990 to increase the role o f local planning agencies and to provide funds for local TD planning activities. Fundin g. Funding has been an issue since the beginning of the TD program in Florida. Almost every report addresses it. The need for funding for start-up, planning and technical assistance was first noted in the 1981 report. This was expressed again in the 1984 report, as well as in the 1989b report. An explicit need for funding was an issue in the reports of 1986, 1987a; and 1987b. The lack of funding was also direct.ly responsible for several other issues raised, including non-compliance in reporting due to a lack of resources at the l ocal level (1984) and insufficient manpower resources at the district levels (1987b and 1989b). Funding was addressed to some extent in the legis lative changes of 1989 and 1990. In 1989, a TD Trust Fund was established, funded by a 50-cent auto license fee. In 1990, a public transit block grant was established, with fifteen percent o f it specifically earmarked for the TD Trust Fund, and a portion of the fee for temporary handicapped parking permits also was allocated to the trust fund. Technical Assistance. Another issue closely related to funding is technical assistance. The fact that funding was needed to provide technica l assistance was mentioned in the 1981, 1984, and 1989b reports. The 1984 report concluded that there existed a need for technical assista nce in the areas of funding and financing. The 1986 study reported that there was a lack of strong management skills in coordina tion, thus suggesting assistance was needed in that area. The 1987a study also stated that technical assistance was needed. Data Co ll ection. Like funding. data collection has been a constant problem. This is partly due to a lack of bot h funding and manpower necessary for the data collection required (as discussed in the 1984 report). This issue was first identified in the 1981 report, which stated that there was a need to collect operating data that would permit evaluat ion and monitoring of system operations. This evolved into the issue of a lack of accurate, consistent records in the 1986 and 1987b reports. In the 1987a report, the issue was the need for data collection to support planning and programming. In the 1989b report, the lack of data on TD service operations was identified, as well as the Jack of an adequate data base. As one response to these concerns, the commission has made report compliance a 20

PAGE 29

requirement for certain funding. Service Standards. Another consistently identified issue is in the area of service stand ards. In 1981, as the coordin ation process was being developed. the report establis hed a need for a common set of performance standards. By 1984, this was still an issue, as evident from the expressed need for a program to evaluate services. This need to establish service standards was addressed yet again in the 1987a and 1989b reports. The 1987b report cited the need fo r performance standards that would measure the extent of coordination. The ID Commission bas begun to address this issue by developing some performance measures and by making the distribution of some ID funds a function of service performance. Private Sector Inv olve m ent. The issue concerning the private sector was identified in the 1984, 1986, and 1987a reports. These reports recommended finding new methods to get the private sector involved in the coordination process. These recommendations were based on the belief that private-sector involvement would increase the cos t -effectiveness of ID services Economics of Coordination. The economics of coordination was addressed in the 1981, 1986, 1987b, and 1989a reports. The 1981 report stated that people had inaccurate cost perceptions about the coordination of 1D services. It also stated that, while most programs have a goal of decreasing costs with the coordination of services, in actuality, costs do not decrease. Nevertheless, later studies raised issues related to reducing the cost of service to the operator and rider (1986) and the lack of reduction in costs o f providing 1D services (1987b). The 1989a report discussed the need to have transportation costs as a specific line item in each social-service program budget, suggesting that the true transportation cost of social -service p rograms may not be readily identifiable This need also was mentioned in the 1987b report. Othe r Reports In addition to the statewide studies, reports for specific areas in Florida are completed by the agencies involved in planning and providing transportation for the disadvant aged. Metrop olitan planni ng organizations and local urban transit agencies are required to prepare planning documents related to local ID services. The urban transit agencie s are required by UMT A to submit plans that specify how they will meet the needs 21

PAGE 30

of the elderly and hand icapped, as required by Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act. MPOs must annually complete unified p l anning work programs (UPWPs). These reports specify the TD planning activities in which the MPO will be involved and include a statement of the amount of funds budg e t e d for TD planning. Another report that the MPOs are responsible for preparing is the transportation improvement p r ogram (TIP). This report lists the sources and amounts of TD fu nds expected to be received during the next year for planning, operations, and capital purchases, and shows how they are budgeted for expenditure. Rule 41-1 also required that the local planning organizations and the regional planning councils prepare and annually update local TO plans. The 1989a review of the CCTD state d that these local and r eg i onal agencies, as well as the MPOs, had not performed the level of planning as required by the rule because o f inadequate funding. This issue has been addressed, at least partially, by the funding component of the revised legislation and by Rule 412, which specifically earmarks funds for planning. Although only 11 of Florida's 21 MPOs included the required TD element in their FY 1990 TIPs (FY 1991 TIPs were not available at the time of this report), 19 of the 21 included a TD planning task in their FY 1991 UPWPs Local areas also are expressing interest in developing more comprehensive local TD plans. Current planning requirements a r e shown in Table 4. Table 4 TO Planning Requirements in Florida Community Tranopc>Nilon Coo
PAGE 31

SERVICE DELIVERY Specialized transportation services for transportation disadvantaged persons often are referred to as paratransit or demand-responsive services. These serviees provide origin-to destination service on demand. The service usually is curb-to-curb but can be portal-to portal for those requiring assistance from their house to the vehicle. Paratransit services are provided with a variety .of vehicles, including automobiles, taxicabs, vans, and mini-buses. Medicabs, which can transport stretch er-bou nd persons, are usually available for those with more serious mobility li mitatio ns. In addition, the Joint Use School Bus Program has led to the use of school buses for transportation of 1D persons when the buses are not in use transporting students. These 1D paratransit serviees are provide d by a wide range of public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit agencies. Many of these agencies provide service with only one or two vehicles, while some have more than a hundred. Important providers include associations of retarded citizens, council s on aging, senior citi zens groups, service organizations affiliated with various r eli gions, public mass transit agencies, mental health centers, and many others. Fourteen of Florida's eighteen urban transit systems operate paratransit services in addition to their regular bus service. In FY 1989, over six million TD passenger trips were made on these paratransit services in Florida. In addition, a significant but undocumented number of trips were made by TD persons on regular fixed-route bus and rail transit services. These TD trips include medical trips, work trips, trips to social -service programs such as adult day care and congregate dining, shopping trips, and numerous others. The previ ous five-year plan projected that the 1988 Florida populati on of elderly handicapped, and low-income persons would total approximately 4.4 million. Figure 3 illustrates the extent to which persons fall into more than one of these groups. Approximately 100,000 of these persons a r e members of all three groups. Florida's estimated total population and elderly population for 1985 through 1989, shown in Figures 4 and 5, are both somewhat larger than the previous plan projected. (The previous plan did not project beyond 1988.) These differences reflect revised estimates from the Bureau of E cono mic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. 23

PAGE 32

r-.y 2.6 M illion FIGURE 3. 1988 est ima tea o l cwerl&pping TD populations f rom previou s li..e-yelt plan (millions) . umon ,. ---------1 ------------------------. ---. ------ 1------------------. ;-----------,. .. ... .... ... ,. .. FIO U R E 4 Flor i da total population, N B if-1989. M lll'ol\ . .;::::::::::::.... ________________________________ -, 3.0 ----, .. ---. ... ----------..... _, ______ __ .... .. ___ ----------------... --....... -----0 0 .... .... ,. .. ,. .. FIGURE 6. F l orida elderly population, 1e86-1989. 24

PAGE 33

F igures 6 through 9 compare actual semce delivery for 1 9 85 thro ugh 1989 as reported in the annual TO operating repons to projections from the previou s five-year plan for the years 1985 to 1988. The projections from the previous plan are adjusted to includ e only those counties covered by annual operating reports, so that the compari sons are for the same counties. These graphs reveal that actual service delivery wa s l ess than the projec t i ons To some extent, this i s probab ly due to a lack of sufficient fundi ng to meet all of the demand, although in the case of passenger trips, the difference between projected and actual is due primarily to the inclusion of regula r transit trips in the projections of TO trips for one or more counties. (The previous plan projections in Tables 6 t hrough 9 are for "sponso red TO service only The annual ope. rating reports do not distinguish between sponsore d and nonspon sored service, but the amount of non sponsored service reported in the AORs is quite small and does not significantly distort the comparisons.) WIIIIOM .. .-/"' -. 12 10 / ./ -------------- --------" .. 0 .... -.. ., ... F IGUR E 8. TO paaaenger triJ, 19 81>-1989 ----,. .. / --....-/ .. .. ./ --/ -.. 10 ,.. ---------0 .... .... ./ / -----..., tilt FIGURE 7 TO vehicle miles 1986-111811. 25 --.. ----....

PAGE 34

wut .. n or 001 40 -... ------.. 10 -::::::. . -.=::. ____ -.. FIGURE 8. TO operating expenoe, 1985. Hlfll'lbr ol Vehlcl .. 1000 ... ::7": .. :::: __ ----... ... ---------- -1H7 .... .... FIGURE II. TO fleet 1985. An indication of the increase d panicipation around the state in th e coordinated 1D program is the increasing number of counties that have signed memorand a of agreement and submitted annual operating reports. As shown in Table 5, the number of counties covered by MOAs has increased from 34 in 1983 to 62 in 1989. Annual reports were filed for 62 counties in 1989, compared with 8 in 1983. TABLE 5. Number ol Counties Covered by MOAs and AORs, 1983-1969. Mtmoranda ot .AQreement Annual Opatatlng Atportt not available 1983 34 8 1984 26 47 34 S2 40 1987 58 49

PAGE 35

Figure 10 shows the percent of the s t ate 's TD popul ati on residing in counties covered by MOAs and AORs from 1985 to 1989. (Al though TO po pul ation estim a tes are not available for 1989, it is assumed that the percentage distribution among the counties did not change fr om 1988 to 1989. ) FUNDING ... t=r ---""1 -----------.... -.. ---20 .. --.. -- . .... ... .... .. .. FIGURE 10. Percentage of TO population I n countlaa covered by MOAs and AORa, 1985-1989 There are a number of funding sources at th e federal, state, and local levels available to operators and agencies who provide TD services. These sources and the amounts (unaudit ed) of capital and operating fund s reported for 1989 by the TO provi ders in Florida are su mmarized in Tab le 6. M ore detail for each of th e three fund ing levels i s shown in subseq uent tables Federal and local sour ces each provided about $13 million in 1989, compar ed with $7.6 million provided by the state. At both the federal and state lev els, the bulk of funds came from social-service agencies, in particular the U .S. Departm ent of H ealth and H uman Services (DHH S) and the Florida Depar tm ent of Heal th and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) I n addition to the annual operating rep orts, TO funding data are available in the annual budget estimates ( ABEs ) prepared by various fe deral and state government departments. The ABEs contain the estimated amounts that these departments expect to spend during the co ming year on 1D transportation throu g h o ut the stat e. The estim ates do not inclu de p rojected local government spending. The AORs, on the other hand contain

PAGE 36

TABLE 6 TD Funding Sources and Amounts Reported In 1989 AORs. Amount o f F u ndin g fiMlding Source Total Fedttal State local Department of Transpoctation $ 2 795,000 $ 308.000 $ 1 .179.000. $ 4 282,000 Departrnonl$ of HHS and HRS 9,733,000 6,079 000 0 15.812,000 Oep&nmnentofEducation 0 141,000 0 141 ,000 Dep&ttment of Community Affairs 0 508, 000 0 508,000 Oepattmnt of Ubor 35,000 543.000 0 S7S,OOO ACTION I'Yognoms 95,000 0 0 95.000 Other Ftdml Programs 905 ,000 0 0 905.000 Non-contract Revenue 0 0 1 ,874,000 1,874,000 Local Government Revenue 0 0 7,747 ,000 7,747,000 Other General Revenue 0 0 2 167,000 2,167,000 Toi.AI Funding $ 13, 563,000 $7,579,000 $ 12,967,000 $ 34,109,000 local match tor DOT funds Source: 1989 Annual Operating Reports the actual amounts spent by federal, state, and local governments on 1D transportation services that are provided through the community transportation coordinators. The ABE and AOR amounts are shown in T able 7. TABLE 7. Comparison o1 TD Fund ing Amounts Reported in 1989 ABEs and AORs. .Agency AtlnuaiBUdget Annual Operating Peroen t Estimate Report AOR ia of ABE Departmen t of Transpoc1a11on $12,553,000 $4,:2S2,000 34.1 Depanme nts of HHS snd HRS 32, 765 ,000 15,S12 ,000 4&3 Department of Education 1 443,000 14 1 ,000 9 8 Department of Community Affairs 601,000 508,000 84.S Department of Labor 2,034 ,000 578,000 28.5 ACllON Programs 857,000 95,000 11.1 Total $50 253.000 $21,416.000 42.6% The actual statewide amounts spent on 1D services could, of course, be Jes s than or greater than t he ABEs, and, as shown in Table 5, AORs are not submitted for all counties 28

PAGE 37

Also, as noted earlier, the quality of reported data has been an ongoing concern. Therefore, comparisons of ABE and AOR amounts should be viewed very cautiously Nonetheless, the f igur es in Table 7 are suggestive t hat subs t antially more dollars are being spent on 1D transportat ion in the state than are being reported in the AORs Fe d e ral Fnndinl! S o urces The various sources of federaliD funds are shown in Table 8. The federal M edica i d Program and the Older Americans Act account for over half of all federa l 1D funds reported in the annual ope r ating r eports. TABLE e. Federal TO Funding S o urces and Amounts Reported In 1989 AORs. Fundi n g Source Amount of Fun di n g I Percent o f Total Department of TraMponallon (UMTA) Section 3 $ 1S9,000 1.2 Soetion 9/9A 395,000 2.9 Section 18 1 ,427,000 10.5 Soetion 16(0)(2) 545,000 4 0 SeMee Oevaiot:lment 269,000 2.0 Department of Heahh and Human Servicea Chlldten's Medk:al Services 28,000 0.2 Developmental Sef'Yioea 1 542,000 11. 4 Economi c Services (WIN, ate.) 32,000 0 2 O l det Americans (Trtle Ill) 4 331,000 31.9 Medicaid 3 ,748,000 27.6 Head Start 44,000 0.3 D isability Determination 8.000 0.1 ACTlON Programs RSVP 56,000 0.4 Fome r Grandparent& 22,000 0 2 Oth ACTroN Programs 15 ,000 0.1 Dopanment of Labor J TPA 35,000 0 3 Other Federal Programs 905 ,000 6 7 Total Fedet"al Funding $ 13,563 ,000 100.0.,. Sour<:$: 1969 Annual Operating Reports 29

PAGE 38

From the federal level, funds flow both directly to transportation providers and indirectly to them through state agencies. Some of the U.S. DOT funds, for example, flow through FOOT, while some go directly to the operators. Another distinction that can be made among funding programs is that some funds, such as the U.S. DOT funds, are restricted to transportation uses, while other funds are granted for social-service programs and are used to cover all of the various costs of providing the social services, including any necessary transportation costs. Transportation Programs. The grants that are restricted to transportation uses are described in Table 9. Section 3 grants are for discretionary capital grants and loans. Section 9 grants may be used in urban areas to provide both TD services and regular transit services Section 16(b )(2) funds may be used in both urban and rural areas but may be used only for TD services. Section 18 funds are for rural transit services that are available to the general public, although in practice the users of the services are primarily the transportation disadvantaged. TABLE 9. Urban Mass Transportation Administration Grants. lYPE RECIPIENT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $ectlon 3 Urban Transit Oiacretlonary Cepital Grants and Up to 75% of project cost Sy$1ems Loans Section 9 Urban Transit Capital and Operating Aa&i&tanoe Up to SO% of capital costs Systems Formula Grants and 50% of operating costa Secllon 16(b)(2) Private Non-Planning and l:lr&sign of Mass 80% of capital costs Profit Systems Transportation Facilities Dl Purchase o f Vehicles to Meet Special Needs of 11>e Eldelly end Handl""'>l'e
PAGE 39

provides or reimburses the costs of work and medical trips for program participants. Another example is the Head Start Program, which provides transportation for preschool-aged children who are educationally disadvantaged so that they can receive a variety of social services, including health, education, and nutrition. The Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 is the legislative source for the funding provided through the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) and the Foster Grandparent Program. These programs reimburse transportation expenses incurred by retired persons who volunteer their services to serve other elderly who are in need of assistance, or to serve children in need of a grandparent's guidance. The U.S. Department of Labor provides Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) funds through block grants to the states. The grants are intended to benefit economically disadvantaged persons by providing training and other services. Transportation to and from the training sessions is a key part of the program. The funds provided under the Older Americans Act are distributed according to each state's proportion of persons aged 60 years and over. The amount of local matching funds required varies according to which grant is applied for and may be in the form of cash or in-kind donations. The purpose of these grants is to provide a variety of programs for elderly persons and transportation to those programs. Another federal funding source used by the transportation disadvantaged service programs is the Social Security Act In particular, those grants provided by Title XIX and Title XX are relied upon most often. Title XIX is the Medical Assistance Program (or Medicaid), which provides transportation for low-income persons requiring medical assistance. For the most part, the program will reimburse states for medically necessary transportation of individual recipients. Title XX is also known as the Social Services Block Grant Its objective is to provide funds for social services (e.g., day care, protective services, employment services). Transportation that allows the recipients to participate in the services offered is also funded through the grants. State Fundine Sources The various sources of state 1D funds are shown in Table 10. The largest source of state funding reported in the annual operating reports is the Department of Health and 31

PAGE 40

Rehabilitative Services (HRS) which provides over 80 percent of total reported state funds The Medicaid Program was by far the largest single source of state 1D funds in 1989. TABLE tO. State TO Funding Sources and Amounts Reported In 1989 AORs. Funding Souf'Ce Aorida Dtpattment of Transpot'UIItion State matc h for Sec:tlon 3 State match for Sedlon 9/9A Stale match for Sectio n 1 8 Othe r Dep artment of Healt h and Atht.biliWNo Sotv'ioet Aging & AduH Programs Alcohol /Drug Abuse/Mental Health Children's MediCal Sotvico (Match) ChlldrenjYout hjFamily OevekJpmentaJ Services {Match) Economio Sef\liots (WIN.etc.) (Match} Health, ln.stitutions/State Hos-pital s Medicaid O!Mr Department of EducatiOn Blin d S.rv iefl Other Department of Community Affairs Community Setviots Trust Fund CommUflity SerAoes Block Grant Department of Labor Vocation Rehabi litation Other TO Ttust Fund Total State Funding Trust Fund d istribution began in FY 1991 Source: 1989 Mnual Operating Repons .32 Nnount or Funding Ptreent of Total $ 49.000 0. 6 26,000 0.3 69.000 0.9 164 000 2.2 1 .587 000 20,9 223,000 2 9 15(1, 000 2.1 18,000 0.2 703,000 9.3 32,000 0.4 16, 000 0.2 3.044 000 40.2 300,000 4.0 37 000 o.s 104,000 1 4 10,000 0.1 498,000 6.6 2 1 4,000 2.8 329,000 4.3 $7,579 000 100 .0'1'.

PAGE 41

A major source of state 1D funds in the future will be the 1D Trust Fund established in 1989. The trust fund is administered by the 1D Commission and is funded primarily by a 50-cent fee on the registration of automobiles and small trucks and by a fifteen-percent share of the state public transit block grant. The trust fund also receives $5 of each $15 temporary handicapped parking permit. As shown in Figure 11,. these funds are expected to increase from a total of $9 million in FY 1991 to $12 million in FY 1996. The 1991 total is distorted somewhat because it is the start-up year for trust fund appropriations and includes 21 months' worth of tag fee money. Likewise, the FY 1992 total is distorted slightly because it includes 21 months' worth of parking permit money. 12 10 8 e 4 2 0 1991 1992 1993 1995 1998 -Parking Permlta -Tag Feea tB Block Grant FIGURE 11. TO Trust Fund projections, 1991-1998. Local Fundin& Sources The various sources of local 1D funds reported in the annua l operating reports are shown in Table 11. Most local funds do not stem from the matching of federal dollars or the providing of specific social-service programs. Local funds result primarily from county commitments to subsidize locallD services. Beginning in FY 1991 additional local dollars will result from the requirement that 1D Trust Fund grants to the OP As and CfCs must have a 25 percent local match, one-half of which must be in cash. 33

PAGE 42

TABLE 11. Local TO Funding Sources and Amounts Repofled In 1989 AORs. I Funding Soutce Amount of Funding Percent ot Total Local match tor OOT $ 1 1 79 ,000 9.1 LOcal Government Aevenue Coumy Cash 7,100,000 54.8 County In-Kind 200,000 1.5 City C.sh 341,000 2.8 City in-Kind 31,000 0.2 Oth&l Cash $7,(#) 0.4 Other fn Kind 18,000 0.1 Other Gtntt'al Revenue As&ociation of Retarded Citizens 344,000 2.7 Councils on Aging 195,000 1.S Hospitals/Cimk::s 5,000 Individuals 21,000 0.2 United way 58,000 0.4 Sc:hoob/Uni'Versltles 211,000 1 .6 Other General Ae!o'&nue 1,333 ,000 10.3 Non-Contract Revenue Fares 651, 000 5.0 Sclloot eus 107,000 0.8 Chaner 63,000 o s Nor.-Transpottatlon 38,000 0.3 Donated 534,000 4.1 In-Kind 258.000 2.0 Other Non-Contract Revenue 225,000 1.7 Local match for TO Trust Fuod .. .. Total local Fund ing $ 12,967, 000 100.0% *less than 0.1% began W1 FY 1991 Source: 1989 Annual Ope!'ating Report$ 34

PAGE 43

NATIONAL EXPERIENCES In May of 1990, the Center for Urban Transportation Research conducted a telephone survey of all states regarding their programs for the transportation disadvantaged to determine where each state stood in terms of coordinating transportation for the disadvantaged. I n addition, information concerning coordination legislation interagency committees, and state-level provision of technical assistance was collected. This information was used to expand and update the 1981 Social Services Research Institute report which p r eviously had been updated in 1986 by the Council of State Governments and again in 1988 by Carter Goble Associates (in conjunction with the Region IV Transportation Consortium). The surveys took an average of f i fteen to twenty minutes to comp lete. Most of the respondents were from state departments of transportation and were involved in their state's 16(b )(2) program. Some respondents were from other state agencies or planning councils All were very receptive to the survey and interested in l earning what was occurr ing in the other states Questions were asked to ascertain the extent to which innovative or unique funding, marketing, or service delivery approac hes existed within each state. Other information gathered included 1D studies performed during the past five years, which states have statewide purchasing pools for vehicles or insurance, and what type of data collection is done statewide. The results of the 'National Experiences Survey" are discussed in the following sections. This discussion highlights various states' approaches to o r concerns with coordination, rider eligibility, and marketing for transportation disadvantaged services. A summary of the findings for all 50 sta t es can be found in Appendix A Appendix B lists the survey respondents Coordina tio n Fourteen sta tes, including Florida, have a statewide coo r dinated transportation disadvantaged program. In eleven of these states there have been state level mandates for coordination, while in three of them (Hawaii, Kansas, and Nevada) statewide coordination has occurred as a result of actions ta k en at the local level. The fourteen states are: .35

PAGE 44

Florida Hawaii Kansas Maine Michigan Mississippi Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Wyoming For other states, such as Oregon, Montana; and South Caroli na, there is a statewide program that coordinates only the Section 16(b )(2) participants. Some states, such as Idaho and Alabama, actively foster and encourage coordination but leave program implementation to the counties. Only in the three states previously mentioned (Hawaii, Kansas, and Nevada) has this "bottom up'' approach resulted in statewide coordination. The remaining states coordinate to varied degrees at regional or local levels. A major benefit experienced by the states that coordinate transportation for the disadvantaged has been t he reduction in the duplication of services that previously existed. In Maine, for example, one city had 26 agencies providing transportation disadvantaged services before the services were coordinated. In Idaho, coordination reduced the number of vehicles that were sitting idle. This is also true for Minnesota, West Virginia, and other states, where coordinated use of vehicles in the communities has Jed to a reduction in the duplication of serv ices for the transportation disadvantaged. Some states, however, indicated that the coordination process resulted in higher costs, o r at least did not decrease the costs of providing services for the disadvantaged. According to a California study, it is difficult to justify the coordination of social-service transportation based solely on the objective of cost savings. That study showed that while increased service levels and improved reliability resulted from coordination, costs did not decline. One reason that might explain this is the general inc rease in costs that all operators are facing due to rising insurance premiums and other cau ses not related to coordination. Other reasons may have to do with increases in the quality of the TD services that are provided. It also has been suggested that the differences in accounting for transportation costs by some social, se rvice agencies and by coordinated TD systems (e.g., net unsubsidized cost versus fullyallocated cost) m ay g ive the appearance of cost increases when, in fact, costs have actually declined. Several states reported barriers to the coordination process. One difficulty mention e d is that of gaining the coop eration of the various agencies involved in ID services One reason for this is that the agencies want to provide their own services. Another is that 36

PAGE 45

they do not want to share their vehicles. Some agencies feel that their clients would no longer receive priority treatment if services were consolidated; thus, they would prefer that their vehicle sit idle in case a client needs service on short notice. The coordination of TD transporta tion between service areas appears to be an issue throughout the United States. Some states have come up with solutions, and others are still seeking them. In Missouri, two transportation systems were formed, one with a service area of 23 counties and one with 87 counties. South Dakota also has regional providers, as does Texas. As a condition of funding, Vermont requires that each operator participate in the development of coordination plans for its region and that of a neighboring region. These regional approaches eliminate virtually all problems concerning transporting the disadvantaged between service areas. While some communities have been able to provide services across county lines (o r service area boundaries), others have not been able to overcome the problems associated with coordinating TD service between service areas. These problems range from funding limitations to legal constraints. A person who lives close to a county border and needs medical treatment may find that the medical center in the neighboring county is closer than the one in his home county. Yet, transporting that client outside of the county may be viewed as spending county dollars in another county, and thus is not allowed. For some states (e.g., Colorado, Illinois, and Indiana), transportation between service areas is not provided at all by TD programs. In New Hampshire, it is considered a major problem and is usually lef t to the providers or social-service agencies to work out. Rhode Island is testing a regional paratransit brokerage system, with one of the goals being improved inter-county coordination. Eliaibility The definition of transportation disadvantaged varies among the states. Elderly and handicapped persons are included by all states that define the term, although the definition of elderly varies among the states. For example, in New York and Alabama, "elderly" is defined as being 60 years of age or older. For Colorado and Maryland, it is 65. Wisconsin considers "elderly" to be at least 62 years of age, and a person who is 55 is eligible in Rhode Island. For those states whose coordination program involves only those operators receiving UMTA Section 16(b)(2) funds, their definitions are consistent with the federal definitions. In add ition to the elderly and handicapped, many states include persons with low incomes 37

PAGE 46

and som e states include American I ndians, t he home l ess, and those w h o Jive in house holds with o n e or no automo bile The states are grouped according to major eligib i lity requirements in Tabl e 12. TABLE 12. Populations Included in State TO Definitions. and H andicapped E ld orly H111dlc:apped, Onl y an d Low Income Alabama An'l:ona Alaska Mensas-Colorado California Con.ntcticut florlclll Delaware Hawaii Georgia Idaho Kansu I n d iana-Kentucky Louisian a Mle hlg:an Maine-* Mnn.sota Maryland M iuiuippl MastacllMontana Mis-souJi Nebrask a N e vada New Jersey New Hampshire New M exico North Carolina New York North Ookota Ohio Rhode I s l a n d Ol
PAGE 47

done based on trip purpose. One Missouri agency, for example, lists the order of its trip priorities as: (1) medical, (2) essential shopping/business, (3) nutrition (trips to and from nutritional programs in recognized senior centers), (4) group travel and contract tours (trips for recreational purposes), and (5) other. The issue of how competing demands and limited resources are balanced will be addressed in later technical memoranda. Marketine The extent to which marketing of services for the transportation disadvantaged is being done varies from state to state. Amid concerns of not being able to meet the existing demand, many operators are hesitant to market their services. For the most part, the purpose of the paratransit marketing that is being done is to inform the transportation disadvantaged about the availability of lD services rather than to incr ease demand. It enables those who are eligible for the service, yet unaware of it, to have an equal chance at obtaining necessary transportation. A cooperative effort by transportation operators in Connecticut recently resulted in the publication of the second annual Disabled Commuter's Handbook. The purpose of the handbook is to help disabled commuters find transportation to and from their jobs, and it provides useful information dealing with carpools, vanpools, discount fares, bus and rail service, handicapped parking permits, and driver training. In N ew Jersey, the special services for the elderly 3lld handicapped are advertised on board the regular fixed-route transit buses. I n Florida, the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission is having a marketing study conducted. The study's products are to include a marketing primer, brochures, videos and other materials to market the services for the transportation disadvantaged. The commission also will be in volved in the development of the Commuter Alternative Systems Handbook, which will assist local government staff and decision -ma kers by introducing the benefits of using transportation demand management (IDM) techniques in the transportation planning process, including paratransit planning. Summary As seen by the preceding discussion of national experiences, the degree that transportation for the disadvantaged is coordinated varies across the states. So me states 39

PAGE 48

have successfully implemented statewide systems and others have just begun the process. The groups identified as transportation disadvantaged also differ among the states. The marketing that takes place serves for the most paft as an informational process, rather than as a means of increasing demand. In Appendix A, there is a summary of th e entire national experiences survey. The information is organized by state and is categorized in the following areas: 1D Services Legislation or Executive Order. State Interagency Committee or Task Force. Technical Assistance: State-to-Local. Comments. In the "Comments" category, information on funding sources, services offered, and studies currently underway or recently completed is presented. 40

PAGE 49

APPENDIX A 1990 National Experiences Survey Summary 41

PAGE 50

1990 National E x perience s Sur vey Summary STATE TD SERVICES L EG IS\ATI ON STA TE INTERAGENCY COM MITTE TECHNICAL ASSISTAHCE COMIIEHTS OR EXeCUTIVE ORDER OR T ASK FORCE STA TE -TQ-L OCA L ALABAM 4 1989': E;cecu tl\le Otdet 29 (esttbllshts .Alabama k'rtefagency Transportat i o n M ark e t ing, v e h i cle speci fications, Hu Pfogta m wh e re Plabama Interagency T r an s portatlon Revtew Review Commlnea bus i n e u approael'les p arti ci patin g mercha nts p ay fo r ride Com mitt ee ) horne. ALASKA Non e RTAP fund$ used for pusen90r 16(b )(2) lot$1 UMTA m a1ch rals:td assistance t echni que s tralinln g b y bingo 98ffi8S in soma towns ARIZO NA 1 980: Arizona Okl Ame rican h:1 ( requlte:a Soci al Senriees Tran sportatio n P rocess tor gt.lidellne$ for Senior citizen group$ In some smal !&t c:ootdi nation of servfc" to the elderly) Coordi n at i ng Com m ittee Q n aotivt) coordinating ellgibiliry IIJOnertJ eommunitJes raise locJJ UMTA m atches ln1otmatio n o n o pe ration of s mall by bak e sales a n d car waahes ayst&ms, grant a ppl i cetlon p!'Ocess, pc"ogram intotma.ti on pro;.ct dtvel0pmen1 4RK4NSAS 19n: NA 192 fev panded the rote of Mensas' None Vehicle spe clfi ct.tl on a recor d keeping, Look in g into a t r anaportl.tion pt0gr1m Departm.m o t T1a n aportatlon I n coordi n ation g r ant applicati o n oo mplttion, for tho hom04ess. tlnoe they are proCNS) mlll!eting, mechan i cs, human s e rvice considered disadvant aged. tra n spoc1stlon i ssu es, monitoring, e valu ating C AUFORNIA 1989: California Code Stat ute 4500 (eJMn d a Socia l Mfic M anagement tociWIIquet, other d od'ec&-ted a pot1lon o r the sr ate tq u lftmtnts from 504 ftgul&tlons 10 Tra.nspottetion Commmee an d Soc i a l t ech nical assistance sales tax for TO stNices. CJraoge SeMees Transpoc1at1on T ask Force County will b e condueti09 an unmtt nteds study i n 1990-91. 1979: A8120 The Socia l Sei'Vfces T raMporttti o n mpr ovo m tnt Act (requires coordination ol all toOlal seNiot$ transportation and eNbli.sh e s a task force t o monitor its tmplemen t atlon) 1971 : T ransportatio n Developmen t Act ( aiiiOws countie$ to impost a 0.25% retai l sai H tax that can bO usod fo r community t ransit services at1d Includes TO s o Nice1 ) COLORADO 1983: Legis4atur e aut horized Colotado's ftlter agency Ad\lisory Commhtee Salary tra ining, other l ech nJcal Denver area plans to cflflfibu t o lransit o.p.rtment of High way$ to conduct ttansJt aui.stanee tokens to thO homeless. T he same are a plannfng: In ateas under 200,000 I n popula t i o n hJS a Satu r da,y Shoppe r program 1ha1 pi'O'IIidet thopping and othe r recr e a tio nal oppoc1 uni6e$ t o TO pel"$0nS. ----------------------------

PAGE 51

STATE TO SERVICES LEGISLATIO N STATE INTERAGENCY COMMmEE TECHNICAl ASSISTANCE COMMENTS OR EXECUTIVE ORDER OR TASK FORCE STATE-TO-LOCAL CONNEC11CUT 1987-88.: Genet'al app r oprlafk) n of $3 m i llion to No n e Madcoling. planning, safety training Ha. s
PAGE 52

STATE TD SERVICES lEGISlATION STATE iNTERAGENCY COMMITTEE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS OR EXECUTIVE ORDER OR TASK FORCE STATETC>-LOCAL !NOlANA -. Transportation Advisory Group (Section Funding sources, planning, pasMnger lndlanapoll$ has a program that 16(b}(2) review committee) assistance techniques, wotkshops on conshts of elderly volunteers ttan$portation mantQom.nt transport the eldedy. Their system lnttragtney COoptrttion Group (Section dtivtr training, ineludel paging, dispatching., and 18 rt'Mw committee) m.alntof'I;8.AC8, 1Murane& training lntef6epartment Cootdlnatlng Body Interagency Council on Specialized Transportation IOWA Code lA Chapttf 601J (transportation funding) Statewide Transpoctation Regulation, marketing, planning A funding SOUtce for elf public traMit Is. Commlnee passe-nger assistance techniques a portion or the sales tax on motor training, grant application, schedufe;s, ......... routos, manager-employee training KANSAS None None Training sessiont on grant State ptovldes TO funds using applications, driver traintng, "coordination (und&fined) as the aocoonting prcwided by lkliv. of c(mtrion Tho Public Trans A$$oelation Kansu. an "'8CXr numt>tr lOt has a group lor Insurance assistance cails.. video iendlng library to.. nonprofit and pubJ!e entitles. anti-drug training KENTUCKY None None R$guCatlon, plaMing, annua l vehic$e Nee
PAGE 53

STATE TO SERVICES l.EG4SU.TION STATE INTEJIAGENCY COMMITTEE TECHN ICAL ASSISTANCE COM MENTS OR EXECUTIVE ORDER OR TASK FORCE loiASSACHUSUTS None o. .. opjl(eollon pty, &btence ol latgt-tca l t ttanapott&tlon planning and coordination .tforta) lntormtlio n on developing and syatemt founded and Nn by volunMrs operrirtg tya, tems with multiple elimina" Wec4tNict area tpecl&l dltnt group& and multiple coordinttion probltmt. funding IOUfOt$. othN ttdrieal .......... ,lfOIITANA 1983: Senate Sil 21 101 440 RCM) CommittMJI'rOjoct SoMion Mort
PAGE 54

STAT TD SERVICES lEGISLATION STATE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS OR EXECUTIVE ORDER OR TASK FORCE STATETO.LOCAL NEBRASKA LA 136 (t$ta.btlshed the Publio Transportation Public Tranapoctation Advi&ofy Regulation, marketing, p lanning, ln IJflooln, they are $tud)'ing demand Advl:sory Committee) O:>mmittee safety train ing, pe.ssenger esststance respons.ive ooor&\ation. techniques. fiscal a nd grant lnfof'mation NEVADA None None Grant fij)pUeallon, conlereoce$, Washoct County (Reno a r.a}, they newsletter, insuraMe pooling annual ha'l't d0t.ig na1&d onelghth of their insp e ctions, pass e n ger assistance &ales tu for E.&H s.ef"o'ioH. A ptison techniq ues UMTA program Nles and industry mOdifies ell 16{b)(2) vehiCles regulationt, vehicle m tintenance. aoco rding to agency needs at a low drUQfr'tt rf9ulationt, IMivldualited cost. Exploring more cost effective .."" .. insurance pooNng NEW HAMPSKIRE None Coorftation Advi$0fY Training tor manag ...., d rWtrs. Some transit systeme set u p Informative Assh.ta nce Ptogram ($2: million per year of Council {Inac tive) dlspatehert mechltliCs, and mAfletlng bootfls at s ome community state Opetating funds for p rogtam} computet' opera,ors, managemenr durfng tegitttatton week. T his N C lnte.ragency Transportation Aevlew pefiormat'lce reviews of t ra n s portatiOn en ables those TO p4Hsons., Yltlo 1985: Exeouti'lt Ordtr No.9 { r..authorized Commi't'tM (meets morrthfy} tystem s to eMure money Ia being lifce 10 receive an educatio n know that lntertgeney commltt"s) spent wlsety, tnnual work$hops on a means of bansportation i:s available to changes In regu.lations and other them. relevant Issues

PAGE 55

STATE STATE INTEAAGEHCV COMM inEE TECHN I CAL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS OR EXECUTIVE ORDER OR TASK FORCE S T ATETI>-LOCAL NORTH DAKOTA None Section 18 Advisory Committee PJannl ng, safety tralnl:og Loolring into insuumo& pool. Provid e s tc:htdulfd g roup trips b' the etdef ly that enable them to do their local shopping and go to eoogcegato moa l altea. O HIO None Ad Hoc Bdefty Handicapped Fl.lnding proc.du r ts. othe r technical '"Th o Connection In the Sandusky area Transponatlon Committe e One.etlve) assistance attJJ coordinate! wcwk ride$ tot U\6 disabled lnfotma l Co m m itt" made u p of con stituents of .tQi ng a n d Handicapped Ttansportation Coordinat i on (mtttt: q-lty) OKLAHOMA None Nono Application prooedutM, cornpot8 r ized Some operati n g funds ate rais e d b y re.co rdetping systems, n atio n al pancake s u ppers.. AT AP ttatning modules OREGON None None Planning. saJety training technical Ha s ded i cated a portion of the cigare tte 1$Si$1tnee A$1)10\llded by RTAP fund$ ttx tot TO sti"YIOM. PENNSYLVANIA 1976: Ru r a l and Comrnon Carrier Act lnterdepartmental16lb}(2 ) Revie w Task Regulation, mar k eti ng, other t e c hnical Has ded l caled a ponlon of the lottery (fun d s pub& lransportatlon In rural areas) Force f und$ for TO seMcft.. T ran spOftat ion Coordination Task Force RHODE I SLAND 198:9: LegislatiOn funding fot a tnt 16(b)(2) and Sect ;on 18-Pus
PAGE 56

STATE TO SERVICES LEGISlATION STATE INTERAGENCY COMMmEE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS OR EXECUTIVE OIIDER OR TASK FORCE STATE-TO-lOCAL TEXAS None lnforma4 workj(\g group R&gula11on, marlo:etlng WOf'kShops *A.Iral Connection ia a system that (brochure s logos), $tftty lttining, ptOVId& s access f rom rural areu to planning, other technical assistance Austin, where publi tfltiSit is ftte. UTAH None U\a:h AutaJ Oevtlopmtnt CornmittM Preve ntative maintenance t r aining A ftM'ldtng aource Ia a Socal op11on sales dtftnsive d(rving saftty training tax. Planning to start s.tattwide Utah Council for Handic:apped and pun:fi&Sing pods fOf vehletes and Oevelopmenully OiJJbted PIH$00$ lnwranoe. Transportation Task Fotce E&H EvaluatiOf' and S&lection Comminte VVIMOHT 1987-88; 0.1'trl.l Jl4>pfoprla tion8 {mandated a 16(b)(2) Advi""Y CommUfl use, sensitivity training, Planning s18te'wfde tfanr.it needs study. stale eootdlnation study) ecoounting, marhting, information Sharing, grant f!Ppllcltiorl ptootss cost estimate$, ny topic or concern to an operator VIRGINIA 1986: Senate Bill 29 (mand ates the 'Plan of Cool)tfalion" Committee Regu!Jtion, sattty tte.itMr-.g, Vttliele purcheslng pool Ck>ne through develOpment of a plan to prcwldt cootdinated management and mechanics training, atar. contract. tfensportation .....nett to th d i sabled) puseoger assistance teeholquea WASIINGTOH Nono t6(b){2) AdiiiSOfY Review Panels Safety training management ttalnl,-.g, Bcohrs may or may.not be seMce computet' and software ttaJnlng, pt"QWjers, but are reqt.Ved to f ind the Stctlon 18 Committtt pu&enge r usia.anee techniques, least expensive form of transportation. maintenance training, training I n L..gislature ts a study on Technical Advisory Commltlee operations and 9f8AI writing, annual funding SOUfees and unmet needs. c:onfereooe on Issue$ Have Just begun a program to eoordinatt all soclal-stMee program transportation. WEST VIRGINIA None Informs! groups Aegulatloo, mactceting, safety training, Has statewtde marketfng p rogram. passenger asalstanoe tachnlqu8$, Sutveys of taxkab, p8181tanslt, and v i deotapes on drug abus e and other capital needs completed In 1990. categori&s, dev.lopment of pa&Ung t r, vthide, and systom ufoty plan:s, resouroo marwl developmtnt WISCONSIN 19n: Slate Law Section 8:5.23 W'l (aotnotittd r.terdeputment Transportrtion Regul atiori. nwketlng. plaMing, Rooently compltted a "'3052 Report on DOT to make state capital gr'ant8 to p0v1.to, Coordination Committe safety t:taining, workshops on safety the Status Of T rtnspoltatiOn Programs non prolit organ1z1ti0nt fOf speclallud tfanslt and VOlunteers, newsletUH', and Services fOC' tM Elderly and to supplement llle UMTA 16(b)(2)) recotdf!eeping IAsabled ln 1977: Stat e law Section 85. 21 WI (tuthol'ized DOT to fund counties to ptovSde specialized

PAGE 57

STATE TD SERVICES LEGISlATION OR EXECUTIVE ORDER WYOMING None Sources: CtJTR's 1 990 National Expe r iences Survey Social Services Resureh lnltitute report of 1981, u pdated I n 1986 by of &ate updated I n 1988 by Carter Goble Associates, tnc. STATE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE OR TASK FORCE C0o(dlnati n g Committee TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS STATETO. LOCAL Conferences a n d wOthop$, bus Northwest Community Col l ege runs a Roadeos. pass.eno r anltUflot b u s service to pick up low i nootnt tech niques. driver sensit i vity training, ttudtmt. COntktoring k'lsurance gt"an t applieltion prOCMS, ge.neral pufdtatlng pool. In Jackson, '.&eJt J)C'Obltmt, maintenance, operating Tours', by use of a m i nivan, provides seMdu res, newsletter, vdnterlz.ation the dlsadvantaged w i t h tours of the kits, UMT A r u les and reg u tatio n s Y eOowstone National Parte and other mattal)ement traln lng natural ate.u p r eviously k\acoeaslble.

PAGE 58

APPENDIX B 1990 National Experiences S urvey Respondent s 50

PAGE 59

. 1990 National Experiences Survey Respondents ALABAMA Mr. Tom Garrison Transportation Planner 11 Alabama Highway Department Bureau of Urban FlaMing Mass Transit Divis.ion 1409 Coliseum Boulevard Montgomeryt Alabama 36130 (205) 242-6084 ALASKA Mr. Bruce Wells State Transit Coordinator Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facili(ies E.O.S.D. P O Box Z Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465 2951 ARIZONA Mr. Bob Sherman Transportation Pl.anning Division Arirona Department of Transportation 206 S. 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arirona 85007 (602) 542-4446 ARKANSAS Mr. James Newcomb Public Transportation Specialist State Highway and Transportation Department P.O. Box 2261 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 (SOl) 225-7100 51 CALIFORNIA Mr. Paul Smith California Department of Transportation of M;cs:s Tran.sportation Planning and Full Mobility Assistance Branch P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, California 94274-0
PAGE 60

CONNECI'ICUT Mr. Allen Wamester Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Coordinator Connecticut Department of Transportation 24 Wolcott HiD Road Weathersfield, Con necticut 06109-0801 (W3) 667-7329 DELAWARE Mr. Richard Harper Jr. Deputy Administrator Delaware Administration for Special Transportation P.O. Box 1 347 Dover, Del aware 19903-1347 (302) 736-4306 FLORIDA Ms. JoAnn Hutchinson Executive Director Transportation Disadvantaged Commission 60S Suwannee Street MS 4 9 Florida 3'23994$50 (904) 488-6036 Mr. George A. Brown, III Manager of Transit Systems Planning Florida Department of Transportation 60S Suwannee Street MS26 Tallahassee, FloridO 32399.()450 (904) 488-7774 GEORGIA Mr. Wayne Jackson Georgia Department of Transportation Bureau of Public Transportation 2 Capital Square Annex West Atlanta, Georgia 30334 ( 404) 651-9209 52 HAWAII Mr. Malcolm McLeod Hawaii Department of Transportation 869 Punch Bowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 548-6527 IDAHO Ms. Marie Bishop Grants Oflieer Idaho Department of Transportation P.O. Box 7129 Boise, Idaho 83707 -1129 (208) 334-8281 Mr. Oz Reyna Grants Officer Idaho Department of Transportation P O. Box 7129 Boise Idaho 83707-1129 (208) 334-8281 ILLINO I S Mr. David Spacek Buresu Chief or Downstat e Area P r ogr:uns Dlinois Department of Transpor!ation Division of Public "transpo r tation 310 s. Michigan Room 1608 Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 793-2111 INDIANA Ms. Betsy Kachmar Program Manager Indiana Department of Transportation 143 M arket Street Suite 300 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 232-1483

PAGE 61

IOWA Mr. Peter Hallock Deputy Division Director Iowa Department of Transportation Air aod Transit Divi$1on International Airport Des Moines, lowa 503Z1 (SlS) 281-4286 KANSAS M.\. Kathy Mario n Program Coordinator Kansas Department of Transportation Thatcher Building 217 SE 4th Topeka, Kansas 66603 (91.3) 296-0343 Ms. Pat Weaver University of Kansas Transpottation Center 20lll=rned Hall Lawrence, Kansas 66045 (913) 864-5658 KENTUCKY Ms. Vicki Bourne Kcntuclcy Transportation Cabinet Division of Mass Transportatioa Public Transportation Settion S tate Office Building Frankfort, Kentuclcy 40622 (502) 564-7433 LOUISIANA M s. Deidre Adams Public Transportation Administrator Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development P.O. Box 94245 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (S04) 379-1436 53 MAINE Mr. Arnold Levitt Transportation Specialist Bureau of Transportation Services Main e Department of Transportatioa State House Station 16 Augusta, Maine 04333 (JUT) 289 MARYlAND Mr Gary Blanchard Cuscomu Relations Maryland Transit Authority 300 W Lexington Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (301) 333-2995 Ms. Rosalyn Simon Consultant for Disabled Services Maryland Traasit Authority 300 W I exiagtoa Street Baltiraore, Maryland 21201 (301) 333-2696 MASSACHUSE1TS Mr. Ed Spurlark Office of Traosportatioa aad Coastruction 10 Par k Pla:za, Room 3510 Bostoa, Massachusetts 0211&-3969 (617) 973-7007 MICHIGAN Mr. Gus Uuberes Dcpartmeatal Aaalyst Bus Transit Division Michigaa Department of Transportatioa P.O. Box 30050 I nia& Michigan 48')09 (517) 373-$820

PAGE 62

Mr. Dono.is McMann Section 16(b)(2) Administrator Minnesota Department or Transportation Room 815 Transportation Buil ding S r Paul, Minaesota 55155 (612) 296-1612 M I SS ISSIPPI MJ. Shirley Wilson Transit Speci alist MWissip p i Depar t m ent o f Energy and Transportation 510 George Street Dick son Building Jackson, Mississippi 39202-3096 (601) 961-4733 MISSOURI Ms. Linda Stepeooff Transit Operations Specialist Missouri Highway and Transportation Department P.O. Box 270 Jefferson City, Missou ri 65102 (314) 751-7479 MONTANA Mr. Byron Roberts Montana T ranspo rtation Division Montana Departmen t or Commerce 1424 9th Hel ena, Montana 59620 ( 406) 444-3423 NEBRASKA Mr. Larry Brown Nebraska Department of Roads 1500 Nebraska Highway 2 P.O Box 94759 Uncoln, N eb raska 68509-4759 ( 402) 479-4694 54 NEVADA Mr. Don Summo Nevada Department of Transportation 1263 S. Stewa rt Street Carso n City, Nevada 89712 (702) 687-4219 NEW HAMPSHIRE Mr Kit Morgan Administrator or the Bureau of Public Transportation New Hampshire Department of Tranportation P.O. Box 483 Con cord, New Hampshire 03302 (603) 271-2564 NEW JERSEY Mr. Robert Kooka Program Manager NJTRANSIT Office of Special Services P.O. Box 10009 N ewark, New Jersey 07101 (201) 643-7400 NEW MEXICO Ms. Barbara Brown Pr ogram Manager New Mexico Highways and Transportation Department PubUc Transportatio n Progr ams Division P.O. B ox 1149 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-1149 (505) NEW YORK Ms. Judith Kuba New York Department of Transportati on Bwlding 4 Room 150 State Office Campus Albany, New York 12232 (518) 457-2100

PAGE 63

NEW YORK (cont.) Mr. Dale Meyen New York Department of Tramportalion Building 4. Room 134 State Office Campus Albany, Now York 1223Z (518) 457-8343 NORTII CAROLINA Mr. Bob Orabarek Project Manager Public Transportation Ojvision North Caroll.oa Department of Transportation P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 733-4713 NORTH DAKOTA Mr. Bill Weimer Planning Division North Dakota Department of Transportation 608 E. Boulevard Bismarck, North Dakota 585050700 (701} 224-2194 OHIO Mr. Seth Bu4ge Bureau of Transit Assistanc e Ohio Department of Transportation 2S S. Front Street, .Room 716 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 466-8969 OKLAHOMA Mr. Ken Mitchell Oldahoma Department of Transportation Special Unit on Aging P.O. Box 2!1352 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 (405) 521-2281 55 Mr. Virgil Finley Oklahoma Department of Transportation Special Unit on Aging P.O. Box 25352 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 (41Js) 521 OREGON Mr. SteYC Fosdick Oregon Public Transit DM.ion Oregon Department of Transportation 131 Transportation Building Salem, Oregon 97310 (503) 378-8201 PENN SYLVANIA M&. PhyUi Emlet Peon.ylvania Department of Tramportation Bureau of Public Transportation 1215 Transportation and Safety Building Harrisbura, PcllllS)'IvaMt 17120 (717) 787S40 RHODE ISLAND Ms. Sarah Amaral Rhode Island Department o f Transportation 2 Capital Hill Route 372 Providence, Rhode Island 02903 (401) 277-2694 SOUTH CAROLINA Ms. Patricia Mizell Paratraosit Coordinator Public Transportation Division South Carolina Department o f Highways and Public Transportation P.O. Box 191 Columbia South Carolina 29202 (803) 737 1280

PAGE 64

SOUTII DAKOTA Mr Willis McLaugb.lin South Dakota Departm ent of Transportation Loea l Government Assistance 700 Broadway Avenue East Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (605) 173-3137 TENNESSEE Ms. Jean Lyon Tennessee Commission on Aging Nashville, TenneM ee 37243-0860 (615) 741-2056 TEXAS Ms. Gayle Walker Contract Specialist Puqlic Transportation Division Department of Highways and Public Transportation lllh and Brazos A..,.in, TelOIS 78701-2483 (512) 483-3654 UTAH Mr. 1Awell Elmer Program Manager Utah Department of Tr....,portacion 4SOI South ZlOO West Salt Lake City, Utah 84U9 (801) 965-4141 VERMONT Mr. Scott Bascom Vermont AgeDcy of TTan5portation Public Transit Operations 133 State Sire& State AdmiDistration Building Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (802) 828-28:28 56 VIRGINIA Mr. Chip Badger Virgi.ola Department of Transportation Rail and Public Transit Division 1401 E. Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 225-3930 WASHINGTON Mr. Tom Hanson Transit Branch Manager Washington Department of Transportation Transportation Building Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 5&6-2400 WEST VIRGINIA Ms. Toni Boyd West Virginia Public Transportation Section Building S, Room A 1040 Capital Complex Charle$1on, West Virginia 2S30S (304) 348-0428 WI SCONS IN Ms. Beth Traotscb Program Manager WiscotUitl Department of Transportation P.O. Box 791.4 Madison, WiscotUitl 53707 (608) 266-0560 WYOMING Ms. Sandi McGrew Statewide Planning Wyomi.og Highway Departmeat P.O. Box 1708 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002-9019 (307) m-4181

PAGE 65

APPENDIX C Official Planning Agencies and Community Transportation Coordinators for Each County 57

PAGE 66

Official Planning Agencies and Community Transportation Coordinators for Each County as of September 30, 1990 COUNT Alachua Baker Bay Bradford Brevard Broward calhoun Charlotte Citrus C lay Collier Columbia Dade DeSoto Dixie Duval Escambia Aagler Franklin Gadsden Gilchrist Glades Gulf Hamilton Hardee Hendry Hernando 11IghiBDds Hillsborough Holmes Indian River Jackson Jefferson Lafayette Lake Lee Leon Levy Liberty Madison Manatee Marion Martin Monroe Nassau Official Plannina Agency Gainesville Area MPO Northeast Florida RPC Panama City Area MPO North Central Florida RPC Brevard County MPO Broward Coun ty MPO Apalachee RPC Charlotte County BOCC Citrus County BOCC Northeast Florida RPC Naples Area MPO North Central Florida RPC Miami Area MPO Central Florida RPC North Central Florida RPC Jacksonville Area MPO Pensacola Area MPO Northeast Aorida RPC Apalachee RPC Apalachee RPC North Central Florida RPC Southwest Aorida RPC Apalachee RPC North Central Florida RPC Central Florida RPC Southwest Aorida RPC Hernando County BOCC Central Florida RPC Tampa Area MPO West Florida RPC Indian River BOCC Apalachee RPC Apalachee RPC North Central Florida RPC Lake County BOCC Lee County MPO Tallahassee-Leon County MPO Levy County BOCC Apalachee RPC North Central Florida RPC Sarasota/Manatee County MPO Ocala-Marion County MPO Martin County BOCC City of Key West Northeast Florida RPC Community Transportation Coordinator Coordinated Transportation System Baker County COA Bay County COA Coordinated Transportation System Space Coast Area Transit Broward County Mass Transit Division calhoun County COA Charlotte County Social Services Citrus County Human Services Clay County COA Training and Educational Center for the Handicapped, Inc. Suwannee VaUey Transit Authority Metro Dade Transportation Administration Central Florida RPC Tri-County Council for Senior Citiuns CV'r--Comsis Corporation Flagler County COA and Community Services, Inc. C.i{OOI'\ ',. Big Bend Transit, Inc. for Senior Citizens +.....;4 C-UI-F Afl t.. Suwannee Valley Transit Authority Central Florida n*. ..,.A ':1-.......,.._ (j{ Mid -Flo rida Community Services, Inc. Central Florida RPC Hillsborough County Social Services Tri-County Community Council Indian River County COA Jackson County Transportation Big Bend Transit Inc. 58 SREC Lafayette County Lake-Sumter Community Mental Health Goodwill Industries,. c.t; .J ( AJL.-Tri-C'ounty Council for Senior Citizens Liberty County Transit Big Bend Transit, Inc Manatee County Transit System Marion County Senior Services COA of Martin County Monroe County LPO Nassau County COA

PAGE 67

COUNTY Official flapping AKency CommuniiY Transpoflation Coordiutor Okaloooa Ft. Walton Area MPO Okaloosa County COA Okeechobee Central Florida RPC Okeechobee County COA Orange Orlando Area MPO Mears T r ansportation Group Osceola Orlando Area MPO Mears Transportation Group Paltn Beach West Palm Beach Area MPO West Paltn Beach Area MPO Pasco West Pasco MPO Pasco County Star Transportation Pinellas Pinellas County MPO Pinellas County MPO PoUc Lakeland/Winter Haven Area MPO Lakeland/Winter Haven Area MPO Putnam Northeast Florida RPC ARC Transit St. Johns Northeast Florida RPC St. Johns County COA St. Lucie Ft. Pierce Area MPO St. Lucie BOCC Santa Rosa Pensacola Area MPO Santa Rosa County COA Sarasota Sarasota/Manatee County MPO Senior Friendship Centers Seminole Orlando Area MPO Mears Transportation Group Sumter Sumter County ARC Suwannee North Central Florida RPC Suwannee Valley Transit Authority Taylor North Central Florida RPC Big Bend Inc. Union North Central Florida RPC A & A Transport Vol usia Volusia Coastal Area MPO United Systems Transportation Wakulla Apalachee RPC Wakulla County Senior Citizens Walton Ft. Walton Area MPO TriCounty Community Council Washington West Florida RPC Tri-County Community Council If the CTC has not been officially designated, the current coordinated community transportation provider is listed The crcs in Alachua and Bradford arc Dot tbe same organization. ARC BOCC COA LPO MPO RPC SREC Association of Retarded Citizens Board of County Commissioners Council on Aging Local Planning Organivttion Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Planning Council Suwannee River Economic Council 59

PAGE 68

APPENDIX D Chapter 427, Florida Statutes 60

PAGE 69

427.011 427.012 427.Gl3 427 0135 427.015 427.0155 427 0157 427.0158 427.0159 427.016 427.017 CHAPTER 427 SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES PART I TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (ss. 4Z7.0ll-417.017) Ocfmitions. Transpo rtation Disadvantaged Commission. Transportation Disadvantaged Commission; purpose and responsibilities. Member deparlmenls; duties and responsibilities. Function of the melropolitan p lanning organization or designated official planning agency in coordinating transportation for the transportation disadvantaged. Community transportation coordinators; powers and duties. Coordinating boards; powers and duties. School bus and public transportation Transportation Disadvantaged Trli$1 Fund Expenditure of local government, state, and federal funds for the transportation disadvantaged. Conflicts with federal laws or regula tions 427.011 Definitions.For the purposes of ss. 427.011.017: (1) "Transportation disadvantaged means those persons who because of physical or mental disab ility, income statue. or age or who for other reasons are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and arc, therefo re, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, social activities, or other life-sustaining activities, or children who are handicapped or high-risk or atrisk as d efined in s. 4 11.202. (2) Metropolitan planning organization means the o rg an i zation responsible for carrying out transportation planning and programming in acoordanee with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. s. 134, as provided in 23 U.S.C. s 104(f)(3). (3) "Agency" means an official, officer, commission, authority, council, committee, department, division, bureau, board, section, or any other unit or entity of the state or of a city, town, municipality, county, or other local governing body or a private nonprofit transportation service-providing agency. ( 4) Transportation improvement program" means a staged multiyear program of transportation improvements, including an annual element, which is developed by a metropolitan planning organization or designated official planning official planning agency. (5) "Community Transportation Coordinator" means transportation entity recommended by a metropolitan planning organization, or by the appropriate designated olfiCial planning agency as provided for in ss. 427.011 427.017 in an area outside the purview of a metropolitan pLanning organization, to ensure tbat coordinated transportation services are provided to the transportation disadvantaged population in a designed service area. (6) "Transportation operator" meaDS oae or more public, private for-profit or private nonprofit entities eugagcd by the community transportation coordinator to provide service to t ransportation disadvantaged persons pursuant to a coordinated system service plan. (7) "Coordinating board" means an entity in each designated service area composed of representatives appointed by the metropolitan planning organi2ation or designated official planning agency, to provide assistance to the community transportation coordinator relative to the coordination of transportation services. (8) Member department" means a department whose head is a member of the commission. (9) "Paratransit" means thooe elements of public transit which provide service between specific origins and destinations selected by the individual user with such service being provided at a time that is agreed upon by the user and provider of the service. Paratransit service is provided by taxis, limousines, "dial-a-ride, buses. and other demand-responsive operations that are characterized by their nonscheduled, nonfiXed route nature. (10) 'Transpo rtation Disadvantaged funds" means any local government, state, o r available federal funds that arc for the transportatio n of the transportation disadvantaged. Such funds may include, but are not limited to, funds for planning, administration, operation, procurement, and maintenance of vehicl e s or equipment and capital investments. Transportation disadvantaged funds do not include funds for the transportation of children to public 61

PAGE 70

schools. (11) "Coordination' means the arrangement for (he provision of transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged in a manner that is costooC;ffectivc, efficient, and reduoes fragmentation and duplication of services.. (12) 'Annual budget estimate' means a budget estimate of funding resources available for providing transporlation services to the transportation disadvantaged, and which is prepared annually to oover a period of one state fiscal year. Htsto!')\-s.r. 1,9, ch. 79-180; s. 4; ch. ss. 1, 3, ch. 84-56; ss. 1, 14; ch. 89-376; ss. 1, ell. 91).]36. 427.0ll Transportation Disadvantaged Commissioo. There is created a Transportation Disadvantaged Commission in the Department of Transportation. (1) The oommission shall oonsist of the following members: (a) The seaetary of the Department of Transportation or his designee. (b) The secretary of the Department of Heal.th and Rehabilitative Services or his designee. (e) The Commissioner of Education or his designee. (d) The secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment Security or his designee (e) The executive director of the Department of Veterans' Affairs or his designee . (I) The president of the Florida Association for Communi[)' Action, who shall serve at the pleasure of that association. (g) A person over the age of 60 who is a member of a reoognized statewide organization representing elderly Floridians. Such person shall be appointed by the Governor to repre sen t elderly Floridians, and shall be appointed to serve a term of 4 years. (b) A handicapped person who is a member of a reoognited statewide organization representing handic apped Floridians. Such person shall be appointed by the Governor to represent handicapped Floridians, and shall be appointed to serve a term of 4 years. (i) Two citizen advocate representatives who shall be appointed by the Governor for a term of 4 years, one representing rural citizens and one representing urban citizens. G) A representative of the oommunity transporlation ooordinators. Such person shall be appointed by the Governor to represent all community transportation coordinators and sball be appointed to serve a term of 4 years. (2) The chairperson and vice-chairPerson of the oommission shall be elec:ted annually from the membership of-the commission. (3) Members of the oommission shall serve without compensation, but shall be allowed per diem and traveling expenses, as provided in s. 112.061. ( 4} The oommission shall meet at least quarterly, or more frequently at the catl of tbe chairPerson Seven members of the commission constitute a quorum, and a majority vote of the members present is necessary for any action taken by the oommission. (S) The Governor may remove any member of the commission for cause. (6) The commission shall appoint an executive direc:tor, who shall serve onder the direction, supervision, and control of the oommission. The executive director, with the oonsent of the commission, shall employ such pcrSOMel as may be necessary to perform adequately the functions of the commission, within budg e tary limitations. AU employees of the commi.s.sion are exempt from the Career Service System. (7) The oommission is assigned to the office of the secretary of the Department of Transportation for administrative and fiscal accountability purposes. but it shall otherwise function independent of tbe control, supervision, aod direction of the department. (8) The commission shall develop a budget pursuant to chapter 216. The budget is not subject to change by the department staff after it has been approved by the commission, but it shall be transmitted to t.be Governor, as head of the department, along with the budget of the department. Histo!'}\-SS. 2, 8, 9, eh. 79-180; s .5, ch. 80-414; s. 73, ch. 81-167; s. 76, ch. 83; ss. 2, 3, ch. 84-56; ss. 2, 14; cit. 89-376. 427.013 Transportation Dlsadvaotaged Commission; purpose and responsibilities. The pufPOOe of the oommission is to acoomplisb the coordination of transportation services provided to the transportation disadvantaged. In carrying out this purpose, the commission shall: 62

PAGE 71

(1) Compile all available infonnation on the transportation operations for and needs of the transportatio n disadvantaged in t be state. (2) Establish statewide objectives for providing transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged. (3) Develop policies and proocdures for the coordination of local government, federal, and stale funding for the tr ansportation disadvantaged. (4) Identify barriers prolubiting the coordination and accessibility of transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged and aggressively pursue the elimination of these barriers. (5) Serve as a clearinghouse for informat i on about transportation disadvantaged services, funding sources, innovations, and coordination efforts. (6) Assist communities in dcvdoping transportation systems designed to serve the transportation disadvantaged. (7) Assure that all procedures, guidelines, and directives issued by member departments are conducive to the coordination of transportation services. (8) Develop standards covering coordination, operation, costs, and utilization of transportation disadvantaged services. (9) Develop and monitor rules and procedures to implement the provisions of ss. 4Z7.001-427.017. (10) Approve the appointment of all community transportation coordinators. (11) Have the authority to apply for and accept funds, grants, gifts, and services from the Federal Government, stale government, local governments, or private funding sources. Applications by the commission for local government funds shall be coordinated through the appropriate coordinating board. Funds acquired or accepted under this subsection shall be administered by the commission and shall be used to carry out the commission's responsibilities. (12) Make an annual report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by March 1 of each year. (13) Consolidate the annual budget estimate.' of each member department and issue a report. (14) Prepare a statewide Syear transportation disadvantaged plan which addresses the transportation problems and needs of the transportation disadvantaged, which is fully coordinated with local transit plans, compatible with local government comprehensive plans, and which ensures that the most cost-effective and efficient method of providing transportation to the disadvantaged is programmed for development. (15) Review and approve memorandums of agreement for the provisions of coordinated transportation services. (16) Review, monitor, and coordinate all transportation disadvantaged local government state, and federal funds requests and plans for cooformance with commission policy, without delaying the application process. Such funds shall be available only to those entities participating in an approved coordinated transportation system or entities which have received a commission approved waiver to obtain all or part of their transportation through another means. This process shall identify procedures for coordinating with the state's intergovernmental coordination and review procedures and s. 216.212(1) and any other appropriate grant review process. (17) Develop an lnteragency Uniform Contracting and Billing and Accounting system that shall be used by all community transportation coordinators and their transportation ope-rators. (18) Develop and maintain an interagency transportation disadvantaged manual. (19) Design and develop interagency transportation disadvantaged training programs. (20) Coordinate all transportation disadvantaged programs with appropriate state, local, and federal agencies, and public transit agencies to ensure compatibility with existing transportation systems. (21) Designate the official planning agency in areas outside of the purview of a metropolitan planning organization. Hlstorv.-ss.3, 9, ch. 79-JIJ(); s. 6, ch. 8().414; s. 274, ch. 81; ss. I, 3, ch. 84-56; ss. 3, 14, ch. 89376. 427.0135 Member Departments; dulles 8Jld responsibilities. (1) Each member department, in earrying out the policies and procedures of the commission, shall: (a) Assist communities in developing coordinated transportation systems designed to serve the transportation disadvantaged. (b) Assure that its rules, procedures, guidelines, and directives are conducive to the coordination of 63

PAGE 72

transportation funds ud services for the transportation disadvantaged. (c) Provide technical assistance, as needed, to uansportalion operalors or participating agencies. (2) The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services shall assign at least one full tim e position to each of its dislricts and to the central office. The positions shall be responsible for the coordination of all transportation disadvantaged activities in the district or central office Hlsm-ss. 4, 14, ch. 89-376. 427.015 Function or the metropolitan planning organization or designated official plaonlng agency In coordinatlng tnu>sportatloa ror the tnu>sportallon (1) In developing the transportation improvement program, each metropolitan planning organization or designaled official planning in this state shall include a realistic estimate of the cost and revenue tbal will be derived from uansportation disadvantaged services in its area. The transportation improvement program shall also identify uansportation improvements tha t will be advanced with such funds during the program period. Funds required by this subsection to be included in the transport a tion improvement program shall only be included after C011Sultation with aU affected agcocies and shall only be expended if such fllnds are i ncluded in the transportation improveme.Jlt program. (2) Each metropolitan planning organiuotion or designated official planning agency shall recommend to the commission a single co01munity transportation coordinator. The coordinator may provide all or a portion of needed transportation services for the tr.lnSportation disadvantaged but shall be responsible for the provision of those coordinated services. The coordinator may subcontract or broker those services that are more cost effectively and c:fficientl_y provided by subcontracting or brokering. The performance of the coordinator shall be evaluated by the coordinating board at least annually A copy of the evaluation shall be to the metropolitan plaoning orgatW.arioo or the dC$ignated officiaJ planning agency, and the commissi on. The reco mmendation of any community transponation coordinator sbalJ be approved by the commission. Hlstorr.-ss. 6, 9, ch. 79-180; ss. 1, 3, ch. 114-56; ss. 5, 14, ch. lJ9.376. 427.0155 CommuoJty Transportation Coordinators; powers and dutlt$.-Com munity transportation coordinators shall have the following powers and duties: (1) Develop, implement, and monitor an approved coordinated community transportation disadvantaged service plan (2) Execute uniform contracts for service. (3) Collect annual operaling data for submittal to the commission. (4) Review all transportation operator contracts annually. (5) Approve and coordinate the utili1.ation of school bus and pubtic transportation services in accordance with the transportation disadvantaged service plan. (6) 1n cooperation with a functioning coordinating board, review all applieations for local government, federal, and state transportation disadvantaged funds, and develop cost-effective coordination slralegies. (7) In cooperation with the coordinating board, develop and negotiate a memorandum of agreement outlining the coordinated community service plan for subntittal to the commission (8) Have full responsibility for the delivery of transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged as outlined in s. 427. 015(2). Historr.-ss. 6, 14, ch. 89-376 427.0157 Coordinating boards; powtrS and duties.The purpose of each coordinating board is to develop local service needs and ro provide advice, and direction to the community transportation coordinators on the coordination of services to be provided to the transportation disadvantaged. The commission shall, by rule, establish the membership of coordinating boards. The members of each board shall be appointed by the metropolitan planning organization or designated official planning agency The appointing authority shall provide each board with sufficient staff support and resources to enable the board to fulfill its responsibilities under this section. Each board shall meet at least quar terly and shall: (1) Review and approve the coordinated community transportation disad"llntaged service plan, including the memorandum o f agreement, prior to submittal to the commission; (2) Eva!Uale services provided in meeting the approved plan; 64

PAGE 73

(3) In cooperation wich the community transportation coordinator. review and provide recommendations to tbe commission on funding applications affecting the transportation disadvantaged; (4) Review the coordiDation strategies of service provision to the transportation disadvantaged in the desi8118ted service area; and (5) Evaluate multicounty or regional transportation opportunities. Hlstory.-ss. 7, 14; ch. 89-376. 427.0158 School bus and public transporta!ioa.(1) The c:ommunity transportation coordinator sball maximim the use of put>lie school transportation and public fixed route or fixed schedule transit service for the transportation of the transportation disadvantaged. (2) The school boards sball cooperate in the utilization of their vehicles to enhance coordinated disad\'llntaged transportation by providing the infomtation as required by this section and by allowing the usc of their vehicles at actual cost upon request when those vehicles are available for such use and are not transporting students. SemiiiMually, no later than October 1 and April 30, a designee from the local school board shall provide the community transportation coordinator with copies to the coordinated transportation board, the following information for vehicles not scheduled 100 percent of the time for student transportation use: (a) The number and type of vehicles by adult capacity, including days and times, that the vehicles are available for coordinated transportation disadvantaged services; (b) The ac tual coot per mile by vehicle type available; (c) The actual driver cost per hour; (d) Additional actual coot associated with vehicle use outside the established workday or workweek of the entity; an d (e) Notification of lead time re quired for vehicle use. (3) The public transit fiXed route or fiXed schedule system shall cooperate in the utilization of its regular service to enhance coor dinated t ransportation disadvantAged services by providing the information as required by this section. Annually, no later than October 1 a designee from the local public transit ftxed route or ftxed schedule system shall provide the community !fansportation coordinator, with copies to the coordinated transportation board, the following information: (a) A copy of all current schedules, route maps, system map, and fare structure; (b) A copy of the current charter policy; (c) A copy of the current charter rates and hours requirements; and (d) Required notification time to arrange for a charter. Hjston-ss. 8, 14, ch. 89-376. 427.0159 Transportatloo Disadvantaged Trust Fund.-(1) There is established in the State Treasury the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund to be administered by the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. All fees collected for the transportation disadvantaged program under s. 320.03(9) shall be deposited in the trust fund. (2) Funds deposited in ihe trust fund shall be appropriated by the Legislature to the commission and shall be used to carry out the responsibilities of the commission and to fund the administrative eo
PAGE 74

427.017 Coonlcts with federal laws or regulatioos. Upon nocificati on by an agency of the Federal G overnment that any provision of this act eollllicts with federal law$ or regulations, the state or local agencies involved may take any reasonable steps necessary to assure continued federal funding. Further, it is the le gisl ative intent t hat the conllict shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act that can effectively be implemented without implementation of the provision in question, and to this end, the provisions of this act are declared severable. HistQO'.-SS. 7, 9, ch. 79-180; ss. 1, 3, ch. 84-56; s 14, ch. 89-376. Note. Chapter 427 (ss. 427.011 427.0 17) i srepealed effective October 1,1999, bys. 14, cb.89-376, and schedu l ed for review pursuant to s. 11.611. 66

PAGE 75

APPENDIX E Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code 67

PAGE 76

41-2 001 41-2.002 41 2.003 41-2.004 41-2.005 41-2.006 41-2.007 412.008 41.009 41-2.010 41-2.011 41-2.0 1 2 41-2.0 1 3 41-2.014 4 1 -2.0 1 5 41-2.016 41-2.017 CHAPTER 41 TRANSPORTATION DiSADVANTAGED COMMISSION Purpose Definitions. Commission Organization and Personnel. Notice and Frequency of Commission Meetings. Member Department Responsibilities. Insurance and Safety Requirements. Reporting Requirements. Memorandum of Agreement. Designated Official Planniog Agency. Selection of CommUnity TTansportation Coordinator. Community Transportation Coordinator Powers and Duties. Coordinating Board Structure and Duties. Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund. Grants Program. Expenditure of Loeal Government, State, and Federal Funds for the TTansportation Disadvantaged. Accessibility. Complete PhaseI n Date. 41-2.001 Purpose. The purpose of this rule chapter is to implement the provisions of Chapter 41:1, Florida Statu t es, whieh establishes the Transportation Disadvantaged Commiss ion with the assigned responsibility to accomplish the coordination of transportation services provided to the transportation disadvantaged through the Florida Coordinated Transit System (FCTS) Specific Autlwrily 4Z7.013(9) FS. Law Implemented 120.53(1), 427 .011 -427.017 FS. Histo!J New 5-2-90. 41-Z.OOl Definitions. For purposes of this rule ehapter, the following definitions will apply: (1) "Agency'" means an official, officer, commission, authority, counci1, committee, department, division, bureau board, section, or any other unit or entity of the state or of a city, town, municipality, county, or other local governing body or a private nonprofit entity providing transportation services as aU or part of its ehart er. (2) "Annual Budget Estimate means a budget estimate of funding resources available for providing transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged, and whieh is prepared annually to cover a period of one state fiscal year. (3) commission" means the Transportation Disadvantaged Com.mission as authorized in Section 41:1.013, Florida Statutes. (4) "Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC)" means a transportation entity recommended by a Metropolitan Planning Organization, or by the appropriate designated official planning agency as provided for in Section 41:1.015(1), Florida Statutes, in an area outside the purview of a Metropolitan Planning Organization and approved by the Commission, to ensure that coordinated transportation services are provided to serve the transportation disadvantaged population in a designated service area. (5) "Coordinated Community Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan" means a three-year plan outlining aU the transportation services being provided under the current Memorandum of Agreement Standard Contract, needed in the next Memorandum of Agreement Standard Contract period, and for the first planning )'ear for lhe transportation disadvantaged in a desigoated service area. (6) "Coordinating Board" means au entity in each designated service area composed of representatives appointed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization or designated official planning agency, to provide assistance to the community transportation coordinator relative to the coordination of transportation services. (1) "Coordination" means the arrangement for the provision of transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged in a manner that is cost efficient. and reduces fragmentation and duplication of services 68

PAGE 77

(8) "Designated Official Planning Agency" means the official body or agency designated by the Commission to fulfill the functions of transportation disadvantaged planning in areas not covered by a Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Metropolitan Planning Organization shall sOJve as tbe designated official planning agency in areas covered by such organizations (9) 'Designated Service Area' means a geographical area, recommended by a designated official planning agency, subject to approval by the Commission, which de fanes the community where coordinated transportation services will be provided to the transportation disadvantaged. (10) 'J..ocal Govel'lllllent' means an elected andfor appointed public body existing to coordinate, govern, plan, fund and administer public services within a designated, limited geographic area within the state. (11) '"Local Government Comprehensive Plan"' mean s a plan that meets the requirement& of Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes. (12) "Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)' means the organization responsible for carrying out transportation planning and programming in accordance with the provisions of23 U.S.C. Section 134, as provided in 23 U.S.C. Section 104(1)(3). (13) "Paratransit means those elemenJs of public transit which provide services between specific origins and destioatioos selected by the individual user with such service being provided at a time that is agreed upon between the user and the provider of the service. Paratransit services are provided by taxis, limousines, 'dial-a ride' buses and other demand-responsive operatioos that are characterized by their nonscheduled, nonfixed route nature. (14) "Public Transit means the transporting of people by conveyances or systems of conveyances, traveling on land or water local or regional in nature, and available for use by the public. Public transit systems may be governmentally or privately owned. Public transit specifically includes those forms of transportation commonly known as "paratransic." (15) 'Regiooal Planning Council (RPC)' means the organization created under the provisions of Section 186.504, Florida Statutes, in each comprehensive planning district of Florida to assist local governments to resolve common probleou, accomplish area wide comprehensive and functional planning and provide a regional focus in regard to programs undertaken on an area-wide basis. ( 16) Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) means tbooe persons who because of physical or mental d isability, income status, or age or who for other reasons arc unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access t o health care, employment, education, shopping, social activities. or other activiti es. (17) "Transportation Disadvantaged Funds means any local government, state or federal unds that are available/eligible for the transportation of the transportation disadvantaged. Such funds may include, but are not limited to, funds for planning, administration, operation, maintenance of vehicles or equipment, and capital investments. Transportation disadvantaged funds do not include funds for the transportation of children to public schools. (18) "Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)" means a staged multi-year program of transportation improvements, including an annual element, which will be developed by a Metropolitan Planning Organization or designated official planning agency. (19) "Transportation Operator" means one or more public, private for profit or private nonprofit entities engaged by the community transportlltion coordinator to provide service to transportation disadvantaged persons pursuant to a coordinated system service plan. (20) "Trust Fund" means the T r ansportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund authorized in Section 427.0159, Florida Statutes, and administered by the Commission. (21) "Nonsponsored Transportation Disadvantaged PeT'$on" means. an individual who meets the defUlition of transportation disadvantaged but who is not subsidized for transportation fmancial assis'tance for specific trips. (22) 'Florida Coordinated Transit System" (FCTS) means a transportation system responsible for coordination and service provisions for the transportation disadvantaged as outlined in Chapter 4rT, Florida Statutes (23) 'Nonsponsored Trip' means a trip for a transportation disadvantaged individual which is not subsidized in part or in whole by any funding source. Specific Authorily 427.013(9) FS Law Implemented 4:0.011 427.017 FS. History-New 5 -2-90. 69

PAGE 78

41.003 CommlsslOD Organization and Penonnel. (1) The Chairperson and Vi.,.,.Cbairperson of the Commission shall be elected annually from the membership of the Commissioo. (2) The Commission shall appoint ao Executive Director, who shall serve uoder the direction, supervisiou, and controJ of the Commission. The Executive Director, with the consent of the Commission, shall employ such persoonel as may be oecessary to perform adequately the functions of the Commissioo and operate within approved budget limitations. The Commission will mooitor the duties of the Exccutive Director and shall, from time to time, a.ssigo or ameod duties as necessary. Annual evaluations of the Executive Director, will be performed by a standing personae! committee of the Commission. Evaluations and other personae! actions relating to the staff of the Commission, excluding the Executive Director, shall be delegated to the Executive Director with input, as needed, by the Commission. (3) The Commission will develop and update such by-laws, poticies or proeedures as necessary to carry out its respoosibilities. ( 4) All forms designated in this rule chapter are attainable from the Commission at its office located at 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 49, Tallahas see, Aorida 32399-0450. Specific Authority 4:!7.013(9) FS. Law Implemented 427.012 FS. History-New 5-2-90. 41.004 Notice and Frequency of Commissloo Meetinga. (1) Except in the case of emergency, the Commission shall give at least ten ealendar days public notice of any meeting at which poticy-making decisions are to be made. The notice shall be published in the Aorida Administrative Weekly, and provide: (a) The date, time place of the event, the address and phone at which interested persons may write or call to obtain a copy of the agenda or available materials. (b) Commissioo members or others desiring placemeot of ageoda items for each meeling shall provide same to the Exe<:Utivc Director three weeks prior to said meeting. The Chairperson shall have the authority to coordinate and approve agenda items and, upon a majority vote of the Commission, amend the agcoda at the beginning of each meeting. Howcvcrt except for emergency situations, such amended items shall be for discussion only with no official action to be taken until the next advertised meeting. (2) An emergeocy meetiog or agenda is a mwing or issue that requires Commission action because of an immineot detriment or threat to the program or to the health, safety and welfare of the State's traosportalioo disadvantaged citizens. (3) The Commission shall meet at least quarterly, or more frequently at the eaJJ of the Chairperson Seven mcmbc.rs of the Commit;Sion constitute a quorum. and a majority vote of the members present is necessary for any official action taken by the Commission. Commission members who are agency heads and desire to appoint a designee, must provide written documentation of this actioo. Such designee shall have voting authority in the abseoce of the appointed Commission member but cannot serve as an elected officer of the Commission. Specific Authority 427.013(9) FS. Law lmplememed 120.53(1), 427.012(4) FS. History-New 5-2. 41-1.005 Member Department Respooslbllltles (1) Each member department shall develop, monitor and amend, as appropriate, a plan that assures each member departmeot is carrying out the provisions of Section 427.0135, Aorida Statutes. The plan shalll!e submitted to the Commission annually by January 1 each year. Any amendments to the plan shall be submilled to the Commission within six months of the effective date of the member department rule or policy change. (2) Each member department or agency purchasing transportation services through the Commnni!Y Traosportation Coordinator shall utilize a Commission approved uniform Memorandum of Agreement Standard Contract of January 10, 1990, for all transportation disadvantaged services. (3 ) Each member department shall develop annually, as part of the plan submitted to the Commission, a vehicle inveotory and utilization plan for t hose vehicles purchased with transportation disadvantaged funds. (4) No member departmeot may be selected as Community Trans portation Coordinato r or Transportation Operator. Specific Authority 427.013(9) FS. Law Implemented 427.0135 FS. History-New 5-90. 70

PAGE 79

41.006 lnsunuu:e and Safety Requirements. (I) Each agency which funds or purchases transportation services from olher than the Coordinator shall ensure that the operators used are in compliance with the minimum liability insurance requirements of $100,000 per person and $200,000 per incident, which are comparable to 768.28(5), Florida Statutes, 1imits, required by the Commission for all purchased transportation services for the transportation disadvautaged and that the insurance is in force at all times and that all such transportation operators indemnify and hold harmless the agency/entity, Local, State and federal governments, their entities, departments, and Coordinator and the Commission from any liabilities arising out of or due to an accident or negligence on the part of the transportation operator. (2) The Community Transportation Coordinator, shall ensure compliance with the minimum liability insurance requirement of $100,000 per person and $200,000 per incident, which are comparable to 768.28(5), Florida Statutes,lilllits, for aU transportation services purchased or provided for the transportation disadvantaged. The Community Transportation Coordinator will indemnify and hold harmless the Local, State, and Federal governments and their entities, departments, and the Commission from any liabilities arising out of or due to an accident or negligence on the part of the Community Transportation Coordinator and the Tran.
PAGE 80

Annual Operating Report will be compiled into a Statewide Operations Report by the Commisoioa and utilized as a part of the analysis of the Community Transportation Coordinator's performance eYaluation when grantiug funds from the Trust Fund. The Community Transportati011 Coordinator's report shall be approved by the Coordinating Board and prior to submittal to tbe Commission with a copy provided to the Metropolitan Plaoning Organization or Designated Official Planning Agency. An annual report of the Coordinating Board may be made a part of sueb document. (6) The Commission shall develop guidelines delineating the content and f ormat for the reporting requirements. (7) Each Community Transportation Coordinator shaD utilize the Transpor tation Accounting Consortium Model Uniform Accounting System for Rural and Specialized T ranspor tation Providers for its ftnancial managemeat. Community Transportation Coordinators who are political subdivisions of the State of Florida will not be required to adopt the system in lieu of established accounting systems but will be required to prepare all reports, invoices, and fJSCal documents r elating to the ttansportatioa disadvantaged functions and activities usiag the ebart of accouats and accountiug definitions as outlined in the above referenced manual. Such manual is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of these rules. (8) The Commission shall request from the Florida State Clearinghouse within the Executive Office of the Governor, for review all fuading requests containing a transportation disadvantaged component Said funding request shall be reviewed by the Commission for coordination conformance. (9) The Commission shall make an annual report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Mareb 1 of each year The report will oontain a summary of the Commission's accomplishments for the preceding state fiscal year, the operational statistics for transportation disadvantaged services, identified uamet needs and a fmancial status of the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund. Copies of the report will also be made available to member departments, Metropolitan Plaoning Organizations, Designated Official Planning Agencies and Community Transportation Coordinators. Specific Authority 427.013(9) FS. Law Implemented 427.012(8), 427.013(3), (7), (8), (9), (12), (13), (16), 427.0135(1), 427.015(1) FS. HistOty-New 5-2-90. 41-2.008 Memorandum or Agnemenl. The Memorandum of Agreement shall be a one-year binding standard oontract between the Commission and a Community Transportation Coordinator. It shall be utiliud as the coordinated transportation contract by all agencies/entities using local government, state or federal funds for the purchase of transportation disadvantaged services. In oooperation with the Coordinating Board the Community Transportation Coordinator shall develop a Memorandum of Agreement that includes the format and language approved by the Commission. It will oonsist of three sections: (1) Standard Contract Language; (2) Coordinated Co'!lmunity Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan; and (3) Attachment 1 that includes tbe transportation service delivery terms and conditions agreed upon by the Coordinator and all agencies/entities using local government, state or federal funds to purchase coordinated transportation for the transportation disadvantaged in the Coordinator's designated service area. The Coordinator sliaU prepare and include an Attachment r section to show the terms and conditions that will apply to the non-sponsored transportation disadvantaged in the designated service area. The Agreement shall be presented by the Chairperson of the Board in their respective service are a to the Commission for review and approval. Upon approval and when effective, aU agencies purchasing covered transportation disadvantaged services from the Coordinator shall honor valid requisition voucheTS of the Coordinator within 45 days of receipt or accept penalty as specified in Section 215.422(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The Agreement is included in this rule by reference. Specific Authority 427.013(9) FS. LAw Implemented 427.013(10),(15), 427.015(2), 427.0155(7), 427.0157(1) FS. HistOty-New 5-:Z..90. 41-Z-009 Designated Olnc:ial Planning Agoncy. (1) Metropolitan Planning Organizations shaD serve as the designated official plaoning agency in urbanized areas. In areas not oovered by a Metropolitan Planning Organi2ation, agencies eligible for selection as Designated Official Planning Agencies include County or City governments, Regional Planning Councils, Metropolitan Planning Orgaaizations, or Local Planning Organi2ations who are currently performing planning 72

PAGE 81

aclivities in designated senice areas. Eligibility for designation will also be conditioned on the agency's resources and capabilities of implementing the responsibilities and requirements of Chapter 41:1, Florida Statutes. Upon rule adoption, all currently existing or eligible designated official planning agencies shall be evaluated by the Commission. The Commission will either renew the existing agency's designation or approve the designation of a new agency. An agency's continued designation as the official planning agency shall be subject to the approval of the Commission. (2) Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Designated Official Planning Agencies shall include a Transportation Disadvantaged element in their Transportation Imp rovement Program (TIP). Such element shall include a project and program description, the planned costs and anticipated revenues for the seniees, identification of the year lhe project or services are to be undertaken and implemented, and that there bas been coordination with local public transit and local government comprehensive planning bodies. (3) Each Designa ted Official Planning Agency shall provide each Coordinating Board with sufficient staff support and resources to enable the Coordinating Board to fulfill its responsibilities. In areas where a Metropolitan Planning Organization or Designated Official Planning Agency serves as the Community Transportation Coordinator and desires to utilize the same staff for the Coordinating Board, such agency shall abstain from any official actions that represent a conflict of interest, specificaJJy in the evaluation process of the Community Transportation Coordinator Authority 4i7.013(9) FS. Law Impkmemed 427.013(21), 427.015 FS. History-New 5-2--90. 41-2.010 Selection or Community Transportation Coordlnator. (1) Designation, selection, or revocation of designation of any Community Transportation Coordinator or its Transportation Operators, shall be subject to the approval of the Commission Minimum qualifications and benefits for the Community Transportation Coordinator shall be developed by the Commi.<&ion, as owtined in Form No. TDC-002 and TDC-003, incorporated herein. (2) Selection of agencies as Community Transportation Coordinators may be negotiated without competitive acquisition, upon the determination of the Metropolitan Planning Organization or Designated Official Planning Agency that it is in the best interest of the transportation disadvantaged. This includes circumstances such as insufficient competition availability, or it is agreed that the appointed Community Transportation Coordinator will competitively acquire a substantial portion of services. (3) Selection of the Community Transportation Coordinator will be accomplished, to the maximum extent feasibl e, through public compe
PAGE 82

(i) A sample Transportation Disadvantaged Servig proposers of any local resources that exist or are planned that should be recogniud in the bidders proposal. (S) The annouucement of the request for proposal shall be> published iD at least one newspaper of largest general circulation in the designated service area and in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Th e advertised announcement shall include the time. date and place of a public meeting to provide information and answer questions about the request for proposal. (6) Upon evaluation of !he proposals, each Metropolitan Planning Organizat i o n or Designated Official Planning Agency, upo n eonsultation with the Coordinating Board, shall recommend to the Commission a Community Transportation Coordinator. (7) Upon resignation or termination of any Community Transportation Coordinator, the Met ropolitan Planning Organization or Designated Official Planoing Agency shall complete the selection process within 60 days after termination date for nonbid Coordinators and within 120 days after terminatioo date for bid/RFP coordinators. (8) lo eases of termination between the Community Transportation Coordina t or, or in unforeseen emergencies, the Commission shall work with the local Coordinating Board in an expeditious manner to provide for the continuation of services to the transportation disadva.Dtaged in the designated service area through a contractual arrangement. SpecificAutltorily427.013(9) FS. Law Implemented 427.013( 10),(15), 427.015(2), 427.0155(7 ), 427.0157 FS. History New 5-2. 42.011 Community Transportation Coordinator Powers and Duties. (1) Each Community Transportation Coordinator shall be responSible for the overall planning, administration, monitoring, coordination, arrangement and delivery of transportation disadvantaged services originating within their designated service area on a full time basis. Local management personnel with dayto-
PAGE 83

Disadvantaged resources available or plaiUled in their designated service area in order to plan, coordinate, and implemeot the most cost effective lransportatioo disadvantaged trausit system possible under the cooditioos that exist in the designated service area. (9) Contractual administration of Commuoity Transportat i on Coordinators shaU be accomplished through a Memorandum of Agreemeot tbe Commission and theCommunityTraosportation Coordinator in accordance with the procedures of the Commission. Tra.n.sporcation services purchased from or arranged by the Community Transportation Coordinator will be billed to purchasing agencies by the Coordinator at the official Memorandum of Agl'eemeot rates and recognize any special conditioos specified in the Purchasing Ageocy Requiremeots Section r of th e Memorandum of Agreemeot Payment for services will be made direct l y to the Coordinator unless otherwise agreed upon, in writing, by the purchaser and approved by the Commissioo. (10) Tbe Commission, in eooperatioo with the local Coordinatiog Board, will develop a statewide prog1am that allows for intercounty uansportatioo opportunities through a certification process. Each Community Traosportation Coordinator will honor such cenificatioo in their respective servi ce area. Specific Authority 427.013(9) F$. Law Implemented 417.0155 FS. 5-2-90. 41-2.011 Coordinatiog Board Structure and Duties. The purpose of the Coordinating Board is to idcotify local service needs and to provide information, advice, and direction to the Community Traosportation Coordinator on the coordination of services to be provided to the transportation disadvantaged through the Florida Coordinated Transit System (FctS). T he members of the Coordinating Board shaU be appointed by the Metropolitan Planning Organiza ti on or tbe Designated Official Planning Age ocy. A Coordinatiog Board shaU be appointed in each county The structure and duties of the Coordinating Board shall b e as follows: (1) The Metropolitan Planning Organization or Designated Official Planning Agency shaU appoint one of its members, who i s an elected orficial, to serve as the official chairperson (or aU Coordinating Board meetings. H the designated official is a Regional Planning Couocil, the member appointed sbaU be an elected official from the county of the Coordinating Board. (2) The Board shall hold an organizational meetiog each year for the purpose of electing a Vice Chairperson. The Vice Chairperson sbaU be elected by a majority vote of a quorum of the members of the Board present and voting at the organizaHonal meeting. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve a term of one year starting with the next meeting In the event of the Chairpers<>n's absence, the Vice-Chairperson shall assume the duties of the Chairperson and conduct the meeting. (3) In additioo to the Chairperson the following agencies or groups shall be represented on the Board, in every county as v01ing members: (a) A local representative of the Florida Department of Transportatioo; (b) A l ocal representative of the Florida Department of Health and R e habilitative Services; (c) A representative of the Pubtie Education Community; (d) A local representative of the Flo r ida Department of Labor and Employment Security; (e) A person who is recognized by the Florida Depattment of Veterans' Affairs, represeotiog the veterans in the county; (f) A person who is recognized by the Florida Association for Community Action (PresideD!), representing the economicaUy disadvantaged io tbe county; (g) A person over sixty representing the elderly in the county ; (h) A handicapped person representiog the handicapped in the county; and (i) Two citizen advocate representatives in the county; ooe who must be a user of the system. (4) Additional non voting members may be appo\nted. It is recommended that an existing public mass transit operator be appointed. I f an existing transportation board or committee exi.
PAGE 84

(b) Review and approve the Memorandum of Agreement including the Coordinated Community Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan. (c) On a cominuing basis, evaluate semces provided under the desi8JU1ted semce plan. AnnuaUy, prior to the Coordinator's annual evaluation, provide the Metropolitan Planning Organization or Designated Official Planning Agency with an evaluation of the Coordinator's performance iD general and relative to COmmission standards and the completion of the annual semce plan. Recommendations relative to performance and the renewal of the Coordinator's contract sball be iDcludcd in the report. (d) In cooperation with the Community T ransportation Coordinator, review and provide recommendations to the Commission and the Metropolitan Planning Organization or Designated Official Planning Agency, on all applications for local government, state or federal funds relatiDg to transportation of the transportation disadvantaged in the designated semcc area to enswe that any expenditures within the desi8JU1ttd service area are provided in the most cost effective and efficient manner. (e) Review coordination strategies for service provision to the transportation disadvantaged in the designated service area to seek innovative ways to improve cost efficiency, safety, working hours and types of service in an effort to increase ridership to a broader population. Sueb strategies should alw encourage multicounty aud regional transportation service agreements between area Community Transportation Coordinators and consolidation of adjacent designated service areas when it is appropriate and cost effective to do so. (t) Appoint a Grievance Subcommittee to process, investigate and resolve complaints and make re.commendatioa.s to the Board for improvement of service from agencies, users or potential users of ihe system in the designated semce area. The Board shall establish procedures to provide regular opportunities for issues to be brought before sueb subcommittee and to resolve them in a timely manner. (g) In coordination with the Community Transportation Coordinator, jointly develop applications for funds that may become available. (h) Prepare by October 1 an Annual Report, to be consolidated with the Coordinator's Annual Operating Report, outlining the accomplishments and activities or other areas of interest to the Commission and the Metropolitan Planning Organization or Designated Official Planning Agency for the most recent operating year period. (i) Consolidate the annual budget of local and federal government transportation disadvanlaged funds estimates and forward to the CO!!>mission no later than December 1 for reportiDg purposes. A copy of the consolidated report shall be provided to the Metropolitan Planning Organization or Desi8JU1ted Official Planning Agency for planning purposes. G) Develop and maintain a vehicle inveDiory and utilization plan of those vehicles purchased with transportation disadvantaged funds for inclusion in the Board Annual Report to the Commission. Specific Authority 427.013(9) FS. Law Implemented 427.0157 FS. History-New 5-2-90. 41-1.013 Transportation Disadvantaged n-ust Fund. The Commission annually will evaluate the distribution of the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund. Funds deposited and appropriated into the Trust Fund will be utilized for: (1) Commission administrative and operating CJ
PAGE 85

(b) Year Two (FY 91-92) Community TnlllSportation Coordinaton; who have an executed Memorandum of Agreement. Determination for eligibility will be made on December 15 each year by the Cominisslon. Metropolitan Planning Organizations or Designated Official Planning Agencies approved by the Commission may apply only if there is a functioning Coordinating Board. Determination of such eligibility will be made by the Commission on December 15 based on documented at1ivities of the Coordinating Board and planning agency. (2) Types of Grants. (a) Trip Related. Trip related grant funds may be used for the provision of nouspousored trips for the transportation disadvantaged and for the purchase of capital equipment to be used for services provided to the transportation disadvantaged. (b) Planning Related. Planning related gant funds may be used by an eligible Metropolitan Planning Organization or Designated Official Planning Agency to assist in their responsibilities under Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, including support to the local Coordinating Board with an emphasis on implementing services for the nonsponsorcd transportation disadvantaged in the designated service area. (3) Match Requirement. Eligible gant recipients must provide 25% of the total project cost as a local match. At least half of the 25% match must be cash generated from local sowoes, and the remaining portion may be inkind services which are documented and acceptable to the Commission. (4) Allocation of Gra.ot Funds. On December lS of each year, the Commission shall aUocate a portion identified as the Grants Progam of the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund in the following manner: (a) Two-thirds of the Grants Progam shall be designated for trip-related grants. Beginning in the second funding year (FY 91-92) and annually thereafter, 20% of the trip related gants program will be set aside ror performance incentive awards to eligible Community Transportation Coordinators. (b) One-third of the Grants Progam shall be designated for planning related gants. (5) Distnbution of Trip Related Grant Funds. Eacb eligible applicant's allocation will be determined for the county or counties within the designated service area for which the applicant provides transportation disadvantaged services. The latest required certifred annual operating report which is submitted by October 1 uclt year will be used for obtaining the applicant's system vehicle miles and system passenger trips data Trip related gant funds will be allocated to eligible applicants based on a comparative ranking of all eligible applicants in each of the following four categories: (a) The applicant's total county area in square miles as a percentage of the total square miles of all eligible applicants. (b) Total system passenger trips provided as a percentage of all eligible applicant trips reported in the certifoed Annual Operating Report. (c) Total system vehicle miles traveled as a percentage of all eligible applicants vehicle miles traveled and reported in the certified Annual Operating Report. (d) Total county population as a percentage of the total population of all eligible applicants. (6) Each category will represent one fourth of the trip related grant funds available after 20% Performance Incentive Award allocation bas been set aside. (7) Distribution of Performance-Incentive Awards. Beginning in FY 9 1, the eligible applicants for Trip-related gants will be selected to receive Performance Incentive Awards. These Awards are to be used for exemplary projects which are identified in the Trip-related Grant Application but not achievable with the normal allocation. The Commission will make these awards based on any of the following performance eriteria: (a) Local fmancial support as a percentage of total operating expense; (b) Percentage of non-sponsored trips to total trips; (e) System efficiency (total oost divided by total trips); (d) Information reporting (timeliness); (e) Extent to which local comprehensive plan contains transportation disadvantaged plans as a part of the local transit plan; (f) Accidents per 100,000 miles; (g) Audit ftndings; (h) Lead time for demand responsive service; (i) Promptness of service; (j) Exemplary performance; and 77

PAGE 86

(k) Other Performance Related Activities. (8) Distribution of Planning Related Grants. P l anning related grants will be mstrib uted to eligible applicants based on 50% for county population as a percentage of all eligrble applicants total population and a 50% equal mstnbution for each eligible applicant. Eligible applicants not requiring the total amount of funmng available may recommend to the Coordjnating Board that any excess funds be applied for by the Community Transportation Coordinator for additional non-sponsored trip needs. The Commission shall review and reallocate any eligible excess Junds to that particular county or service area's normal allocation. Authority FS. Law Implemented 427.013, 4 27 .0159, 427.016 FS. History-New 5 2 41 015 Expendit ure of Local Go .. rumtnt, State, and Federal Funds for the Transportation DisadVlllllalltd. (1) Any agency purchasing or providing transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged sball contract with the Community Transportation Coormnator (2) All agency applications for transportation disadvantaged operating and capital assistance funds shall be made available to the Coordinating Board for such review Applications by the Commission for any local government funds shall be presented to the Coordinating Board for review in accordance with Section 427.013(11), F1orida Statutes AUlhority 427.013(9) F S Law Implememed 427.016 FS. HistOI)'New 5 90. 41 2.0 1 6 Accessibility The Commission shal l monitor and evaluate barriers s uch as accessibility to enswe compliance with any srate, federal, or local government regulations relating to accessibility. Specific Authority 427. 013(9) FS. Law Implemented 427.013(4) FS. History-New 5-2 90 41.017 Complete Phase In Date. It is the intent of the Commission, to the maximum extent possible, that the provisions of this rule chapler be implemented immediate l y. Complete implemeDiation witb the provisions of thiS rnle chapter sball be on or before July 1, 1992. Noncompllanoc of this rule chapter may result in the termination of eligibility for Transportation Di.
PAGE 87

AOR CCTD CCTP CTC DCA DHHS DLES DOE DVA E&H FAC FDOT FS FY HRS MOA MPO OPA RFP RTAP TD TDC TDP TIP UMTA UPWP List of Abbreviations Annual Operating Report Coordinating Council on the Transportation Disadvantaged Coordinated Community Transportation Provider Community Transportation Coordinator Florida Department of Community Affairs U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Florida Department of Educati()n Florida Department of Veterans' Affairs Elderly and Handicapped Florida Administrative Code Florida Department of Transportation Florida Statute Fiscal Year Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Memorandum of Agreement Metropolitan Planning Organization Official Planning Agency Request for Proposal R ural Transit Assistance Program Transportation Disadvantaged Transportation Disadvantaged Commission Transit Development Plan Transportation Improvement Program Urban Mass Transportation Administration Unified Planning Work Program 79

PAGE 88

Glossary Annual Budget Estimateannual estimate of the local, state, and federal government funds anticipated to be available for transportation disadvantaged services within the designated service area. Annual Operating Report -an annual report prepared by the community transportation coordinator detailing its designated area operating statistics for the most recent operating year. Chapter 427 FS the Florida statute establishing the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and prescribing its duties and responsibilities. Community Transportation Coordinator transportation entity recommended by an official planning agency to ensure that coordinated transportation services are provided to the transportation disadvantaged population in a designated service area. Formerly known as the coordinated community transportation provider. Coordinated Community Transportation Provider predecessor to the community transportation coordinator. Coordinating Board entity in each designated service area composed of representatives appointed by the official planning agency. Its purpose is to provide to the community transportation coordinator concerning the coo rdination of transportation services. Coordinating Council for the Transportation Disadvantaged created in 1979 with the express purpose of coordinating transportation serv ices for the transportation disadvantaged by developing rules and procedures to implement Chapter 427, FS. Also known as the Coordinating Council. The predecessor of the Transportation Disadvantaged Commiss i on. Designated Service Area the geographical area, consisting of one or more counties, recommended by the official planning agency, subject to approval by the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission, in which coordinated transportation services are provided to the transportation disadvantl!&ed Memorandum of Agreement a one-year binding standard contract between the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission and a community transportation coordinator. This contract and its provisions serve as a performance and reporting standard to guide the delivery of service by all agencies or entities that provide transportation disadvantaged s ervice s Metropolitan Planning Organization in urban areas the organization responsible for transportation planning and progr amming. Also serves as t he official planning agency in urban areas. 80

PAGE 89

Nonsponsored Transportation Disadvantaged Passenger an individual who meets the definition of a transportation disadvantaged individual and is not subsidized for transportation financial assistance. Nonsponsored Transportation Disadvantaged Trip a trip for a transportation disadvantaged individua l that is not subsidized in part or whole by a funding sou rc e. Official Planning Agency the agency designated by the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission to appoint the community coordinating board and recommend the community transportation coordinator for each service area Metropolitan planning organizations are automatically the official planning agencies in urban areas. Paratransit elements of public t ransit providing services between spec ifi c orig in s and destinations selected by the individual user with service being provided at a time agreed upon by the user and provider. Paratransit is characterized by demand-responsive, nonscheduled service and by n o nfixed routes Rule 41-2, FAC the rule adopted by the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission to impleme nt provisions established in Chapter 427, Florida Statutes. Replaced Rule 41-1. Sponsored Transportation Disadvantaged Passenger an individual who meets the definition of a transportation disadvantaged individual and is subsidized for transportation financial assistance Sponsored Transportation Disadvantaged Trip a trip for a transportation disadvantaged individual that is subsidized in part or whole by a funding source. Transportation Improvement Plan a staged multi-year program of transportation improvements, including an annual element developed by an MPO specifying program activities for the current fiscal year. Transportation Disadvantaged in Florida, those persons who because of physical or mental disability, income status, or age or who for other reasons are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, socia l activities, or other life-sustaining activities, or children who are handicapped or high-risk or at-risk as de fin ed in s. 411.202. Transportation Disadvantaged Commissioncreated in 1989 to accomplish the coordination of transportation services provided to the transportation disadvantaged population. Replaced the Coordinating Council for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Transportation Disadvantaged Funds any federal, state, or local funds available for the transportation of the transportation disadvantaged. Includes funds for planning, administration, operations, and capital equipment. It does not include funds used for the transportation of children to public schools. 81

PAGE 90

Transportation Disadvantaged Population persons from the total population meeting the transportation disadvantaged definition guidelines. Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund -a fund administered by the T ranspo r tation D i sadvantaged Commission in which all fees coll ected for the transportation disadvantaged program shall be deposited. The funds deposited wi ll be appropriated by the legislature to the commission to carry out the commission's responsibilities. Transportation Operator one or more public, private for profit, or private nonprofit entities engaged by the community transportation coordinator to provide service to transportation disadvantaged persons. 82

PAGE 91

List of References FLORIDA RE PORT S ATE Management & Service Company. l mprovin2 Elderly & Disabled Transportation Throueh Private Sector Contracting. Pinellas County, Florida: Metropolitan Planning Organization, 1987. Carte r Goble Associates, Inc. A PrQeram Analysis fQr the CQQrdinatine Council on the Transportation Djsadvanta&ed n.p .: Carter Goble Associates, 1989. Center for Local Government Administration A Study Qf Transportation for the Disadvantaged in Duval County. Jacksonville, Florida: Center for Local Government Administration, 1989. Environmental Design Group Incorporated Plan to Improve TranspQrtation Services for the Elderly I n Orange Seminole and OsceoJa Countie s UMTA-f1...06.0005-73-1 Winter Park, Florida: East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 1973 Florida Committee on Aging. Pathways tQ the Future: The RepQrt Qf the F!Qrida Committee on A&ing. n.p.: Florida Committee on Aging, January 1985. Florida Committee on Aging. Pathways to the Future II: lmplemeotatiQn. n.p.: Florida Committee on Aging, Janu ary 1986. Florida Departmen t of Transportation. Public Transportation GQals and QQjectives. n,p.: F lorida Department of Transportation, 1983. Florida s Approach to Coordinated Transportation for the Transportation Disadvanta&ed Tallahassee, F lorida: TD Commission 1988. Hutchinson, Jo Ann. A Case Study; Coordination of Rural Transp<>rtatiQn in FIQrida. Tallahassee, Florida: TD Commission library, n.d Hutchinson, JoAnn. Florida's Decade of Experience in Coordinated TranspQrtariQn fQr the Disadvantaged Tallahassee, Florida: TD Commission library, 1990 J acksonville Planning Departtnent. TraJlSl!ortation Disadvantaged Plan for Duval County Jacksonville, Florida : Jacksonville Planning Department. Kimley-Horn and Assoc i ates, I nc Statewide Transit Needs Plan Phase I. n.p.: Florida Departtnent of Transportation Bureau of Multi-Modal Systems Planning, 1986. 83

PAGE 92

Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Needs Study. 4 vols. Dade County, Florida: Office of Transportation Administration, Division of Planning & Programming, 1978. Paratransit Services Analysis of Coordinated Transportation in Walton County. n.p.: Paratransit Services, 1983. Pinellas County Planning Department. Coordinated Community Transwrtation Provider Operations Plan. Pinellas County, Florida: Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, 1987. Post, Buckley, &huh & Jernigan, Inc. Public Traru;portation Coordination fo r t he Disadvantaged jn Florida. UMT A Report 904-005.00. Tallahassee Florida: Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., January 1981. Schimpe l er-Corradino Assoc i ates Florida Statewide Five Year Transit and Paratransjt Development Plan for the Transportation 5 vols n.p : Schimpeler Corradino Associates, June 1 984. Schimpeler-Corradino Associates. Florida Statewide Transit System Plan Development Phase II: Short Range Transit System Plan. n.p.: Florida Department of Transportation, 1987. Senate Committee on Transportation. A Revjew of the Council for the Transportation Disadvantaged in the Department of Transportation. n p.: Senate Committee on Transportation, January 1989. State of Florida Office of the Auditor General. Performance Audit of the Transportation for the Disadvantaged Proj!ram o f the Council on the Transportation Disadvantaged and the Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida: State of Florida Office o f the Auditor General, 1987. T ALTRAN. Coordinated Transwrta! i on Develapmem Proeram & Operat i onal Plan Tallahassee, Florida: Tallahassee-Leon County Metropolitan Planning Organization, 1983. Toward a Unification of National and State Policy on the Transportation Disadvant!lied: Part ill. The Florida Perspective Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Transportation Conference. 3-5 December 1974. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, 1974. Transportation Consulting Group. St. Lucie County Coordinated T ranponatjon Development Plan for the Transportation Disadvantaged Winter Park, Florida: Transportation Consulting Group, 1983. 84

PAGE 93

Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. State of Florida Transportation Disadvantaged HandbOOk. Tallahassee, Florida: m Colimlission, 1989. Transportation of the Elderly. A Pilot Project to Develop Mobility for the Elderly and Handicapped: Interim Report. UMTA-FL-06-0007-74-1. St. Petersburg, Florida : City of St. Petersburg and Department of Transportation, 1974. REPORTS FROM OTIIER STATES American Public Transit Association. An Overview of State Transit Fundin&. Washington, D.C.: American Public Transit Association, 1982. Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation r n r i n for the El e r l and d Guidelines & Application. Phoenix, Arizona : Transportation, 1990. Center for Systems and Program Development, Inc. Guidebook to Best. Practices" in Specialized and Human Services Transportation Coordination. Washington, D.C.: The Joint DOT/DHHS Coordinating Council on Human Services Transportation Coordination, 1989. Comsis Corporation. 1988 Annual Report: Indiana Public Transportation. Silver Spring, Maryland: Indiana Department of Transportation Division of Public Transportation, 1988. Connecticut Department of Transportation. Connecticut Master Transportation Plan. Wethersfield, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1990 Connecticut Department of Transportation ElderJ.y and Disabled Trans.ponation Study Wethersfield, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning, Office of Transportation Systems, 1987. Connecticut Department of Transportation Transportation Plan for Disabilities Served lzy Urban Mass Transportation Systems. Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1989. Persons with Wethersfield, Connecticut Public Transpo rtation Comm issi on. Recommendations. Wethersfield, Connecticut: 1989 Annual Report and Connecticut Public Transportation Commission, 1989. 85

PAGE 94

Crain and Associates. Subsidized Taxi Pro&rams for Elderly and Handicapped Persons in the San Francisco Bay Area. DOT-TSC-UMTA-77-42. Menlo Park, California : U S. Department of Transportation, 1977. Dynatrend, Inc. The I daho Rural/Small City CoQJ!e rative Transportation Marketini Demonstration PrQject. DOT-1-87-17. Woburn, Massachusetts: Transportation Systems Center of the U S. Department of T ransportation October 1986. Ecosometrics, Inc Study to Identify the Transportation Needs of the Elderly and D i sabled in Kent and Sussex Counties. Bethesda, Maryland: Delaware Transportation Authority and Delaware Department of Transportation, 1990. Ecosometrics, Inc and The University of Delaware College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy. Study to Perform a Suryey of the Transportation Needs of the Elderly. Disabled. and Economically in Northern New Castle County. Bethesda, Maryland: Delaware Transportation Authority and Delaware Department of Transportation, 1990 Edner, Sheldon M., Kenneth J. Dueker and Janice Dean of the Center for Urban Studies at the Portland State University 1988 Oreeon Public Transportation Study. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Transportation Public Transit Division, 1989. Greene, Michael J. Coordinating Rural Transit: Stretching State Resources for Better Service Lexington, Kentucky: The Council of State Governments, 1986. Indiana Governor's Planning Council for People with Disabilities. Indiana's 1990 Report to the Governor. the Legislature and the People of Indiana. Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Governor's Planning Council for People with Disabilities, 1990. Maine Tomorrow. An Analysis and Action StrateeY for Select Surface Transportation Services in Maine. Hallowell, Maine: Maine Department of Transportation, 1986. Mazaheri, Mort L, of the College of Engineering and Architecture at North Dakota State University. Transit Insurance Options and Alternatives for North Dakota Fargo, North Dakota : North Dakota State Highway Department 1988. McGrew, E. Sandi. State of State Management Plan: Urban Mass Transportation Administration Provams for Small Urban and Rural Areas of Wyoming. n.p.: Wyoming State Highway Department, 1990. Merrimack Valley Planning Commission. Elderly and Disabled Transportation Plan for the Merrimack Valley Merrimack Valley, Massachusetts: Merrimack Valley P lanning Commission, 1987. 86

PAGE 95

New Jersey Tra nsit Corporation. A Prollram for M ass Transportation Services for Handicawed Persons: A Prollram for Accessible Bus Service. Newark, New Jersey: N J Transit, 1987. New J ersey Transit Corporation. Senior Citizen and Disabled Resident Transportation Assistance Program: Annual Report Fiscal Year 1988. Newark, New Jersey: NJ Transit, 1988. Oregon Department of Transportation. 1987 Guidebook: Special Transportation Funding for the Elderly & Handicapped Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Transportation Public Transit Division, 1987. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. An Information Systems Manual for Human Service TransportatiQ.o.. Wilkes-Barre, Penns ylvania: Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, 1982. Peter Schauer Associates and Patricia Weaver Associates. Wind River Ind ian Reservation Transit Development Plan. Boonville, Missouri and Lawrence, Kansas: Wyoming Highway Department, 1989. Preiffer, David. Policy Percentaies. and D isability. Boston: Suffolk University Department of Public Management, 1990. Preiffer, David. Public Tra nsit Access for Disa bled Persons in the United States. Boston: Suffolk University Department of Public Management, 1990. PCeiffer, David, and Judith Poole. Characteristics of Adult Disabled Persons in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston and Watertown, Massachusetts: Suffolk University Department of Public Management, 1989 Piras, Patrisha, and Chris Hatfield. The Challenge of Fjnancinll Coordinated Speciali ze d Transportation in CaHfornja. Oakland and Sacramento, California: Metropolitan Transportation Commission and California Department of Transportation, 1985. Prater, Gwendolyn Spencer, Alexander McKinley Jr., and Ruth Williams. An Analysis of Four Selected State Transwrtatjon Coordinat ed Efforts in Social Services and Rural Public Transportation. DOT MS-11-0003. Jackson, Mississippi: Jackson State University Departments of Social Work and Economics, 198 9. Purdue University Automotive Transportation Center. Evaluation of the Specialized. Volunteer Transponation Program of the Area IV Agency on Aging and Community Servjce. DOT-T-88-01. West Lafayette, Indiana: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1987. Rosenbloom, Sandra. Elderly and Handicapped Transi t and Para-Transit Services Across the United States: The Experiences of Mjd-Sjzed Cities. Community and Regional Planning Working Paper No. 022. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, 1990. 87

PAGE 96

Simon, Rosalyn. Iowroved Service Delivezy to MIA Passengers wjth Disabilities. 2 vols. Baltimore: Maryland Mass Transit Administration, 1989. Southern University of New Orleans Urban Studies Program. Special Transportation Enhancement Demonstration Pmiect Evaluation Report. UMTA-LA-06-0007. New Orleans, Louisiana: Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes, 1988. Standing Committee on Public Transportation 1989 Survey of State Involvement in Public Transportation. Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway and Transportati on Officials, 1989. Systan, Inc., Honnitz, Allen and Associates, and Geri Cross and Associates. The Use of Contracting by Public Transit Agencies in California. UMTA 9-86-153. Los Altos, California: California Department of Transportation, 1986. Transportation Accounting Consortium. Rural Transportation Accounting: A Model Uniform Accounting System for Rural and Specialized Transportation Providers. DOT-1-87-08. Lansing, Michigan: U.S Department of Transportation, 1986. Transportation Accounting Consortium. Simplifying Human Service Transportation and Small Transit System Accountinc: A Six State Perspective. Lansing, Michigan: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983. Urban Systems, Inc. Coordjnatini Special Transportation Services in Louisiana. UMT AIA-06-0007. New Orleans, Louisiana: Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 1988. Vermont Agency of Transportation Public Transit Unit. Guidelines for Passenger Transportation Development Planning Assistance Grants. Montpelier, Vermont: Vermont Agency of Transportation, 1988. West Virginia Public .Transportation Division. Transit Financing Options for West Vjflinia. n.p.: Public Transportation Division Department of Finance and Administration, 1984 West Virginia Public Transportation Division. 1990 West Virginia Statewide Pa ratransjt Survey. n.p.: Public Transportation Division Department of Finance and Administration, 1990. West Virginia Public Transportation Division. West Virginia Transit Marketing Manual: "Get on the Bus and Ride". DOT-1-85-23. n.p.: West Virginia Public Transportation Division, 1984. 88