Public Transportation: Enhanced Federal Information Sharing on Coordination Could Improve Rural Transit Services

Public transportation in rural areas is critical to connecting people to medical services, jobs, education, and shopping. FTA allocated about $2.1 billion in formula grants over the last 3 years to support rural and tribal transit. In 2014, GAO reported that providing transit services in rural areas can be challenging and that coordination of transportation services among federal programs is limited.

GAO was asked to examine ongoing efforts and challenges of coordinating rural transit systems. This report addresses (1) factors affecting rural transit coordination and selected rural and tribal transit providers' coordination efforts and (2) the extent to which FTA facilitates coordination of rural transit services. GAO reviewed program documentation and literature on rural transit coordination. GAO also interviewed federal officials from FTA and the Department of Health and Human Services, which also funds transportation services, and rural transit stakeholders, including state transportation agencies, rural and tribal transit providers, and public transit industry groups. GAO selected states and rural and tribal transit providers based on federal-funding levels and geographic representation, among other factors.

Coordination of rural transportation services across geographic jurisdictions and federal- and state-funding sources has the potential to reduce costs and improve services. Such coordination by transit agencies in rural areas can lead to efficiencies. A variety of factors, however, adversely affect rural transit coordination, including the availability of resources, according to GAO's literature review and stakeholder interviews. About 70 percent of the selected stakeholders GAO interviewed, including rural and tribal transit providers, explained that it is difficult to coordinate transit services in rural communities with limited resources, such as funding, staff, and technology. For example, three rural transit providers said that program managers sometimes assume multiple duties, such as a driver and dispatcher, a practice that affects their time and ability to coordinate. Other cited factors included the extent to which different requirements of federal programs that fund rural transit are aligned to allow transit providers to coordinate trips for riders with specific needs (e.g., people with disabilities) and the availability of coordinating mechanisms, among other factors (see figure). Nonetheless, selected rural and tribal transit providers said they were engaged in various coordination efforts to improve rural transit services. The most commonly cited efforts under way included coordinating trips—for example, by establishing convenient drop-off points—and sharing resources.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has several efforts under way to facilitate coordination, but results are mixed. At the federal level, FTA and the federal interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility issued a strategic plan in October 2019, outlining their strategic goals. However, they have yet to submit to Congress a final report containing recommendations for enhancing interagency coordination. FTA officials told us they plan to submit the report by September 2020. At the state and local level, FTA has provided technical support to stakeholders to faciliate coordination. GAO, however, found limitations with FTA's current information-sharing approach. These limitations make information on coordination-related issues difficult to identify and access. Stakeholders want additional information from FTA on leading coordination practices, such as ways to coordinate with other providers. Improving communication and sharing additional coordination-related information could help rural and tribal transit providers identify additional coordination practices they could pursue to improve rural transportation services.

GAO recommends that FTA develop a communication plan that will effectively share information with state and local stakeholders on coordination opportunities in an accessible and informative way. FTA partially concurred with the recommendation. As discussed in the report, GAO continues to believe the recommendation is warranted and should be fully implemented.

Public transportation can be critical to those living in rural areas. For  people with limited ability to drive due to age, disabilities, or income  constraints, rural public transportation offers mobility and access to jobs,  education, and essential services, such as medical services and grocery  shopping. The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey  found that about 62-million people live in rural areas with populations of  less than 50,000 residents. We previously reported that the need for  public transportation in rural areas is increasing; this increase may be  due, in part, to rural hospital closures, large numbers of older adults and  veterans living in rural communities, and increasing transportation needs  to access opioid treatment facilities.

Federal funding is key for many rural and tribal transit systems to meet  this need. Over the last 3 years, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),  within the Department of Transportation (DOT), allocated about $2.1  billion in formula grants to support safe, comprehensive, and coordinated  public-transportation systems in rural areas, including tribal lands.  According to officials, FTA provided 38 percent of all funding, including 66  percent of all capital funding, for rural transit providers in fiscal year 2018.

Coordination of rural transportation across geographic jurisdictions and  funding sources has the potential to reduce transportation cost and improve services. We have found that coordination is important for rural  transit systems due to the large service areas these systems cover, low  population density, limited financial resources, and growing unmet needs  in rural communities. However, we also reported that coordination of  transportation services among federal programs has been limited and that  providing transit services in rural areas can be challenging, despite the  potential for coordination to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of  transit services.

You asked us to examine efforts underway to coordinate rural transit  systems and challenges encountered in doing so. This report discusses   the factors affecting rural transit coordination;   the types of coordination efforts selected rural and tribal transit  providers have underway; and   the extent to which FTA facilitates coordination of rural transit  services, including steps to address any challenges transit  providers face.

To address these objectives, we reviewed key FTA documents and  conducted a literature review of studies from January 2009 through April  2019 that examined rural transit coordination issues. To identify factors  affecting rural transit coordination, coordination efforts under way, and  any actions FTA can take to address coordination challenges, we  selected and conducted semi-structured interviews with 43 stakeholders  and rural transit agencies, including representatives from nine public- transit industry groups and five FTA regional offices. In addition, we  interviewed officials from eight states—California, Georgia, Montana, New  Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington—and  21 transit providers (6 tribal and 15 rural) in those states. We selected  these states on the basis of variation in the amount of FTA’s rural transit  funding received, geographic representation, and the ability to conduct  multiple site visits in a short period of time due to the long travel  distances. We also conducted three discussion groups with officials from  state transportation agencies and rural and tribal transit providers during  the Community Transportation Association of America’s 2019 annual  conference. Discussion group participants included rural transit providers  and state transportation agencies that were not part of our selected  interviews but had received FTA rural transit funding. Although the views  of these selected stakeholders are not generalizable to those of all rural  transit agencies and stakeholders, they represent a range of  perspectives. See appendix I for a list of the industry groups, FTA  regions, state transportation agencies, and rural and tribal transit  providers we interviewed and discussion group participants.

To determine the extent to which FTA facilitates coordination of rural  transit services including addressing challenges transit providers face, we  reviewed agency documents and interviewed DOT and FTA officials.  Specifically, we examined studies, reports, and other documents issued  by FTA and the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility  (Coordinating Council), which is a federal interagency coordinating body.  We also interviewed officials from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid  Services, within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),  which oversees Medicaid, a federal program that provides a significant  amount of federal transportation funding other than FTA’s programs. We  assessed FTA’s efforts to communicate on coordination-focused  information against the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A- 130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource guidance pertaining  to dissemination of information and Standards for Internal Controls in the  Federal Government—specifically, those controls related to agencies’  communication with internal and external stakeholders.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2018 to January  2020 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

According to FTA’s National Transit Database, about 1,500 rural transit  providers, including tribal transit providers, supply vital mobility and  connections to essential services for people living in rural communities.  Rural transit providers generally have low budgets, few employees, and  small vehicle fleets. Rural transit providers provide a variety of transit  services, including: demand-response, which is scheduled in response to  calls from passengers; fixed-routes, which are buses operating according  to a set schedule; and deviated-fixed routes, which are fixed-routes that  allow for minor route deviations in response to passenger calls. Service  areas for rural providers may span dozens of square miles in remote  areas—with long trips and only a few riders at any given time—or be  located in smaller, more developed rural areas surrounding major cities.

DOT primarily supports rural transportation through formula grants, some  of which require states and rural transit providers to coordinate.  Specifically, these rural transportation formula grants are apportioned to  state departments of transportation based on various factors, and these  state agencies then allocate funding to rural transit providers as sub- grantees. Sub-grantees can be regional or local governments, non-profit  organizations, or federally recognized tribes, which provide public transit  services in their communities. DOT also awards rural transit program  funds directly to federally recognized Indian tribes through the Tribal  Transit Program. See table 1 for a description of the DOT’s primary  formula-grant programs that support rural transit.

Within DOT, FTA and its 10 regional offices administer these programs;  their responsibilities include:  1.  grant funding, including targeted grants and contracts for  coordination-related projects to enhance mobility and access  nationwide;  2.  oversight of state transportation agencies and tribal-transit program  grantees through State Management Reviews and Tribal Transit  Assessments;  3.  training and technical assistance to states and rural transit providers;  4.  policy interpretations and development to enhance mobility and  access.

DOT and FTA also lead the Coordinating Council, which is charged with  improving coordination across federal programs that fund transportation  services for transportation-disadvantaged persons. The Coordinating  Council consists of 11 federal agency members, namely, the departments  of Agriculture, Education, HHS, Housing and Urban Development,  Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs (VA); the  National Council on Disability; and the Social Security Administration.  Aside from DOT, transportation is not the primary mission of these federal  agencies. However, each member agency has programs that provide  funding for transportation to enable program beneficiaries to access the  various health and human service programs within the agencies’ primary  missions, such as job training, education, or medical care. For example,  the HHS’s Medicaid program requires assurance from states that  Medicaid beneficiaries have access to necessary medical services; this  medical service includes arranging and providing funding for  transportation to medical appointments and other health services when  beneficiaries cannot transport themselves.

In 2012, we found, among other things, that Coordinating Council  member agencies were not effectively collaborating and recommended  that the Coordinating Council strengthen its coordination efforts across  federal programs. In 2014, we again identified the need to strengthen  federal coordination efforts and recommended that the Coordinating  Council develop both a strategic plan and a cost-sharing policy to  promote and enhance federal, state, and local nonemergency medical  transportation coordination activities. For a full description of our prior  recommendations and their implementation status, see appendix II.

State and local stakeholders—including state transportation agencies,  regional planning organizations, rural and tribal transit providers—and  health and human service providers, coordinate rural transportation  services when they share resources and responsibilities and plan  activities to achieve common goals and for the overall benefit of the  community. Coordination of rural transportation services can occur  across geographic jurisdictions, funding sources, and various local, state,  and federal programs. Coordination of transportation services has the  potential to reduce transportation program costs by clustering  passengers, using fewer one-way trips, and sharing the use of personnel,  equipment, and facilities; at the same time, people in need of  transportation also often benefit from greater and higher quality services  when transportation providers coordinate their operations.

Available Resources and Alignment of Program Requirements Cited among Factors Affecting Rural Transit Coordination

Various factors affect rural transit coordination, according to stakeholders  we interviewed, participants from three discussion groups, and literature  we reviewed. Factors that can affect coordination include availability of  resources, alignment of different federal program requirements,  availability of coordinating mechanisms, and the distances between  transit providers. (See fig. 1.) As discussed below, we found that these  factors are often interrelated and can serve as both a motivating factor  and a barrier to coordination.

The availability of resources was the most commonly cited factor affecting  rural transit coordination in our literature review and interviews. Almost  two-thirds of the stakeholders we spoke with (30 of 43) and participants in  three discussion groups told us that it is difficult to coordinate transit  services in rural communities with limited resources, such as funding,  staff and time, and technology. For example, a rural transit provider told  us that while it provides public transit to a neighboring national park for its  visitors during the summer season, insufficient funding from the national  park combined with very limited access to FTA’s rural transit funds limits  the providers’ ability to effectively coordinate services. We also reported  in 2014 that smaller budgets and fewer employees can influence rural  transit providers’ ability to coordinate. A 2018 survey of state and local  transit and health and human services providers conducted by the  National Center for Mobility Management also noted that the availability of  resources can be a key barrier to transportation coordination both in rural  and non-rural areas.  Resources specifically affecting rural transit  coordination include:

Availability of Matching Funds. The availability of matching state  and local funds can affect coordination, as rural transit providers tend  to rely on a variety of funding sources to provide transit services.  Federal programs generally require a share of state or local funding to  match federal funds. Approximately one-third of selected  stakeholders (13 of 43) and participants in three discussion groups  said that they face challenges identifying enough state or local funding  to meet FTA’s matching fund requirements. Some rural transit  providers (4 of 21) told us they have access to funds from different  sources, but others (4 of 21) said that they are challenged with  securing state or local matching funds. For example, local, regional,  or state taxes provide some funding streams for public transit,  including rural transit providers, in California, Georgia, New Mexico,  and Washington. Although revenues from state or local taxes may be  available as a funding source, rural transit providers still told us that  identifying and coordinating state and local funding sources can be  challenging. We previously reported that constrained state and local  budgets can make securing these funds difficult as rural transit  competes for funding with other needs within a community, such as  public safety.

Technology and Coordination: Greater  Columbia Call-Center  People For People, a rural transit provider in  Yakima, Washington, uses technology to  coordinate and operate the Greater Columbia  2-1-1 (GC211) call center. GC211 maintains a  statewide database of community resources,  including transportation options. It is one of  the state’s seven regional 2-1-1 call centers  that directs riders to social, health, and  transportation resources.

Staffing and time. Some stakeholders (12 of 43) said that rural  transit providers do not have enough staff and time to pursue or  engage in coordination efforts. For example, three rural transit  providers told us that staff sometimes take on multiple duties, such as  bus driver and dispatcher in addition to grant and program manager,   duties that affect their time and ability to coordinate. Representatives  from a national transit planning association also told us that staffing  constraints are an issue, particularly with rural transit providers  because they are usually more understaffed than urban transit  agencies.

Technology. Access to technology can help coordinate trips and  schedules across rural transit services. About half of the rural transit  providers (11 of 21) we interviewed stated that they use software and  other technology to schedule trips and operate call centers to facilitate  coordination efforts. For example, People For People, a rural transit  provider in Yakima, Washington, uses technology to coordinate and  operate the Greater Columbia call-center. (See sidebar). However, a  handful of stakeholders (4 of 43) mentioned that access to broadband,  which is needed to enable technology and scheduling software, can  be limited in certain areas, especially on tribal lands. For example, an  official from EBCI Transit, a tribal transit provider in North Carolina,  said EBCI experienced poor cell phone service and other  communication limitations, which affected its ability to schedule and  coordinate trips. Our recent work on telecommunications found that  tribal lands have significantly lower levels of broadband internet  access relative to the country as a whole.

Availability of Formal Coordinating Mechanisms

Formal Coordinating Mechanisms: State-  and Regional-Coordinating Bodies  As one of the regional coordinating bodies,  the Southwest Georgia Regional Commission  has played a central role in coordinating rural  transit services through much of its region; it  currently provides public transit services in 13  counties to the general public as well as to  riders with specific needs to access health  and human services in 14 counties.

The availability of coordinating mechanisms can facilitate information  sharing and coordination. About half of the stakeholders (18 of 43) told us  that they participate in some statewide, regional, or local coordinating  bodies as part of a process to facilitate coordination. For example, the  Georgia Department of Transportation works with regional commissions  to coordinate rural transit throughout Georgia. (See sidebar). In contrast,  officials from the North Carolina Department of Transportation told us that  the state disbanded its coordinating council, which may be contributing to  challenges in providing nonemergency medical transportation services.  We previously reported that state and local transportation agencies and  aging network organizations used a variety of different mechanisms, such  as state-, regional-, and local-planning bodies to coordinate transportation  services for older adults. Half of the states we selected (4 of 8) have  statewide-coordinating bodies. For example, participants from one  discussion group said that state requirements can facilitate coordination  when the state statute requires rural transit providers applying for or  receiving federal, state, or local assistance to coordinate with other state  agencies, including the state’s health and human services department, for  funding and services. Rural transit providers also told us that they  participate in regional- and local-coordinating bodies. For example, all  transit providers in Montana are required to coordinate through local  Transportation Advisory Committees that plan and prioritize local  transportation needs.

About one-third of the stakeholders (13 of 43) and participants in three  discussion groups also mentioned knowledge-sharing forums—such as  conferences and training organized by state transportation agencies,  transit industry associations, and FTA—as mechanisms to facilitate  coordination. For example, officials from Pullman Transit told us that  these forums, such as the Washington State Transit Association’s annual  conference, presented opportunities to share and learn about various  federal transportation programs, coordinating efforts, and information on  best practices.

We and others have reported that transit providers, as well as health and  human service providers, may encounter substantial challenges trying to  coordinate services across different programs when program  requirements do not align. For our current work, about one-third of  stakeholders (13 of 43) and participants in three discussion groups told us  that they face a wide array of barriers coordinating across differing federal  laws, regulations, and program requirements. The different federal  program requirements can affect rural transit providers’ ability to  coordinate transit services as some federal programs are dedicated to  specific groups of riders (e.g., older adults, people with disabilities, and  low-income riders) with specific needs; such specification of groups  makes it difficult to coordinate trips for different riders. Three rural transit  providers stated that it is sometimes difficult to coordinate transportation  to medical appointments for “blended riders” (i.e., senior citizens,  veterans, and the general public) in one trip. For example, VA’s Highly  Rural Transportation Grants require rural transit providers to serve only  veterans, while Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation funds  require serving only Medicaid beneficiaries. Rural transit providers— which provide service to the general public within their service areas—are  sometimes challenged with providing an efficient and coordinated transit  service for VA or Medicaid beneficiaries to access their programs. FTA  and the Coordinating Council’s 2018 Focus Group Report also identified  federal program requirements, including trip purpose restrictions, as a  barrier for coordination. As discussed later in the report, the  Coordinating Council has been charged with addressing this barrier,  among others, and is currently examining whether and how federal  program requirements could be better aligned.

Coordination in rural areas can be both essential and challenging  because rural transit passengers often need to travel long distances (e.g.,  30-100 miles) to reach critical services, such as doctor appointments or  grocery shopping. About a quarter of stakeholders (11 of 43) and  participants in two of the discussion groups said that the long distance  between transit providers in remote rural communities sometimes makes  it difficult to find entities or other providers interested in or able to coordinate. Two rural transit providers also told us they have no  neighboring transit provider to coordinate with due to the extremely  remote rural locations. For example, an official from Turtle Mountain  Transit in North Dakota said it is challenging to coordinate with other  neighboring tribal transit providers due to the long distance to the nearest  tribal transit provider in Spirit Lake, which is about 100 miles away. Turtle  Mountain Transit, like a number of other tribal transit providers, often  serves large and fairly remote areas. We previously reported that tribal  lands can vary in size, and range from the smallest at less than one  square mile to the largest, the Navajo Nation, which is more than 24,000  square miles or the size of West Virginia, and extends into the states of  Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico.

Selected Rural Transit Providers Coordinated Trips and Shared Resources to Improve Transit Services

Despite encountering some of the factors that can make coordination  difficult, all rural transit providers we interviewed told us that they currently  coordinate trips or schedules with other local or regional stakeholders.  Such coordination efforts include establishing common drop-off points or  common schedules (21 of 21), coordinating to provide access to health  and human services (14 of 21) and using technologies, such as software,  to facilitate coordination of transportation (11 of 21). Rural transit  providers told us that they coordinate with others because coordinating  may help them meet increasing rural-transit service demand and improve  service. They mentioned that the benefits of their coordination efforts  include: increased ridership or access, cost efficiency or reduced costs,  and enhanced quality of services. Examples of coordination cited by our  selected rural transit providers are summarized in table 2 below.

Coordinated Funding and Shared Resources

All of the rural transit providers we interviewed also told us they  coordinated across various funding sources or shared other resources  with nearby transit providers. The most commonly cited coordination and  resource-sharing activities included pursuing funding from several  programs and raising local revenue for transit (18 of 21); participating in  opportunities to share knowledge, such as training (11 of 21); sharing  vehicles and related resources, such as maintenance capabilities (8 of  21); and sharing staff to achieve a common goal (5 of 21). Four of our  selected rural transit providers also stated that full consolidation of their  transit services across multiple jurisdictions or providers resulted in cost  savings. Specific examples of these activities cited by our selected rural  transit providers are summarized in table 3 below.

FTA Continues to Facilitate Coordination, but Its Efforts Have Had Mixed Results

FTA and the Coordinating Council Have Ongoing Efforts, but Key Deadlines Have Been Missed and Much Work Remains

As the lead agency of the Coordinating Council, FTA has taken a number  of steps in recent years, including those summarized below, to work with  other Coordinating Council member agencies to enhance federal  interagency coordination.

From January 2017 through June 2019, FTA and the Coordinating  Council members were involved in more than 90 interagency- coordinating activities, according to the Coordinating Council’s  summary of recent activities posted on its website. Coordinating  activities included interagency meetings, trainings, and webinars to  share information and coordinate interagency efforts that support rural  communities and improve transportation access to health and human  services. For example, in September 2018, staff from FTA and the  Department of Agriculture held a webinar for federal, state, and local  officials on the opioid crisis and increasing transportation in rural  areas to improve access to treatment centers, the courts, and other  services in rural West Virginia.

In 2018, FTA and Coordinating Council members engaged in  significant efforts to inform the strategic direction of the Coordinating  Council. From March through June 2018, FTA and some Coordinating  Council members convened a series of focus groups with state and  local stakeholders, including transit and health and human services  providers to be informed of the current state of transportation services  and identify leading practices and barriers to transportation  coordination. FTA also obtained input from state and local transit  and health and human services stakeholders via a survey that the  National Center for Mobility Management conducted from June  through November 2018 to identify promising practices, barriers, and  challenges around coordinated transportation.

Working group efforts under way are addressing some of the  challenges facing rural transit providers. For example, the  Coordinating Council’s Program Analysis Work Group, which was  convened in November 2018, is currently examining all federal  programs with transportation funding available and conducting  program analyses to determine whether and how federal program  requirements could be better aligned. FTA officials stated that the  Coordinating Council plans to submit a report to Congress with some  proposed changes and recommendations for improved alignment of  federal requirements by September 2020.

While these coordinating activities are constructive and encouraging  steps, the Coordinating Council’s progress has been slow in other key  areas. In 2014, we recommended that the Coordinating Council develop a  strategic plan and cost-sharing policy to promote and enhance federal,  state, and local nonemergency medical transportation coordination  activities. In addition, the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation  Act (FAST Act) required the Council to publish a strategic plan by  December 2016 that, among other things, identifies a strategy to  strengthen interagency collaboration and that develops a cost-sharing  policy in compliance with applicable federal laws. The FAST Act also  required the Coordinating Council to submit a final report containing the  Council’s final recommendations to Congress for enhancing interagency  coordination.

However, the Coordinating Council did not issue the required strategic  plan until October 2019, about 3 years after the 2016 deadline. We are  currently evaluating this plan as part of our follow-up on the  implementation status of our 2014 recommendations. Regarding the final  report to Congress on interagency coordination, FTA officials told us that  they plan to submit the final report to Congress by September 2020.

Additionally, we previously reported on the long-standing challenge of the  Coordinating Council Executive Committee, which is tasked with  providing top management direction for the Council, providing limited  leadership and guidance that can have a broad effect on rural  transportation.  Specifically, we reported that the Council Executive  Committee had provided limited leadership, had not met since 2007, and  had not issued key guidance documents that could promote coordination.  Accordingly, we recommended that the Council meet and issue guidance  documents. According to FTA officials, the Executive Committee met for  the first time since 2007 in October 2019 and issued the strategic plan  noted above. As previously mentioned, we will continue following up on  our prior recommendations (see app. II).

FTA Has Facilitated Coordination of Rural Transit Services at the State and Local Level, but the Effectiveness of FTA’s Information Sharing Has Been Limited

FTA also facilitates coordination of rural transit services by engaging  directly with state and local stakeholders, including transit and health and  human services providers. FTA has, for example, taken the following  actions:  It created a website that provides resources and information on  planning and coordinating rural transportation services. This website  includes a self-assessment toolkit for state and local transportation  agencies on “Building a Coordinated Transportation System” and a  link to case studies on coordination of state and regional councils.

FTA staff provides ongoing training, resources, and technical support  to state transportation agencies and transit and human services  providers through its three technical assistance centers—the National  Rural Transit Assistance Program, the National Aging and Disability  Transportation Center, and the National Center for Mobility  Management. FTA and its three centers have been disseminating  and sharing some coordination-focused information through their  websites, training, and conferences. For example, FTA officials  pointed us to the National Aging and Disability Transportation  Center’s webpage on “Annual Trends Report and Spotlight Series”  that posted best practices information on a non-profit agency that  recruits and uses volunteers to transport older adults to social outings  and medical appointments.

FTA also annually awards competitive grants for innovative,  coordinated health and transportation programs. For example, FTA  awarded approximately $9.6 million in fiscal year 2019 to 37 projects  that were selected as innovative projects for the transportation of  disadvantaged populations that are designed to improve the  coordination of transportation services and nonemergency medical  transportation services.

FTA has also bi-annually recognized rural transit providers with an  FTA Administrator’s Award for outstanding rural-transit programs,  selected in part based on coordination efforts. FTA officials told us  that recipients of this award are expected to share their successful  practices at the National Rural Transit Assistance Program  conference, which is attended by many rural transit providers.

Although FTA has a number of efforts under way to facilitate coordination,  we identified limitations with FTA’s current communication and  information sharing approach. More than a third of the stakeholders we  spoke with (16 of 43) stated that communication and information sharing  on coordination opportunities from FTA have been limited. FTA officials  told us that they disseminate and share some coordination-focused  information through its three technical assistance centers, training,  conferences, and regular meetings with state transportation agencies as  its direct grantees and transportation industry associations. However,  about a quarter of the stakeholders (11 of 43) and participants in one  discussion group told us that while they have attended FTA trainings and  conferences and have used FTA’s technical centers, the focus has been  on grant management issues, such as compliance with drug and alcohol  policy and procurement, and not on coordination opportunities.  Stakeholders stated that they wanted more information on: ways to coordinate with other providers, how providers addressed coordination challenges,  technologies that were used to facilitate coordination, and any quantifiable data and results on coordination.

Additional information on leading coordination practices that FTA can  share with stakeholders include those that we previously identified, such  as defining and articulating a common outcome that agencies can engage  in to sustain coordination efforts.

In December 2014, we recommended that FTA and the Coordinating  Council collect data to track and measure progress in achieving results,  including the extent of coordination efforts under way. FTA officials told  us that the Council’s recent adoption of their strategic plan includes goals  and objectives that represents progress toward measuring the extent of  coordination efforts at the federal level. FTA officials also told us that the  Council’s final report to Congress that will be submitted in September  2020 will report on the implementation status of the objectives in the  strategic plan.

We have previously reported on the importance of information sharing on  coordination across federal, regional, state, and local government  entities. Office of Management and Budget guidance on using  information as a “strategic resource” notes that making federal  information “discoverable, accessible and useable” can fuel innovation.  Further, according to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government, agencies should communicate necessary and quality  information externally so that external parties can achieve their objectives  and periodically evaluate methods of communication, so that the agency  has the appropriate tools to communicate quality information with external  parties on a timely basis.

FTA, however, has not clearly communicated and conveyed information  on coordination opportunities and leading practices. For example, while  FTA officials told us that they rely on their website to share information  with stakeholders, more than a third of the stakeholders (17 of 43) told us  that information on coordination opportunities and leading coordination  practices are not clearly identifiable on FTA’s website or easily  accessible. Two stakeholders, for example, said that while locating  program requirement information, such as on procurement, was fairly  easy, it was difficult to locate coordination-related information. An official  from a transit industry association also commented that “stakeholders  would benefit if FTA and the technical assistance centers make  coordination resources and training more visible on their websites.” This  visibility could include “having coordination as a standalone topic and/or  creating a page(s) dedicated to coordination on their websites.”

We also determined that coordination-related information was fragmented  on FTA’s website and found it difficult to navigate FTA’s website to find  leading practices information on coordination. For example, FTA officials  referred us to its website on FTA’s Access and Mobility Partnership Grant  (also known as the Innovative Coordinated Access and Mobility Grant) for  information on leading practices for transportation coordination. In our  review of this website, we found a description of projects that FTA  selected for the grant, the grant amount, and how the funds will be used.  We could not identify any information specifically on how these projects  identified opportunities to coordinate or exhibited leading coordination  practices. We also examined FTA’s website that provides a self- assessment toolkit for building a coordinated transportation system, as  we previously mentioned. FTA officials also mentioned that they  developed the Coordination Council’s webpage to present information  targeted to coordination.

FTA does not have a strategy for communicating and sharing information  on coordination opportunities and leading coordination practices for its  wide audience of rural and tribal providers, state transportation agencies,  and other stakeholders. FTA officials told us that they develop  individualized communication plans when they undertake any major  activities and examine an approach to communicating and sharing  information when they develop annual statements of work for their three  technical centers and meet with stakeholders. However, FTA could not  provide us with a documented strategy that outlines how it communicates  and shares coordination-focused information with state and local  stakeholders.

In light of the multiple means by which FTA and the Coordinating Council  are attempting to communicate information about coordinating rural and  tribal transit services, a comprehensive plan or strategy that assesses  what information state, local, and transit providers would benefit from  receiving and how that information can be effectively communicated could  help FTA’s information-sharing efforts have their intended effect. Without  such a strategy, stakeholders are without valuable information that could  aid them in identifying potential coordination opportunities, leading  practices, and data to help inform and facilitate their coordination efforts.

Coordination is important to help state transportation agencies, rural  transit providers, and human health and service providers meet the  increasing needs of those who rely on rural transit systems, particularly in  light of limited resources. FTA has taken a number of steps to enhance  and facilitate coordination, including having interagency meetings,  trainings, and webinars to coordinate interagency efforts that support rural  communities and improve transportation access to health and human  services. Going forward, it will be critical for the Coordinating Council’s  Executive Committee to implement our prior recommendations on key  coordination issues. In addition, although FTA, along with its three  technical centers, has developed resources to facilitate coordination, its  communication efforts have fallen short. Without a communication  strategy to effectively reach state and local stakeholders, FTA is missing  opportunities to enhance communication and information sharing that can  improve coordination among state transportation agencies and rural and  tribal transit providers.

The Administrator of FTA should develop a communication plan that will  effectively share information with state transportation agencies and rural  and tribal transit providers on coordination opportunities and leading  coordination practices in an accessible and informative way.  (Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation  (DOT) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for review  and comment. DOT provided written comments, which are reproduced in  appendix III and summarized below. DOT and HHS also separately  provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

In written comments, DOT partially concurred with our recommendation.  DOT provided examples of its communication efforts with stakeholders on  coordination opportunities and practices and highlighted two recent  initiatives to further support the coordination of rural transportation  services. For example, in October 2019, DOT established the Rural  Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES)  initiative to enable better coordination among agencies to address  underserved rural areas and to collect input from stakeholders on the  benefits rural transportation offers for safety and economic outcomes. In  partially concurring with our recommendation, DOT wrote that it plans to  direct each of its technical assistance centers to reorganize its web pages  to centralize coordination information and best practices.

We acknowledge FTA’s efforts and highlighted the progress FTA has  made in communicating and facilitating coordination in this report. We  noted that FTA has provided ongoing training, support, and resources  through its technical assistance centers. While DOT’s plans to have its  technical assistance centers’ web pages reorganized may help in  communicating coordination opportunities with stakeholders, they fall  short of a comprehensive communication plan. Such a plan would define  a strategy for effectively communicating and sharing information with  stakeholders and ensuring that methods of communication are reaching  all intended stakeholders. Among other things, FTA’s plans to increase  access to coordination information does not include reorganizing and  centralizing coordination-related information on FTA’s web pages, a  strategy that is different from these technical centers’ web pages and one  where many stakeholders can turn to and search for communication and  information. We believe that a comprehensive communication plan that  includes FTA’s strategy for ongoing communication on coordination  opportunities would enable FTA to ensure that coordination information is  reaching intended stakeholders to inform them of opportunities to  enhance rural transit services.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report,  please contact at me (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are  listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Rural Transit Stakeholders GAO Interviewed and Discussion Group Participants

Appendix I: Rural Transit Stakeholders GAO  Interviewed and Discussion Group Participants Industry groups   Community Transportation Association of America  National Association of Development Organizations  National Association of Regional Councils  National Center for Mobility Management  National Rural Transit Assistance Program  Small Urban, Rural and Tribal Center on Mobility  Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Regional Office   FTA Region IV ^  State transportation agencies   Caltrans - California Department of Transportation   New Mexico Department of Transportation   North Carolina Department of Transportation   North Dakota Department of Transportation   Washington State Department of Transportation   Rural transit providers (including tribes’ names, where appropriate)  Carlsbad Municipal Transit System  CSKT Transit (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation) *  EBCI Transit (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians) *^  Missoula Ravalli Transportation Management Association ^  Morongo Transportation Department (Morongo Band of Mission Indians) *   North Central Regional Transit District  Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico *  Rocky Boy’s Transit (Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation, Montana)*  Southeast Tennessee Human Resource Agency ^  Turtle Mountain Transit (Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota) *  Williston Council for the Aging  Legend: * = Recipient of FTA’s Tribal Transit Program funding.  ^ = Site visit to interview stakeholder.

State transportation agencies   Mississippi Department of Transportation  VTrans - Vermont Agency of Transportation   Rural transit providers (including tribe names, where appropriate)  Big Woods Transit (Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) component of Minnesota Chippewa  Tribe, Minnesota)

Center for Community the RIDE (Sitka Tribe of Alaska) *  Choctaw Tribal Transit (The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma) *  Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency   Hualapai Transit (Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona) *  Oglala Sioux Transit (Oglala Sioux Tribe) *  Salt River Transit (Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River  Reservation, Arizona) *  Legend: * = Recipient of FTA’s Tribal Transit Program funding.

Appendix II: Implementation Status of GAO’s Recommendations to the Department of Transportation

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Transportation

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment

In addition to the individuals named above, Heather MacLeod (Assistant  Director); Jennifer Kim (Analyst-in-Charge); Matthew Bond; Delwen  Jones; Rosa Leung; Theresa Lo; Anna Maria Ortiz; Cheryl Peterson;  Malika Rice; Kelly Rubin; Pamela Snedden; Lisa Van Arsdale; and Sarah  Veale made key contributions to this report.

Public transportation in rural areas is critical to connecting people to medical services, jobs, and shopping. Coordination among transit providers serving large, sparsely populated areas can help cut costs and improve services. However, such efforts can be difficult with few resources, for example, when the transit manager is also the driver and dispatcher.

The Federal Transit Administration is working to improve coordination—with mixed results. Transit providers and others told us they would like more information on the best ways to coordinate their efforts.

We recommended that FTA develop a plan to more effectively share this information.