2.0 Summary of Findings

The following are some of the key findings from the baseline analysis at the eight demonstration sites.

2.1 Vision and Challenges

All the sites had a vision of their TMCC, but they range from very general to highly specific at this stage. As the sites move toward the development of their concept of operations, they will need to translate the vision into concrete operational activities.
All sites envision becoming more customer-oriented in their TMCC. Besides making it easier for the customer to obtain service, six out of the eight sites also want to expand the number of customers that they are able to serve.
Operational improvements are a second key element in the TMCC vision. Better coordination and/or centralization of functions are expected to eliminate duplication where it exists and lead to greater efficiencies for the agencies and transportation providers involved in the TMCC.
Although operational efficiencies are likely to result in cost savings, cost reduction per se does not appear to be a major driving force in the creation of the TMCC, as it was mentioned by only one site.
Concerns about stakeholders were uppermost in the minds of most of the project teams. The concerns ranged from the complexity of dealing with a large number of stakeholders and how to gain and maintain their involvement to anticipated turf issues and cultural differences among agencies that might make coordination difficult.
Implementation challenges were a second major source of concern to the demonstration sites, such as getting different technologies to work together and difficulties in providing service to rural areas.

2.2 Teams’ Foundation for the Design Process

No single model for size and composition of the project team is exhibited by the demonstration sites, although each consists of at least one public agency and one private sector firm. They range in size from two to eight team members.
Most frequently (at five sites) the lead agency is a transit provider or broker, who is in a position to leverage its knowledge of transportation options and operations in the design process. The lead agencies at the three other sites are regional entities (one regional planning agency, one MPO, and one Workforce Investment Board) who can build on not only their experiences with human service transportation but also their knowledge of the local area and institutional arrangements.
Five sites are partnered with vendors who supply transit software, and while mindful of the potential for a conflict of interest, the sites value the expertise the vendors bring to the design process. Five sites are using consultants to provide expertise in key areas, such as facilitation with stakeholders, and additional manpower.
Most lead agencies have prior experience with federal grants and with technology implementations, experience that should prove valuable to the TMCC design process.
Among the skills needed for the project, concern about the institutional side of a coordinated system is greater than the technical and operational issues. Given that dealing with stakeholders was identified as a significant challenge, it is not surprising that the project team would view having the skills to handle the challenge as important.
Senior-level support can be an important asset for a project, and such support appears to be well established at five of the sites, with the other three in the early stages of obtaining that support.

2.3 Stakeholder involvement

Most sites are successfully using existing communities, forums, and groups to identify and engage stakeholders for the TMCC project. The use of these communities has enabled sites to hit the ground running with their stakeholders.
Five of the eight sites have set-up technical or steering committees as mechanisms for stakeholder participation. One of the sites noted that creating an advisory committee, comprised of decision-makers to look at purely institutional and policy-issues has been beneficial to TMCC planning.
Another approach to reach out to stakeholders, noted by two sites, was organizing a regional summit or council to build awareness and bring the entire body of stakeholders together.
Two sites reported that conducting focus groups for end-users early in the project might result in new ideas for TMCC development.

Overall finding: Institutionally, a high-degree of cooperation exists; however, the demonstration sites need to go to the next step in this project and develop models for functional, geographic, and operational coordination.

Institutional coordination
- Interviews revealed an interest at all the sites in looking beyond the usual groups. Identifying and coordinating with non-traditional transportation services, programs, and agencies was desired. All sites reported that information gathering on the types of services available in the region has been a critical focus so far.
- One of the major obstacles has been the uncertainty in the role of private Medicaid brokerages in the TMCC concept of operations.
Functional coordination
- Interviews revealed that it was easier to coordinate functionality when there are fewer stakeholders or most of the transportation functions are driven by one agency. At the sites with fragmented transportation structures and multiple transit providers, achieving functional coordination was mentioned as more challenging; however, several regional efforts were reported such as regional payment systems, common communications backbones etc.
Geographic coordination
- There was a strong interest in the potential for shared vehicles, multi-loading and cross-jurisdiction operations; however, current operations are agency-specific and not regional in nature.
Operational coordination
- Regional efforts are weak, especially in larger multi-stakeholder areas. This project along with the UWR planning and SAFETEA-LU requirements have helped bring this issue to the forefront.

2.5 Technology for coordination

Integration with legacy systems was mentioned as a challenge especially in sites where there has not been a push towards a common technological platform. While a common technological platform might be desired, understanding the interfaces between systems is challenging.
The ten technical issues identified by the Kent project team are a very useful summary of technology challenges that sites can be expected to face. (page 30)
Two sites mentioned 511 as a resource and are in communication with the state agencies to investigate the possibility of using 511 as a the call number for the TMCC
No uniform or systematic approach was mentioned by the sites for regional architecture. This may be an action item for the technical assistance team as most sites are unsure what they should be looking for in the architecture and how to use it in their design process.

2.6 Federal Support Mechanisms

The presentations at the Kickoff Workshop in March 2007 provided a good opportunity to learn about other sites, but attendees had only limited opportunities for interpersonal networking and information sharing with representatives of other sites.
Federal liaisons are viewed by most sites as a valuable form of assistance, although some sites have used them more than others. Guidance on policy and programmatic issues was the most frequently cited type of help received.
All of the sites have been in contact with their technical assistance team, and some sites have already engaged the TAs in reviewing documents or answering specific technical questions. The TA site visits and scheduled monthly conference calls will provide an opportunity for on-going support should a site desire it.