Welfare Reform Background

Awareness of the need for changes and improvements to public transportation began in the anticipation of the Welfare Reform bill that was signed into law by Former President Clinton in August of 1996. Its purpose was to totally revamp the previous program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and to replace it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Under the new program, welfare recipients, in some states, are provided with benefits for no longer than 24 consecutive months while other states have opted for the maximum of 60 months total. As its name would suggest, the purpose of TANF is to move welfare recipients from the welfare rolls to the work world within these time limits. Hence, it has been aptly coined the “Welfare to Work” program. Implementation of this new program has significantly increased the federal government’s awareness of the need for adequate public transportation. According to Former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, "Transportation is the 'to' in welfare to work."

Two of the greatest challenges facing welfare recipients have been the lack of private transportation and the special mismatch of welfare recipients to job opportunities. While most of the job growth has occurred in the suburbs, many welfare recipients reside in central urban area. If welfare recipients had private transportation or adequate, affordable public transportation, there would not be a problem. As noted earlier, only 6.5 percent of welfare recipients own cars, and therefore, need to rely on public transportation. To further complicate matters, public transportation often does not extend to these areas of high employment. The commuter rails that do reach these areas do not provide direct access to places of employment and are too cost-prohibitive for welfare recipients. 17 In addition, commute times to these locations via public transit often are unreasonable. Western Reserve University’s Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change found that with an 80-minute commute, welfare recipients could reach less than 44 percent of the job openings in the Cleveland, Ohio, area.¹⁸

Public Transportation is not only an issue for urban areas, but also for rural ones. In fact, almost 40 percent of all rural counties in the United States have no public transportation. This, combined with the high rate of unemployment in rural areas, has made public transportation a growing concern in the small towns of America. As a result, many welfare recipients in rural areas are forced to continue on welfare because they are unable to get to and from work.

Other challenges facing welfare recipients include irregular work hours and complete trips. Many jobs involve shift work that occurs in the evenings or on weekends. Transit service often is unavailable or extremely limited at these times. In additions to getting to work, single mothers, the primary recipients of welfare, often have to make several stops in their day. They must have access to necessary services, such as daycare, job training, shopping, and medical care. This further complicates the matter of getting to work and points to the need for changes and improvements to our public transportation system.

Awareness of the need for accessible, affordable public transportation for welfare recipients began even before the enactment of the Welfare Reform bill. In 1988 Congress passed the Family Support Act in an effort to promote self-sufficiency in welfare recipients. Title I of the Act, also referred to as the JOBS (Job Opportunities and Basic skills Training) program, was implemented to overcome any obstacles that welfare recipients may encounter in their search for employment. Studies of the JOBS programs in several states found that the most common barrier to employment for welfare recipients was the lack of adequate and affordable transportation.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) responded to this critical matter by developing JOBLINKS, an innovative program designed to evaluate different transportation strategies to help welfare recipients and the unemployed attain self-sufficiency. JOBLINKS supplies funding and technical assistance for demonstration projects that show a high potential for success in providing employment transportation for the unemployed. Since 1993, the FTA has provided funding for 16 JOBLINKS demonstration projects that have been administered by the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA).

Bridges to Work is another innovative program specifically devised to address the phenomenon know as “spatial mismatch.” As stated previously, most of the job growth has taken place in suburban areas, while many welfare recipients reside in central urban areas without cars or adequate public transportation to reach these areas of high employment. To solve this problem the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Transportation, along with various private foundations, have joined forces to find new ways to link job-ready, urban welfare recipients with suburban jobs. Bridges to Work projects are now in progress in the following cities: Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Milwaukee, and St. Louis.

Research Methods

The information generated for this study relies mainly on direct surveys of transit managers. Two surveys were conducted, a mail-back survey and a Web-based survey. Since surveying all transit systems in the United States would be time and resource prohibitive, developing a sample frame for this study was necessary. Sample frame A was selected by obtaining mailing lists of rural, small urban, and suburban transit systems from reliable sources. Sample frame B of this study consisted of identifying systems from sample frame A that use ITS (Figure 1). The survey instrument design and response rates are presented in this section.

Survey Instrument Design, Mailings, and Response Rates

The initial survey was sent to transit managers throughout the United States to gather information about their transit systems and inquire about their use of ITS and transit services to welfare recipients. The second survey was a follow-up survey of the systems indicating their use of ITS.

Survey I

Survey I, which represents sample frame A, was a mail questionnaire designed for transit managers in cities throughout the United States. The mailing lists were obtained from Lawrence Harmon with Bridgewater State College Transit in Massachusetts and the Community Transportation Association of America in Washington, D.C. It should be noted that a single comprehensive list of transit systems in the United States does not exist. The only factor used in selecting transit systems for the survey was the availability of contact information (mailing lists).

The survey asked about services provided by the transit system, such as hours of service, number and types of vehicles used, the distance for accessible service, and whether welfare recipients had access to the service. Another major portion of the survey identified if the system used ITS, and if so, which technologies are used. Responders

could select from 10 technologies as well as indicate other technologies that were not listed. A matrix was provided with the questionnaire asking recipients to report on changes in service, costs, and revenues as a result of implementing ITS. Unfortunately, many of the responses on the matrix were not useable. Much of this information was captured on the second follow-up questionnaire for systems who indicated they used ITS.

Another section of the first questionnaire focused on communication devices used by transit systems. Respondents also were asked their view of the flexibility of the funding received and how that impacts technology financing as well as cooperation with other state transportation officials. Finally, respondents were asked about their perception of significant barriers that impede the use of new technologies.

There were 2,459 surveys mailed to transit systems throughout the United States. From those, 501 systems returned their questionnaires, for a response rate of 20.1 percent.¹⁹ Figure 2 illustrates the number of systems receiving surveys, along with the number of systems within each state that responded. Of the 501 systems, 122 identified they used ITS technologies. Thus, 24.4 percent of the systems responding reported use of ITS. Figure 2 contains a map identifying the number of systems using ITS and the number of systems that responded.

Survey II - Web Based Questionnaire

Survey II, which is sample frame B, provided a follow-up to the transit systems that reported use of ITS. One hundred sixteen transit systems were sent e-mail messages asking them to complete the Web-based survey during the spring of 2001.²⁰ Systems were asked to identify each ITS technology they use. The manager completing the survey was guided through a series of questions about each technology they identified using. Questions included type of technology used, length of time using the technology, and impacts systems were experiencing since implementing the technologies, such as:

• system coverage
• labor needed
• changes in costs and revenues
• changes in service to residents
• changes in service to welfare recipients

Seventy-four systems responded to the Web-based survey yielding a 64 percent response rate. Figure 3 identifies the number of transit systems in each state that were asked to complete the Web-based survey and the number of systems completing the survey.

Results

Overview of Transit Systems Responding to Questionnaire I

This section reports on the results of the 122 transit systems using ITS and specifics to the systems; such as the vehicles operated, communication systems used, funding flexibilities, and the ITS technologies used.

Vehicles Operated and Accessibility

Several different vehicle types and sizes are used by transit systems responding to the questionnaire. The majority of systems reported the use of vans, small buses, and some large buses. Transit systems were asked what they considered an accessible distance for passengers to walk to a bus stop to use transit vehicles. Forty percent of respondents indicated 0.25 miles to be an accessible distance. The distance of 0.25 is consistent with literature. Interestingly, 20 percent indicated 0.75 miles was acceptable and 4 percent believed one mile was considered accessible (Figure 4). Approximately 80 percent of respondents believed that residents had access to more than 50 percent of the businesses by using transit services in their service area.

In addition to questions about the transit service, the systems were asked to identify ITS technologies they use. Ten different ITS technologies are being used by transit systems in varying levels. Scheduling and Dispatching is the most used technology with 42 percent, followed by Geographic Information Systems with 27 percent reporting use of these technologies (Figure 5). More in depth analysis and discussion of these technologies are provided in results from Survey II.

Communications

Effective communications are an important element to transit system success. The flow of information between dispatchers and drivers is essential for success. Communications enable proper management of system operations. Dispatchers must be able to communicate with drivers to inform them of schedule changes, special client needs, traffic conditions, weather conditions, advised routing, and other relevant information. Various methods of communications between the dispatcher and drivers are available, ranging from relatively simple and inexpensive methods to highly sophisticated systems. The communications system selected by transit systems will generally vary depending upon the life cycle the transportation program is in, and of course, the budget.²¹ There are four primary methods used for communication between the dispatchers and drivers. They include pay phone/pager, two-way radio, cellular phone, and computer.

The pay phone/pager method is the least expensive method, but it also is quite limited as it only allows one-way communications or a call back at a later time. Very small systems may use this method and it may adequately meet their needs. The two-way radio is a common choice among transit systems. Transit systems selecting two-way communications may operate at different frequencies. Some systems may chose to share communications with other companies, thereby reducing their costs, but also limiting their use of the airways. Two-way radio with private frequency is more expensive, but there is no waiting time for open air to communicate with the fleet.

Cellular phones may be a more expensive method of communication, but prices are declining due to the competitive market. This method works well if communication is minimal between drivers and dispatchers. There is the potential for abuse of the phone so restrictions can be placed on numbers the phone can access, e.g., work, emergency, etc. However, as more AVL and GPS are placed in vehicles, these systems can also be used for communications.

Transit managers were asked to identify the types of communication equipment they currently use to talk between dispatch and vehicles. The question was not designed to investigate the sophistication of each systems communication, but rather to identify what several systems are using. Seventy-five percent of the systems utilizing ITS reported the use of two-way radios for their communication (Figure 6). Cells phones and telephones also are used for the systems.

Funding Flexibility

Respondents were asked if the flexibility of federal, state, and local funds to make technology purchases has been useful to their agency. Sixty-six percent of the respondents indicated the flexibility had been helpful, while 32 percent did not believe it had been helpful (two percent did not respond to the question). Those who found the funding to be flexible used the monies to purchase computers and software or equipment, such as buses or fare collection units. Some transit officials felt the flexibility allowed their agency to implement solutions based on local needs. Likewise, the flexible funding allowed systems to use federal dollars to purchase technologies they may not have been able to purchase with local funds. One transit manager indicated that progress would be much slower due to the generally conservative fiscal approaches of many small communities toward funding new technologies. Other managers indicated they felt that too much money was being given to highways rather than to transit.

According to transit managers, the most common barrier to implementing ITS is funding, which was not a surprise finding. Another common response was that technology changes so rapidly, it is difficult to know when to purchase the latest technology.

Results from Survey II – Focus Transit Systems Using ITS

The results presented in this section are based on responses of 74 transit systems using ITS in the U.S. These systems provide services for various populations and square mile coverage. Both are important characteristics to consider. For purposes of this study, transit systems were considered: “Rural” if they served populations less than 50,000 people. Nine systems responding were classified as rural. “Small Urban” systems serve populations between 50,000 and 250,000. Forty-one systems were classified as small urban. “Medium Urban” serve populations ranging between 250,000 to 400,000 people. Four systems were classified as medium urban. Finally, “Large Urban” systems serve populations more than 400,000 people. There were 20 systems classified as large urban. Since only four medium urban systems responded to the questionnaire, the categories of small urban and medium urban were combined for purpose of presenting results of this study.

The square miles of service reported by respondents are presented in Table 1. In general it would be expected that systems serving larger square miles often are rural and small urban systems. Eight systems did not complete the question for square mile service area. Three of the rural and 12 of the small urban provide service to areas more than 500 sq. miles. The rural systems may travel from one smaller community to other surrounding communities and to nearby larger communities that provide medical service, which may not be available in the more rural settings.

Table 1. Transit System Breakdown by Population Category and Square Mileage

Table 2 contains a breakdown of the ITS technologies used by each of the population categories. Just a cursory view of Table 2 reveals that scheduling and dispatch is the most frequently used technology by rural systems, S&D is most frequently used by small urban, and Scheduling and Dispatch along with Electronic Fare Collection are most commonly used by large urban systems. Several of the systems use multiple ITS technologies.

Table 2. ITS Technologies Used by Each Population Category

Each of the 11 technologies used by each of the three population categories, will be examined in the following section. First, rural systems will be examined, then small and medium urban, followed by large urban systems. The perceptions of the transit managers regarding each technology they use will be addressed including the length of time the systems have used the technology, how it has impacted the transit system services, costs, and revenues, and also how the technology has impacted service to the residents in the city.

¹⁷ U.S. Department of Transportation. A Guide to Innovative Practices: Access to Jobs. Federal Transportation Administration. Washington, DC, 1998.

¹⁸ Leete, L. Bania, N. The Impact of Welfare on Labor Markets. Cleveland: Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change. Case Western Reserve University, 1996.

¹⁹ There were 31 surveys returned due to services no longer in existence. The response rate was based on 2,428 surveys.

²⁰ Six of the 122 systems could not be reached for the follow-up survey.

²¹ Lindsay, Oliver. Non-Emergency Health Paratransit Planning and Operations Manual. Community Transportation Association of America, www.ctaa.org/ntrc/medical/pubs/hbc/dispatch.shtml.