Public Transit Partnerships: Additional Information Needed to Clarify Data Reporting and Share Best Practices

The public transit landscape is changing, as advances in technology have enabled more on-demand mobility services, such as ridesourcing and bike-share services. In response, some transit agencies have started to partner with private mobility companies with the aim of offering public transit riders more efficient and convenient options through on-demand services. FTA supports public transportation systems through a variety of federal grant programs.

GAO was asked to review various issues related to such partnerships. This report examines, among other things: (1) the types of partnership projects that selected transit agencies have initiated with private mobility companies and (2) how DOT's efforts and funding and federal requirements may impact such partnerships. GAO interviewed DOT officials and reviewed DOT documents; interviewed 16 local transit agencies and 13 private mobility companies involved in transit partnerships; and reviewed 22 projects initiated by the selected partners, including 5 funded by the Mobility on Demand Sandbox grant program. GAO selected these partners to represent a range of service types and geographic locations; the results are non-generalizable.

Some local transit agencies are pursuing partnerships with private mobility companies—including car-share and "ridesourcing" companies such as Lyft and Uber, which provide access to a shared vehicle “on demand”—with the aim of offering public transit riders more efficient and convenient service options. Most of the transit partnership projects that GAO selected (14 of 22) involved private partners providing on-demand transportation for the “first- and last-mile” connections to or from public transit stations (see figure). Local transit agencies use first- and last-mile connections to increase their public transit ridership. Other services provided through selected projects included filling transit service gaps in under-served areas. Most selected projects have not yet been evaluated to determine whether they achieved intended outcomes.

The Department of Transportation's (DOT) efforts, especially the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) initiation of the Mobility on Demand Sandbox program, have facilitated partnerships, but confusion about how to meet some requirements and how to report data pose challenges to implementing projects. In October 2016, FTA announced the selection of 11 projects to receive grants and has since provided assistance to the grantees. FTA also issued clarifications about how certain federal requirements—such as those related to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)—apply to transit partnerships. However, most selected local transit agencies (14 of 16) said that additional information beyond what FTA has already disseminated, including how agencies have successfully structured partnerships and met federal requirements, would be helpful. Collecting and disseminating such information could help FTA be better positioned to respond to changes in the transit industry that could impact its own efforts and goals, such as planning for future Mobility on Demand grants. In addition, most selected local transit agencies reported confusion related to reporting information about their on-demand projects into the FTA's National Transit Database, including confusion about which on-demand project data would qualify for entry. This confusion has led to possible reporting inconsistencies by some local transit agencies. Ensuring that data contained in the National Transit Database are complete and accurate is important, since according to FTA officials, FTA uses these data (1) to apportion certain grant funds to local transit agencies based on factors such as passenger miles traveled, and (2) to track its progress in achieving goals such as promoting efficient transportation systems, among other things.

GAO is making three recommendations including that FTA disseminate information about how partnership projects met federal requirements and how data on partnerships should be entered into the National Transit Database. DOT concurred with the recommendations.

In response to recent developments in technology, local transit agencies  have started to partner with private mobility companies—including car- share and bike-share companies, taxis, and “ridesourcing” companies  such as Uber and Lyft—with the aim of offering public transit riders more  efficient and convenient service options. Such transit partnerships may  become more common as mobility technologies emerge, many of which  are enabled by smartphone applications. Partnerships include, for  example, arrangements where local transit agencies seek to increase  public transit ridership by subsidizing ridesourcing rides to or from rail  stations, making access more convenient.

In 2016, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) launched a new  program to explore such transit partnerships and in turn to make  transportation services more integrated and efficient. FTA’s funding  opportunity announcement for its Mobility on Demand (MOD) “Sandbox”  grant program generated a lot of interest among transit providers such as  local transit agencies, generating 78 eligible proposals. From these  applications, FTA announced the selection of 11 projects to receive about  $8 million. Such partnerships can offer benefits, but some private mobility  companies’ business models may run counter to providing accessible and  equitable transit. For example, riders without a smartphone could be  excluded from accessing some emerging services.

In the light of these developments, you asked us to examine several  aspects of partnerships between local transit agencies and private  mobility companies such as ridesourcing companies, including potential  benefits from partnerships and challenges to their implementation. This  report addresses:  1.  the types of partnership projects that selected transit agencies have  pursued with private mobility companies and the potential effects of  these partnerships;  2.  how DOT’s efforts and funding, and various federal requirements  impact such emerging partnerships; and  3.  other considerations that may affect the future prevalence of such  partnerships.

To address these objectives, we reviewed documents from and  conducted interviews with a selection of local transit agencies and private  mobility companies engaged in transit partnerships. Specifically, we  selected 15 transit partnerships, to represent a range of type of project,  type of service, and geographic location. The selected transit  partnerships also include 5 projects that received funding through FTA’s  MOD Sandbox grant program. We interviewed 29 stakeholders involved  in these partnerships including representatives from 16 local transit  agencies and 13 private mobility companies, including three ridesourcing  companies, 3 taxi companies, 5 technology companies focused on  transit, a bike-share company, and a car-share company. Although the  views of these selected officials are not generalizable to those of all local  transit agencies or private mobility companies, they represent a range of  perspectives and expertise regarding partnerships. We also interviewed  officials and reviewed documents from the Department of Transportation  (DOT), including in FTA and the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint  Program Office (ITS JPO) and interviewed five other stakeholders with  knowledge of transit issues, such as the Shared Use Mobility Center  (SUMC) and the Community Transportation Association of America. In  addition, we reviewed industry and research documents and compared  DOT’s efforts to federal internal control standards and leading practices  for collaboration identified in prior GAO work.

We conducted this review from June 2017 to July 2018 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.

The growth of the “sharing economy” has begun to impact public  transportation. DOT describes the sharing economy as a developing  phenomenon based on sharing, renting, and borrowing goods and  services, rather than owning them. One facet of the sharing economy is  shared mobility, meaning the shared use of a motor vehicle, bicycle, or  other transportation mode that is often facilitated by requests from users,  largely through mobile applications. See figure 1 for examples of shared  mobility services available “on demand” through mobile applications.

The increased use of ridesourcing services has been particularly  noticeable in recent years. Since Uber first initiated ridesourcing services  in the U.S. in 2010, such services have become increasingly popular,  especially in urban areas. While data on the use of ridesourcing are  limited, researchers reported in 2017 that about 21 percent of adults in  major U.S. cities had used ridesourcing services, and about a quarter of  them used these services on a frequent (weekly or daily) basis.  Ridesourcing services offer convenience benefits for riders (see fig. 2,  which explains how such services work).

Millions of Americans—especially those unable to provide their own  transportation due to age, disability or income constraints—rely on public  transit to fully participate in society and access vital services. The types of  services typically provided by local transit agencies include:  rail services, in which vehicles operate along railways.  fixed-route bus services, which operate according to regular  schedules along prescribed routes with designated stops. paratransit services, which generally speaking are accessible,  origin-to-destination transportation services that operate in response  to calls or requests from riders. other demand-response services, which are sometimes called dial- a-ride.

Local transit agencies have historically contracted out some services, in  part to decrease their operating costs. For example, a survey we  conducted in 2013 showed that a majority (61 percent) of the 463 responding local transit agencies contracted out one or more services.  Services most frequently contracted out included paratransit services for  individuals with disabilities and demand-response services. In particular,  taxi companies have often been used to fulfill paratransit services and  other demand-response services.

Within DOT, FTA is responsible for providing grants that support the  development of safe, comprehensive, and coordinated public  transportation systems, among other things. Specifically, FTA:

Annually distributes about $12 billion to support and expand transit  systems, according to DOT. Two of these funding sources are  Urbanized Area Formula Grants and Formula Grants for Rural  Areas. These grant funds go to local transit agencies, but these  local transit agencies may in some cases use these funds to procure  the services of third parties such as private mobility companies.

Ensures that local transit agencies receiving certain federal financial  assistance do not discriminate based on race, color, religion, national  origin, sex, disability, or age. Furthermore, FTA ensures local transit  agencies comply with DOT regulations implementing certain portions  of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (Title VI) and  the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, (ADA).

Administers the National Transit Database (NTD), which is intended to  provide information to the federal government and others on which to  base public transportation service planning. All recipients and direct  beneficiaries of grants from the urbanized area formula program and  rural area formula program are required by statute to submit data to  the NTD, such as financial and operating data.

FTA’s Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation recently  launched a new MOD program to further its goals of improving the  integration of transportation systems and increasing the accessibility and  efficiency of public transit services for riders. According to officials, FTA  believes that the U.S. public transportation system will be heavily  influenced by the “Mobility on Demand” concept in the future, so has  incorporated this concept into its planned research efforts. The MOD  program is the agency’s main effort to help local transit agencies to  explore emerging shared mobility technologies, in part by partnering with  private mobility companies. The MOD program involves several  components, including funding projects through the competitive MOD  Sandbox grant program. In May 2016, FTA published a notice of funding  opportunity and solicitation of project proposals for the MOD Sandbox  grant program. In October 2016 FTA announced the selection of 11  projects to receive about $8 million. According to FTA officials, the  agency designed the MOD program with several goals in mind, including:

Funding those proposed grant projects with the most promise for  generating benefits for the respective communities.

Helping agencies better understand how such partnerships work in  practice to promote emerging on-demand mobility options.

Identifying any federal requirements that could impact the ability to  provide on-demand mobility services offered through partnerships.

Evaluating the extent to which the MOD Sandbox projects achieve  their intended outcomes by developing and applying relevant  performance metrics.

Partnerships Seek Various Service Efficiencies, but Their Full Impacts are Unknown

Most Selected Projects’ On-Demand Services Aimed to Increase Transit Ridership

As shown in figure 3 below, local transit agencies nationwide are pursuing  partnerships to offer a variety of on-demand services that aim to make  access to public transportation more efficient and convenient. The private  mobility companies involved in selected partnerships include some well- known companies such as Uber and Lyft, and some lesser-known types  of companies such as a bike-share company and technology companies  focused on transportation. Selected local transit agencies most  frequently partnered with ridesourcing companies (11 projects), while 8  partnership projects included more than one type of private partner. Five  of the 22 partnership projects were in FTA’s MOD Sandbox program.

Most selected projects (14 of 22) involved on-demand first- and last-mile  transportation connections, through which respective local transit  agencies aim to increase ridership on their transit systems (see table 1).  Addressing the first- and last- mile issue has been identified as an  ongoing challenge for many local transit agencies seeking to increase  their transit ridership. Research suggests that the easier it is to access a  transit system, the more likely people are to use it.

Connecting on-demand services for the “first- and last-mile”—which refers  to the distances riders need to travel to or from a public transit station or a  stop to arrive at their final destination—could improve transit access by  effectively extending service beyond the respective fixed-route buses and  commuter trains (see fig. 4). To attract riders to use such first- and last- mile services, eight projects provided a discount to pay for a portion of the  fare for the ridesourcing ride to access public transit. Figure 5 below  shows a selected local agency’s advertisement for such a voucher  program.

The second most common type of service provided through selected  projects was on-demand paratransit service, which could help the  respective transit agencies offer eligible riders more convenient options  and also help address the high cost of providing such services. More than  half of the selected projects (13 of 22) provided on-demand services  targeted toward paratransit-eligible riders, either as the primary project  goal or to ensure equivalent service for eligible customers. Officials from  two local transit agencies told us that by providing more convenient ADA  paratransit services—as compared to traditional services that require  booking a day or more in advance—these projects in turn produce other  benefits. For example, officials from one local transit agency with such a  partnership thought their program could really benefit the broader  community because the targeted riders could make more spur-of-the- moment decisions to participate in activities such as shopping, work, and  church. Also, as we have previously reported, the costs of paratransit  services are much more costly to provide than fixed route trips.

Some local transit agencies also aimed to improve their public trip  planning and ticketing systems, to increase convenience for riders in their  communities. Specifically, five selected local agency projects involved  early experiments with the Mobility as a Service (MaaS) concept,  meaning offering riders a central electronic platform—such as an app—to  plan end-to-end trips including booking, ticketing, and paying for any  transportation needed to make the trip, both public or private. If fully  implemented, MaaS would allow riders to, for example, use one app to  view and compare real-time availability of various modes (e.g., a traveler  might be directed to a train if one is arriving quickly, or to a ridesourcing  vehicle if train service has ended for the night). Riders could tailor their  trip to meet their needs and payments could be processed through their  phone. Implementing MaaS apps could increase convenience for  consumers, and may also increase transit ridership. As an example of an  ‘early’ MaaS experiment, Chicago Transit Authority’s MOD Sandbox project seeks to integrate the city’s bike-share system into CTA’s central  trip planning and fare payment app, so that riders can more easily pay for  a bike-share ride along with their transit trip. Figure 6 shows a sample of  a current trip planner and a future MaaS concept.

To initiate their on-demand projects, half of selected local transit agencies  relied on local funds and not federal funds. Specifically, officials from half  of the local transit agencies (8 of 16) indicated that their projects did not  use federal funds, with the projects either partially or entirely funded  through a local transit agency or local government subsidy, where the  transit agency subsidizes or pays the entire cost of the on-demand  service. The remaining 7 local transit agencies used federal funds for  their projects. For example, the 5 FTA MOD Sandbox projects in our  selection received federal funds to support 80 percent of project costs,  with the remaining 20 percent of project costs supported through local  matching funds. One FTA MOD Sandbox project involved two local  transit agencies.

Long-Term Sustainability and Effects on Transit Ridership, Costs, and Communities Have Not Yet Been Determined

Most of the selected projects have not yet been evaluated to determine  whether they achieved intended outcomes. However, a few transit  officials told us that their agencies’ costs had decreased since initiating  the partnerships. For example, an official from one transit agency  reported that the on-demand service provided through their partnership  had helped them reduce costs for paratransit. Two of the completed  partnerships in our review generated insufficient ridership to succeed.  The partnerships were widely covered by the press, which transit agency  officials believe provides other transit agencies the opportunity to learn  from them as well. Specifically, Kansas City’s Bridj project and the Go  Centennial project in the city of Centennial, Colorado failed to attract  sufficient riders despite the money and time invested by the local transit  agencies and their private partners. The transit officials involved indicated  that the projects should have incorporated more marketing of the services  being offered and allowed more time for riders to adapt to the new on- demand services, an issue which we will further discuss later in this  report.

In addition, according to some selected local transit agencies and  literature, the increase in such partnerships may have negative effects on  public transit ridership and on local transit agencies more broadly. For  example, as riders become comfortable with the new on-demand options,  they may elect to use these transportation modes instead of public transit,  thus reducing public transit ridership. In addition to the possible loss of  ridership revenue, on-demand services could decrease other transit  agency revenues, such as parking fees charged at some transit stations.  Further, one researcher that regularly reviews emerging mobility topics  discussed the concern that over time, an increase in on-demand services  offered could result in inequitable public transit. Specifically, she noted  that if on-demand services offered continue to increase, riders may begin  to perceive fixed route transit services as inferior to these new services,  which could divert riders and revenues away from public transit.  Eventually, this could result in two systems: an inferior public transit  system and a superior on-demand system for those who can afford it.

To provide more information about potential outcomes from such  partnerships, DOT officials have commissioned a study to evaluate the  outcomes of the MOD Sandbox partnerships and anticipate publishing  results in 2019. In collaboration, FTA and DOT’s ITS JPO developed an  evaluation framework for each of the 11 funded MOD Sandbox projects.  As part of this evaluation, the transit agencies plan to collect information,  such as ridership and cost data, to demonstrate how the project has  influenced transit rider behavior. ITS JPO plans to use the data to  measure the extent to which each project has fulfilled its goals and  impacted travel behavior. The study will also include crosscutting  analyses and lessons learned for all MOD Sandbox projects. According to  DOT officials, FTA is also developing performance metrics to track the  projects over time to see the extent to which they promote integrated  transportation.

While DOT Has Facilitated Partnerships, Some Requirements and Limited Data Pose Implementation Challenges FTA Has Facilitated Partnerships through the Mobility on Demand Program

FTA’s MOD program is a key effort under way to encourage and better  understand transit partnerships. Since first announcing the selected 11  MOD Sandbox projects to receive funding in October 2016, FTA has  supported the program through various efforts, and most (10 of 16)  selected local transit agencies in our review expressed positive views on  the program. Specifically:

FTA has provided technical support to participants as the MOD  Sandbox projects have progressed. According to FTA officials, FTA  has contracted with the SUMC to provide technical assistance to  MOD Sandbox grantees. Officials from all six MOD grantees in our  selection said that FTA support throughout the grant and planning  processes has been helpful. For example, officials from one transit  agency indicated that this program shows FTA’s dedication to the idea  of shared mobility and enables the grantees to try out new models in a  “nurturing environment.”

FTA has held quarterly meetings open to all MOD Sandbox  participants, including local transit agencies and private mobility  companies. According to two private mobility companies in our  selection that participated in the MOD Sandbox program, these  meetings were a constructive forum where participants could discuss  challenges, lessons learned and other issues.

Most Selected Transit Agencies Wanted Additional Information Describing How Transit Partnerships Have Met Federal Requirements

Since initiating the MOD Sandbox program, FTA has gathered  information from grantees about federal requirements that may pose  challenges to implementing transit partnerships. For example, FTA’s  MOD Sandbox notice of funding opportunity encouraged grant applicants  to identify any regulatory or policy waivers needed to implement proposed  projects. According to FTA officials, they received many such waiver  requests from applicants, many of which they could not grant. For  example, some of the MOD Sandbox grantees’ private partners  requested waivers from ADA requirements, which according to FTA  officials the agency does not have the authority to waive. FTA officials  also clarified that they do not intend to immediately change policies or  regulations based on the feedback received through the MOD Sandbox  program. Instead, they aim to help MOD Sandbox participants meet  requirements and to provide technical assistance to local transit agencies  outside of the program. They said that, in the longer term, the agency  would consider potential policy and regulatory revisions if needed.

Most selected transit agencies (11 of 16) and private mobility companies  (10 of 13) indicated that some federal requirements—if applicable to a  certain partnership—can impact these partnerships and in some cases,  make them more challenging to undertake. Table 2 below shows four  categories of requirements cited as having the potential to impact  partnerships, along with examples of stakeholder views on their potential  impacts. Although some stakeholders identified these requirements as  potentially impacting partnerships, they did not agree that the  requirements should be waived to facilitate partnerships. For example,  officials from two local transit agencies told us that requirements related  to providing accessible and equitable transportation are important to  maintain even if they could deter partnerships. However, FTA designed  the MOD Sandbox grant application process so that the applicant local  transit agencies could choose their private mobility partners using a  noncompetitive process, bypassing the procurement requirements that  normally require a full and open competition. One MOD grantee told us  that their ability to bypass a competitive process was helpful and  expedited their project planning efforts.

As FTA has gained more knowledge about such partnerships, the agency  has sought to clarify how some of these requirements apply to such  partnerships. For example, in December 2016, shortly after announcing  MOD Sandbox grantees, FTA issued documentation clarifying various  aspects of transit partnerships, as well as certain federal requirements.

FTA issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to local transit agencies which  addressed how certain ADA and Title VI requirements apply when a  local transit agency enters into a partnership with a ridesourcing  company.

FTA published a dedicated webpage of frequently asked questions  (FAQ) about shared-mobility partnerships. This website supplements  subject-specific FAQs already available on FTA’s website that also  may apply to these partnerships; it includes FAQs on Civil Rights and  ADA requirements.

In addition, FTA provides clarifying information to local transit agencies  upon request, according to FTA and several local transit agency officials.

However, officials from most (14 of 16) selected local transit agencies told  us that additional information from FTA would be helpful, especially  examples of how local transit agencies are structuring their partnerships  to ensure they meet federal requirements. As noted above, FTA has  issued various documents for local transit agencies about how federal  requirements, such as Title VI requirements, apply to emerging  partnerships. Nonetheless, officials from some local transit agencies told  us that without examples, they were unclear about how such partnerships  could ever meet requirements. For instance, one transit official told us he  was unaware FTA has determined that local transit agencies may use  ridesourcing companies without requiring that these contractors undergo  drug and alcohol testing—the aforementioned “taxicab exception”—if  riders are able to select from multiple providers for their on-demand rides.  In another example, officials from one agency told us that they had tried  to look at the NTD database to find peer local transit agencies with similar  on-demand programs to ask these agencies for advice, but could not find  any peers using that method. These officials wanted to know how other  local transit agencies were dealing with customers without bank cards in  their on-demand services. They told us that having more examples from  FTA of how various local transit agencies are structuring their transit  partnerships to comply with federal requirements could be especially  helpful.

Selected local transit agencies with ridesourcing partners described  approaches that they believe help to ensure compliance with the drug and  alcohol testing, ADA, and Title VI requirements, including using a taxi  company, a paratransit company, or both. For example, transit officials  managing four of the 11 selected projects involving a ridesourcing  company told us they had added a taxi or paratransit company as an  option for riders to comply with requirements. According to two taxi  representatives we interviewed and research studies, taxi companies  already have procedures for fulfilling federally-required drug and alcohol  tests. Several local transit officials told us that taxi companies usually  have call centers and accept cash payments, making it easier to ensure  that the services comply with Title VI. In addition, according to taxi  representatives and research reports, taxi companies may have  experience complying with the ADA since some of DOT’s implementing  regulations may already apply to them.

Gathering and disseminating more information on partnerships  corresponds with best practices for collaboration with external parties  identified in prior work by GAO and others. For example, as we have  previously reported, if federal agencies can identify and share best  practices, this can help the entities that federal agencies oversee—such  as local transit agencies in this case—make changes to successfully  adapt to changes in the environment. Additionally, a recent industry  report argues that local transit agencies seeking to form transit  partnerships will strongly benefit from learning directly from peer agencies  with relevant experiences in the emerging area.

As discussed above, FTA has gathered local transit partnership  information from its MOD Sandbox projects. However, the majority of  local transit agencies that participate in partnerships are not in the MOD  Sandbox program; and many of their projects may already be underway  or complete. Gathering information from those local transit agencies  would provide FTA with more information about how partnerships are  meeting federal requirements. It would also likely provide FTA with more  examples to disseminate to all local transit agencies interested in  pursuing partnerships to help those agencies structure their partnerships  in accordance with federal requirements. Finally, additional information on  these partnerships would better position FTA to respond to changes in  the transit industry that could impact its own efforts and goals, such as  planning for future MOD grants and improving the efficiency of transit  services overall.

Selected Transit Agencies Reported Confusion about Whether and How On- Demand Project Data Should Be Entered into the National Transit Database

To track its progress toward achieving its goals, such as increasing the  efficiency of public transit services, FTA can use data from NTD.  According to FTA officials, NTD is its primary source for information and  statistics on U.S. transit systems. As we have previously reported, NTD is  intended to provide timely, accurate information to help Congress and  FTA apportion funding and assess the continued progress of the nation’s  public transportation systems. A key goal of the NTD is to gather  information from local transit agencies, such as financial and operating  data, to inform public transportation service planning. All recipients and  direct beneficiaries of grants from the Urbanized Area Formula Program  and Rural Area Formula Program—such as local transit agencies— are  required to report certain data to NTD. For example, in 2016, over 950  urban transit agencies and others reported into NTD, and FTA  encourages transit agencies not receiving urbanized area and rural area  grant funds to report voluntarily so that NTD can be more complete.  Additionally, according to FTA officials, FTA uses certain NTD data to  apportion certain grant funds to local transit agencies nationwide,  including data on passenger miles traveled and vehicle revenue miles.

Each year, urbanized area and rural area formula grant recipients and  beneficiaries are required to submit an NTD package with many different  types of data, including:  financial information, including operating expenses and funding  sources, asset inventory data, such as numbers of transit stations and  maintenance facilities, and  services supplied, including the number of passenger trips that year,  and miles traveled by passengers.

To help local transit agencies with this reporting, FTA issues NTD  manuals annually that are updated with new information, as needed.  These manuals describe how to report all the various NTD data  requested, including how to report services that the transit agency  provided based on the transportation mode, divided between rail and non- rail, with non-rail including demand response services, potentially  provided by private mobility companies.

According to FTA officials, some data that local transit agencies would  need to report on-demand project data into NTD and to measure project  outcomes—such as whether the targeted riders are using the on-demand  rides to get to and from transit stations—would be tracked by the private  mobility companies involved in the project. For example, to report data  about services supplied into NTD, the local transit agency would need  certain data such as: the numbers of trips and riders taken, distances  traveled in miles, time spent travelling, and the days of the week when the  services are offered. In the case of on-demand rides offered through  transit partnerships, much of that data would be tracked by the private  mobility company and potentially shared with the local transit agency for  NTD entry.

Although FTA has made some information available that could facilitate  these transit partnerships—including updated NTD manuals—local transit  agencies in our selection reported the following issues:  confusion regarding whether and how to report on-demand service  data into NTD, and difficulties gathering data for NTD reporting from ridesourcing  companies.

Confusion Regarding Whether and How to Report Data about On-Demand Services into NTD

According to FTA officials and the most recent NTD manual, transit  agencies only report data to the NTD for services provided that meet the  statutory definition of public transportation. Under the statute, public  transportation means regular, continuing shared-ride surface  transportation services that are open to the general public or open to a  segment of the general public defined by age, disability, or low income.  However, public transportation does not include intercity passenger rail  transportation provided by Amtrak, intercity bus service, charter bus  service, school bus service, sightseeing service, courtesy shuttle service  for patrons of one or more specific establishments, or intra-terminal or  intra-facility shuttle services. FTA officials told us that for a  transportation service to be considered “shared-ride” the service must  have the real possibility of being offered on a shared-ride basis.  According to FTA officials, for a transportation service to be “open to the  general public” it cannot be limited to a specific group (except those  groups specified in the definition), and neither the driver nor passenger  can deny another person on board. For example, a service provided by a  ridesourcing company in which a passenger or driver can refuse  additional passengers would not be considered “open to the general  public,” according to FTA officials. Furthermore, FTA officials told us that  a time-limited pilot providing transportation service is not considered  “regular” and “continuing.”

Additionally, FTA officials told us that, even if a transportation service  meets the statutory definition of public transportation, the local transit  agency may not be required to report the associated data if that agency  did not directly provide the transit service. For example, according to FTA  officials, whether or not a local transit agency would have to report  transportation service provided by a private partner would depend on the  contract between the local transit agency and the private partner. Also,  according to FTA officials, a local transit agency cannot report data about  service provided by a private partner if it is a voucher program, because  those services are not considered “shared ride” and thus do not meet the  statutory definition of public transportation. If the service provided by the  private partner meets the statutory definition of public transportation and  is considered a service provided by the local transit agency, then FTA  officials told us most services provided through these partnerships should  be reported under the Demand Response or Demand Response-Taxi  transportation modes.

Despite available NTD manuals that discuss the statutory definition of  public transportation, officials from most (10 of 16) selected local transit  agencies expressed confusion about NTD reporting for on-demand  projects, such as about which types of on-demand rides qualify as “public  transportation” for NTD reporting purposes and how qualifying rides  should be entered into NTD. These officials told us that further  clarification is needed from FTA about this issue. For example, three  projects in our review offered similar on-demand paratransit rides— through ridesourcing or taxi company partners—but officials from the  three local transit agencies involved had different views on whether and  how these rides should be entered into NTD.

Officials from the first local transit agency told us that they were  planning to report these rides into NTD and had met with the FTA  officials responsible for maintaining NTD to ask them how to report  them. These FTA officials had told them it should theoretically be  possible to enter those rides into NTD, but they did not clarify how to  do so.

Officials from the second transit agency told us that if they extend the  dates of their current partnership with two ridesourcing companies,  then they will need more clarification from FTA about the information  that should be reported into NTD, such as passenger miles traveled.  These officials also noted that they already use an extensive process  for entering paratransit information into NTD, including tracking  vehicle hours and passenger miles of all vehicles used to provide  such services.

Officials from the third local transit agency told us that they did not  intend to report these rides into NTD. In these officials’ opinion, these  rides should not be entered into NTD since they do not meet the  definition of public transportation in the NTD policy manual.

Selected transit agencies in our review seem to be interpreting the  information about whether and how to enter data from their partner- provided on-demand services—as outlined in NTD manuals—differently,  leading to inconsistencies in whether and how these agencies planned to  enter data. For example, one local transit agency’s project offered shared  microtransit services on-demand through a technology company partner.  In our interview, officials from this local transit agency told us that they  intended to report these rides into NTD, but had received unclear and  seemingly incorrect advice from the regional FTA staff on how to do so.  According to these officials, the regional FTA staff had told them to  include these microtransit rides with the agency’s demand-response  paratransit rides, since some of the riders of this on-demand service were  also qualified for paratransit. The local transit officials told us that they  hesitated to report to NTD in the way instructed because it seemed  inaccurate. In this local transit agency’s response to follow up questions,  the local officials said they were no longer planning to report data on their  on-demand service into NTD. We asked FTA officials if this type of  service provided by a private partner qualifies as public transportation,  and thus should be entered into the NTD by the local transit agency, and  FTA officials said it seemed to qualify for entry. In another example, one  transit official managing a first- and last- mile voucher project told us that  she planned to report these rides into NTD. However, FTA officials told us  services provided through voucher programs generally do not meet the  definition of public transportation and therefore do not qualify for NTD  entry.

Federal internal control standards state that agencies should use quality  information to achieve the entity’s objectives. To ensure that quality data  are used to track progress toward achieving objectives, agencies should  obtain relevant data from internal and external sources in a timely  manner, according to the standards. Further, the standards state that  agencies should use an iterative and ongoing process to identify what  information is needed. As changes to the agencies’ objectives occur—or  as external events occur that impact such objectives—the standards  indicate that agencies should change information requirements as  needed to meet these modified objectives.

The above examples of local transit agencies’ confusion about NTD  reporting requirements raise questions about whether NTD data  accurately reflect the status of the U.S. public transportation system, a  key goal of the NTD. According to officials, FTA is considering issuing  more information clarifying required NTD reporting for on-demand  services provided through partnerships. They explained that rather than  change any reporting requirements, this new information would clarify  how emerging on-demand services fit into current NTD reporting  requirements. These officials also told us that local transit officials with  questions related to NTD reporting can call an FTA NTD help desk or  they can direct their questions to the designated NTD analyst. Officials  said that they would consider issuing a document on frequently asked  questions about NTD reporting for these partnerships, but that thus far  FTA had received few relevant questions from transit agencies.  Specifically, FTA officials told us that their NTD office had received  relevant questions from two local transit agencies (both of which are in  our selection), both about what types of ridesourcing services would be  reportable to the NTD. According to FTA officials, they responded to  these inquiries by explaining that all services entered into NTD must be  shared and meet the statutory definition of “public transportation.”

While FTA officials told us that only two local transit agencies had  contacted them about NTD reporting confusion, this did not include some  other agencies in our selection that had contacted their regional FTA  offices for clarification. This raises the possibility that more transit  agencies nationwide with such partnerships might have confusion about  NTD reporting than the FTA headquarters office was aware of. FTA  officials also told us that, in the longer-term, they are considering  developing a separate NTD reporting category—or transportation mode— for shared ridesourcing services that qualify as public transportation.  However, FTA officials did not commit to taking action on this issue.

Without clarified information from FTA on whether services provided  through on-demand projects qualify as public transportation, and how to  enter data about these services into NTD, some local transit agencies will  likely remain confused, potentially leading to inaccurate data in the NTD.  Also, according to FTA officials, without accurate NTD data, (1) FTA will  not be able to effectively track its own progress toward achieving goals— such as improving the efficiency of transit systems, and (2) the  apportionment of certain grant funds to local transit agencies could be  affected.

Difficulties Gathering Data from Some Ridesourcing Partners

Selected local transit agencies reported difficulties obtaining some data  from their ridesourcing partners—such as the total miles travelled with  passengers on board—and according to some stakeholders, local transit  agencies nationwide have faced similar challenges. Some of these data  may be needed for NTD reporting but they could also be useful to local  transit agencies in tracking the outcomes of their on-demand projects.  Specifically, officials from six selected local transit agencies that had  partnered with ridesourcing companies had experienced issues obtaining  data from them, mostly due to these companies’ concerns about rider  privacy and proprietary data. For example, one local transit official told us  that she requested, but did not receive, data needed for NTD reporting  from a ridesourcing company, including miles travelled with passengers  on board.

While representatives from most selected private mobility companies we  spoke to (11 of 13) expressed no issues with sharing data,  representatives from the two large ridesourcing companies did.  Specifically, Uber and Lyft representatives said their companies are  uncomfortable with sharing riders’ personally identifiable information,  such as the exact destination and origin addresses of their ridesourcing  trips, with a public entity without riders’ previous consent because they  believed the data would be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)  requests. Representatives of two industry associations and a researcher  told us that issues gathering data from ridesourcing companies is a  broader challenge faced by local transit agencies in such partnerships.  However, representatives of the two ridesourcing companies stated that  they are working with local transit agencies and FTA to figure out how to  provide data to local transit agencies for NTD reporting while still  protecting privacy.

FTA officials told us they have reached an informal agreement with  ridesourcing companies participating in the MOD Sandbox program,  including Uber and Lyft, for the collection of one category of data.  According to FTA officials, that agreement relates only to certain data  needed to assess the ADA equivalent level of service requirement. If the  local transit agencies participating in the MOD Sandbox program need  additional data for NTD reporting, FTA officials told us it is up to those  local transit agencies to obtain it from the ridesourcing companies. In  addition, FTA officials told us that local transit agencies partnering with  ridesourcing companies outside of the MOD Sandbox program would not  benefit from this informal agreement.

To help address data collection issues, officials from some (5 of 16)  selected local transit agencies suggested that FTA could play a greater  role in encouraging ridesourcing companies to provide some minimum  level of data needed for NTD reporting. For example, several transit  officials suggested that FTA could circulate effective practices for data  sharing, such as a template contract between a local transit agency and a  private mobility company that includes data sharing obligations. Several  transit officials discussed how such additional information from FTA could  be helpful for local transit agencies in pursuing or maintaining their  partnerships. For instance, officials from one local transit agency argued  that FTA information in this area could help the many local transit  agencies that are too small to have sufficient market power to get the  needed NTD data from ridesourcing companies.

The above examples of local transit agencies seeking templates of data  sharing agreements suggest that these and other local transit agencies  could benefit from more communication from FTA on this issue. If local  transit agencies could use such data sharing templates from FTA to  gather more complete and accurate data from their ridesourcing partners,  this would in turn help ensure the accuracy and completeness of NTD  data.

As noted above, the internal control standards instruct federal agencies to  use quality data. If FTA communicated more information about practices  for data sharing, this would assist local transit agencies and also help  FTA be better poised to track its overall progress in furthering its goals,  including promoting efficient public transit systems.

However, FTA officials told us that they do not track information about  partnerships that did not receive funding through the MOD Sandbox  program, such as details of data sharing agreements, and so could not  disseminate examples of how those local transit agency partnership  participants are handling data sharing issues. However, local transit  agencies with partnerships that are outside of the MOD Sandbox program  may still be required to report data into the NTD and could benefit from  additional information. FTA officials explained that they want to avoid  duplicating the work of other groups that are gathering and sharing  information about partnerships. For example, SUMC gathers some  information about such partnerships nationwide in a public database  and has sponsored conferences to facilitate information sharing about  local transit agencies’ experiences with their partnerships. However,  SUMC’s public database of partnerships does not include details about  how all partnerships are handling data sharing issues. Further, because  FTA oversees local transit agencies, the documents that it issues may be  viewed as more authoritative than those of a contracted agency such as  SUMC.

As FTA continues its efforts to address data sharing with the ridesourcing  companies involved in the MOD Sandbox program, the agency could also  develop broader information on best practices for data sharing  agreements—in collaboration with the MOD Sandbox grantees and  possibly also with SUMC—and share that information so it would be  available for interested local transit agencies. By sharing such gathered  information on partnerships, FTA could in turn help transit agencies make  sound decisions regarding the data needed from their private mobility  partners, and about various options for structuring partnerships to achieve  that end.

Considerations Impacting the Future Prevalence of Transit Partnerships Include Industry Changes, Available Funding for Local Transit, and Access to Services, Among Others Roles of Local Transit Agencies and Private Mobility Companies Could Change as the Broader Transportation Industry Evolves

The transportation industry as a whole is rapidly evolving, with more on- demand services being offered, which could increase the use of transit  partnerships. According to SUMC, the U.S. is currently experiencing a  seismic shift in transportation, as breakthroughs in mobile technology, an  influx of new mobility options and changes in travel behavior have  significantly altered today’s transportation landscape, a trend likely to  accelerate in the years ahead. Most selected local transit agencies (15  of 16) and private mobility companies (12 of 13) agreed that the industry  is changing, and some discussed how transit agencies’ roles and  operations are changing as a result. For example, officials at five local  transit agencies told us that the transit industry is shifting to offer more  mobility on-demand services. Some of these stakeholders predicted that  as local transit agencies increasingly use contracted services, these  agencies will increasingly become “mobility managers” rather than direct  service providers. Officials from three agencies said they are already  making or planning for this shift.

The increasing automation of vehicles is another key industry change that  could impact local transit agency operations and partnerships, but the timeframes needed for full automation remain unclear. As we have  reported, automated vehicles promise transformative benefits such as  reducing crashes and fatalities and increasing mobility, but such vehicles  also pose challenges for policymakers, such as assuring safety and  addressing data privacy and other issues. We also reported that these  technologies are rapidly evolving, but there is no consensus about the  time needed for their full deployment. According to a recent study,  vehicle automation could result in significant changes to transit agencies’  operations. For example, FTA has reported that automated transit  vehicles could be used to address first- and last-mile issues, which could  in turn decrease the need for local transit agencies to partner with private  mobility companies to fill such gaps.

According to several stakeholders and research reports, some  automakers and others have started investing in automated vehicle  technologies and in private mobility companies in response to the  projected rollout of shared automated vehicles in the near future. If these  entities continue making such investments, this could help address  challenges related to private mobility companies’ long-term sustainability,  which could increase such companies’ ability to enter into partnerships.  Of the 13 private mobility companies in our review, representatives of 5  told us that they receive significant financial support from an automaker.  In addition to a car-share company, recipients of such support included,  for example, three technology companies and a bike-share company.

Representatives from two of these companies told us that such support  helps ensure their long-term sustainability or provides them with the  flexibility to try different business models and enter into transit  partnerships without worrying about each being profitable. Such  investments from well-established companies may also help address  some local transit agency concerns about whether some private mobility  companies would be reliable partners, thereby increasing partnerships.  For example, according to a recent industry report, some transit officials  have questioned the long-term financial viability of the ridesourcing  business model, citing high driver turnover rates and other factors as  concerns.

Available Local Transit Funding and Transit Ridership Levels Will Impact Transit Partnerships

All 16 selected local transit agencies and most private companies (10 of  13) told us that local transit agencies’ constrained budgets will impact  transit partnerships, and most transit officials agreed that this would  encourage partnerships. For example, officials from one local transit  agency told us that they first began researching partnerships several  years ago, when they felt compelled to look for other viable alternatives to  certain bus routes after a local referendum to pay for increased bus  services failed.

According to several transit officials, if the current decline in public transit  ridership continues, this could increase partnerships. For example, local  transit agencies may seek to maintain their transit riders by, for example,  offering first- and last-mile connections to make accessing transit services  more convenient. Based on GAO analysis of FTA data, overall transit  ridership decreased by about 1 percent between 2012 and 2016, but  ridership changes varied greatly by metropolitan area. For example, since  2010, some larger metropolitan areas have experienced more significant  ridership decreases, such as Los Angeles (over a 9 percent decrease)  and Washington, D.C. (over a 9 percent decrease). However, ridership  grew by more than 10 percent in several areas, including Seattle (24  percent increase), and Nashville (12.5 percent increase). According to  recent reports, it remains unclear if the recent decline in public transit  ridership, after a decade or more of growth, represents a long-term  change in rider behaviors or a short-term cycle related to factors such as  lower gas prices in recent years.

Extent of Marketing and Outreach about On- Demand Services Can Impact Partnerships’ Success and Increase Access to Services

Most stakeholders we interviewed agreed that sufficient marketing and  outreach to target rider populations is critical for the success of new on- demand services, and this also impacts the overall success of the  partnerships. Most selected local transit agencies (12 of 16) and  companies (10 of 13) cited marketing as a significant factor impacting  new service use. For example, officials at several local transit agencies  told us that they dedicated resources for outreach to target riders to  ensure these riders understood the new services being offered. One  agency advertised its new on-demand taxi services for paratransit-eligible  customers through phone calls to customers and residential mailings, and  also encouraged the taxi companies involved to separately advertise  these services.

Even with outreach and marketing to target riders, some potential riders— particularly the elderly and low-income earners—may not be able to  easily access some on-demand services. For example, the current  ridesourcing model generally requires riders to have a smartphone and a  bank card to request a ride, which could exclude some riders.

According to recent reports, less than one-third of Americans over age  65 own a smartphone and only 4 percent had used a ridesourcing  service as of 2016. However, according to literature, older  Americans will be a key demographic for transit providers to target in  coming years, since their numbers are projected to grow significantly  and some will stop driving their own vehicles in the near future.

Reflecting similar concerns, several officials from local transit  agencies (4 of 16) told us that it can be challenging for older residents  in their communities to learn to use the smartphone apps that are  needed to access some on-demand services.

According to a 2016 Pew Research Center report, of those surveyed  with household incomes greater than $75,000, 86 percent had heard  of ridesourcing services and 26 percent had used them. For those  surveyed with incomes less than $30,000, however, only 51 percent  had heard of these services and 10 percent had used them.  According to a recent report, those with lower incomes could  particularly benefit from more on-demand services, especially since  reliable access to transportation can help people acquire and keep  better jobs.

Several selected transit and private mobility stakeholders had efforts  underway to address such access issues. For example, two local transit  agencies had done targeted outreach to senior communities to educate  them about using the new services, including instructions for using the  smartphone apps. According to transit officials involved, these efforts had  increased the use of these on-demand services by elderly riders. In  addition, one ridesourcing company offers gift certificates to offer an  option for those without bank cards, which can be purchased with cash  and used to redeem rides. In another example, staff at a bike-share  company said that their company already offers some options for those  without bank cards. Staff at a technology company told us they have  plans to offer more such payment options in the future.

As the sharing economy continues to grow, local transit agencies may  increasingly look for opportunities to leverage emerging technologies to  extend their services, address first- and last- mile and other issues, and  provide additional options for riders by partnering with private mobility  companies. Since the sharing economy is a relatively recent  phenomenon, FTA has an opportunity to proactively facilitate and share  information about ongoing transit partnership projects, including how  projects are meeting federal requirements related to accessibility and  equity. In addition, FTA could improve the quality of NTD data by advising  transit agencies on which on-demand services qualify for NTD entry and  how to accurately report about qualifying services. Without clearer  instructions on whether and how data from new on-demand services  should be reported into NTD, local transit agencies may remain confused,  potentially resulting in inconsistent reporting. Further, without more  consistent and complete data on partnership activities, including projects  that were not funded through the MOD Sandbox program, FTA may lack  key information needed to track progress in achieving its goals of  promoting more integrated and efficient transit systems. In the absence of  a clear statement from FTA about the minimum data needed from private  partners for entry into NTD, some local transit agencies will likely continue  encountering challenges getting needed data from partners. Finally,  absent more sharing of information on partnerships by FTA, including  how such partners are addressing data sharing issues, local transit  agencies will be poorly positioned to navigate ongoing changes in the  transit industry.

We recommend that FTA take the following three actions:

Gather and publicly share information on transit partnerships,  including those that did not receive funding through the MOD  Sandbox program, to include examples regarding how various local  transit agencies complied with federal requirements—such as  procurement, drug and alcohol testing, ADA, and Title VI  requirements—while offering new on-demand services in  partnerships. (Recommendation 1)

Determine which on-demand services qualify as “public  transportation” based on the statutory definition and disseminate  information to clarify whether and how to report data from such  services into NTD. (Recommendation 2)

Gather and publically share information on transit partnerships,  including those that were not part of the MOD Sandbox program, to  include: information on how the local transit agencies and their private  mobility company partners are facilitating data sharing, and minimum  data needed from a private partner to facilitate NTD reporting.  (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. We  received written comments from DOT, which are reprinted in appendix II.  DOT concurred with our three recommendations. The department stated  that, in line with these recommendations, it will continue its proactive  efforts related to the Mobility on Demand program, and continue to share  information about public transit partnerships. DOT also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.

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

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made  key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Descriptions of Selected Transit Partnership Projects That GAO Reviewed

Project description  From January 2017 through June 2018, LAVTA’s GoDublin  Project provided first- and last-mile service for trips that begin and  end within the city limits of Dublin, CA. LAVTA paid half of the fare  of a ridesourcing ride, up to a maximum of $5.00. The service  included a service option for paratransit-eligible riders. The overall  goal of the pilot project was to see if rideshare programs reduce  congestion and parking issues in Dublin.

Lyft Line, Via Mobility  Services, Denver  South Transportation  Management  Association,  Conduent (formerly  Xerox)

GoCentennial, a demonstration project that operated from August  17, 2016 through February 17, 2017, was intended to increase rail  ridership by providing first- and last-mile Lyft Line rides  (microtransit) and accessible transportation service to and from  the Denver Regional Transportation District rail station located in  Centennial, CO. The service included a transportation option for  paratransit-eligible riders.

Beginning in September 2017 WMATA’s Abilities Ride program  provides riders that are eligible for WMATA’s Metro Access  paratransit program the option to use on-demand taxi service for  trips that originate and end in WMATA’s Maryland service area at  a discounted rate. The Metro Access customer pays the first $5 of  the fare; then WMATA pays up to the next $15. For a trip requiring  a Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle, WMATA pays an extra $10 to  the vendor for that trip.

Beginning in December 2017, PSTA’s Mobility on Demand  Sandbox project provides same day, on-demand door-to-door  service to a small subset of paratransit-eligible customers in  Pinellas County, FL.

Beginning in February 2016, PSTA’s Direct Connect program  provided first- and last-mile service, initially within two pilot zones.  PSTA expanded the program to eight zones in Pinellas County in  January 2017. As of April 2018, users can travel to or from 24  locations throughout Pinellas County. PSTA pays the first $5 of  the ride and the customer pays the rest. The service includes a  transportation option for paratransit-eligible riders.

Beginning in August 2016, PSTA’s TD Late Shift program has  provided service between home and work for lower-income riders  from 10:00 pm through 6:00 am when PSTA’s regular service  does not operate. The service includes a transportation option for  paratransit-eligible riders.

MARTA partnered with Uber for a promotional partnership to  provide first- and last-mile transportation in 2015, then again after  a bridge collapsed on Interstate 85 on March 30, 2017. MARTA  currently has informal partnerships with both Uber and Lyft in  which they advertise one another’s services.

Project description  CTA is partnering with the Chicago Department of Transportation  and Divvy bike-share to integrate Divvy rentals into Ventra. Ventra  is CTA’s central fare payment system that is accessible by  Smartphone application, through a Mobility on Demand Sandbox  project. CTA expects to launch the updated Ventra app in summer  2018.

From October 2016 through June 2018, MBTA operated a pilot  program with Uber and Lyft to offer on-demand paratransit service  to customers that are eligible for MBTA’s The Ride, MBTA’s  regular paratransit service.

Once launched in summer 2018, MBTA will partner with local  taxis on Curb’s platform to provide on-demand paratransit service  to customers that are eligible for MBTA’s The Ride, MBTA’s  regular paratransit service.

From March 2016 through April 2017 KCATA partnered with Bridj,  a company offering microtransit services, to offer riders services  within and between two zones around downtown Kansas City, MO  during weekday rush hours. The service included a transportation  option for paratransit-eligible riders.

From May 2017 through April 2018, KCTA partnered with local  taxi companies owned by TransDev to provide subsidized on- demand service for paratransit-eligible customers. Customers that  are not eligible for paratransit could also use the service, but  KCATA did not subsidize the cost of the ride.

Rabbit Transit has used demand-responsive service from Uber  and Lyft to fill gaps during peak travel periods when the agency’s  regular services are running late.

King County Metro and Sound Transit will be partnering with Via  to provide rides for customers traveling to and from bus and rail  stations in the Seattle, WA area as a sub-recipient of the Los  Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation  Authority’s Mobility  on Demand Sandbox partnership. Expected launch of the service  is late 2018.

King County Metro has dedicated four parking spaces at its  Northgate Transit Center Park & Ride to free floating car-share  vehicles to increase the number of options for customers to  connect to transit, including customers who do not own a personal  vehicle. The car-share spaces are also intended to enable more  customers to ride transit by increasing parking turnover at this  overcrowded lot.

King County Metro will be operating a pilot program to provide on- demand first and last mile service to customers within a 2-mile  radius of the Eastgate, Northgate, and South Renton park & ride  lots. The service also will include a transportation option for  paratransit-eligible riders. Expected launch of the service is  August 2018.

Project description  Through its Mobility on Demand Sandbox project, LA Metro will be  partnering with Via to provide first- and last-mile rides to and from  locations where customers can board an LA Metro bus or train, in  an effort to increase transit ridership. LA Metro will provide  vehicles that can accommodate customers that need additional  assistance or customers in wheelchairs as well as a call center for  customers without smartphones. LA Metro aims to launch the  service in September 2018.

LA Metro partnered with Uber for two weeks in May 2016 to  provide rides to and from Metro Expo Line stations. Customers  received a $10 discount on these Uber rides.

Through the Adaptive Mobility with Reliability and Efficiency  (AMORE) Mobility on Demand Sandbox project, the Regional  Transportation Authority (RTA) of Pima County, AZ will offer riders  the ability to request services from Ruby Ride, a ridesourcing  company, via a phone app, for first- and last-mile transportation.  According to an RTA official, this project seeks to provide more  services to outlying areas, which previously had either infrequent  fixed routes or no service. The RTA and Metropia—a technology  company involved in the project— also plan to offer riders  incentives, such as discounted services, to change their travel  behavior, such as changing their travel times to when roads are  less busy. The phone app will also include a carpool matching  service that will dynamically recommend potential driver/rider  combinations to customers. RTA plans to launch this service in  fall 2018. The service will include a transportation option for  paratransit-eligible riders.

From January through June 2018, GoTriangle partnered with  TransLoc, a technology company, to provide first- and last-mile  Go OnDemand shuttle service (microtransit) in Research Triangle  Park and surrounding areas. Riders were able to hail GoTriangle’s  shuttle service from their phone or online using the TransLoc  Rider app.

From June 2017 through June 2019, the Greater Dayton Regional  Transit Authority (RTA) is partnering with Lyft and two other  providers to provide on-demand rides from designated RTA  Connect stops in underserved areas of the Greater Dayton  service area to a transfer point where riders can access fixed- route bus service. The on-demand service has replaced fixed- route bus service that was eliminated due to low ridership.

Capital Metro partnered with Via Transportation, Inc. (Via) to  provide first- and last-mile on-demand microtransit service from  June 2017 through June 2018 to an area of Austin with few fixed  route options. Riders were able to book rides with Via, whose  service has no fixed routes or fixed schedules. The buses used  for the project were able to accommodate two wheel-chair riders  and up to nine seated occupants.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Transportation

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact above, Heather MacLeod (Assistant Director);  Jessica Bryant-Bertail (Analyst-in-Charge); Lacey Coppage; Delwen  Jones; Terence Lam; Bonnie Pignatiello Leer; Josh Ormond; Oliver  Richard; and Kelly Rubin made key contributions to this report.

Have you tried bike- or car-sharing? Local transit agencies are partnering with private companies offering these and other new options to help riders connect to and use mass transit systems.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) wants to support transit agencies undertaking such efforts. But transit agencies are seeking more information from FTA to help them form successful partnerships, including details on what data FTA needs—such as on the number of rides shared—to grant money to these agencies.

We recommend that FTA share more information with transit agencies, including about how to report this data to FTA.


Veterans Health Administration: Steps Taken to Improve Physician Staffing, Recruitment, and Retention, but Challenges Remain

As the demand for VHA's services grows—due, in part, to increasing demand from servicemembers returning from the United States' military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and the growing needs of an aging veteran population—attracting, hiring, and retaining top talent is critical to VHA's mission to provide high quality and timely care for the nation's veterans.

Physicians—who provide and supervise a broad range of care including primary and specialty care—serve an integral role in VHA's mission. Certain physician types are consistently among the most difficult to recruit and retain, and are thus considered mission-critical by VHA.

Over the past two decades, GAO and others have expressed concern about VHA's ability to ensure that it has the appropriate clinical workforce, including physicians, to meet the current and future needs of veterans.

This statement is based on GAO's October 2017 report and examines (1) VHA information on how many mission critical physicians provided care at VAMCs, (2) VHA guidance for determining its physician staffing needs, and (3) the strategies VHA used to support the recruitment and retention of physicians at VAMCs, and the extent to which it has evaluated these strategies to determine their effectiveness.

For this statement, GAO updated the information from its October 2017 report and obtained information from VHA officials in June 2018 about steps they have taken to implement the 2017 recommendations.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) continues to face challenges related to physician staffing, recruitment, and retention, though it has begun work to implement recommendations made in GAO's October 2017 report. Specifically, GAO's report found the following:

VHA's data on the number of physicians that provided care at VA medical centers (VAMC) were incomplete. GAO found that data were incomplete because they did not include data on the number of contract physicians and contained only limited data on the number of physician trainees—two types of physicians that augment the care provided by physicians employed by VHA. Thus, VHA data underestimated the total number of physicians providing care in its medical centers leaving it unable to ensure that its workforce planning processes sufficiently addressed gaps in staffing. GAO recommended that VHA implement a process to accurately count all its physicians. VHA did not concur with this recommendation, stating that it used other tools for workforce planning. VHA has since implemented a new human resources (HR) database—HR Smart—that has the capability to track each position at its VAMCs. However, VHA officials told us they do not plan to include information on physician contractors in this database.

VHA provided VAMCs with guidance on how to determine the number of physicians and support staff needed for some physician occupations, although it lacked sufficient guidance for its medical and surgical specialties. GAO recommended that VHA issue guidance to VAMCs on determining appropriate staffing levels for all physicians. VHA concurred and reported it would develop staffing guidance for its medical and surgical specialties. VHA officials told GAO VHA signed a specialty care workgroup charter November 27, 2017; the primary goal of the workgroup was to develop a specialty care staffing model that would include staffing information for all specialty care. VHA anticipates completing its work and issuing staffing guidance by December 2018.

VHA used various strategies to recruit and retain its physician workforce, but had not comprehensively evaluated them to assess effectiveness . Without such an evaluation, VHA did not have complete information on the underlying causes of the difficulties VAMCs face, or whether its recruitment and retention strategies were meeting physician workforce needs. GAO recommended VHA (1) establish a system-wide method to share information about physician trainees to help fill vacancies across VAMCs and (2) conduct a comprehensive, system-wide evaluation of VAMCs' physician recruitment and retention efforts and establish an ongoing monitoring program. VHA concurred and reported it has since taken steps to address the recommendations. For example, VHA's Office of Workforce Management and Consulting has partnered with its Partnered Evidence-based Policy Resource Center to evaluate and recommend a systematic approach for allocating workforce management resources. In addition, VHA has added the capability to track physician trainees to its HR Smart database. VHA expects to complete its efforts by September 2018 and September 2019, respectively.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on the  ability of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health  Administration (VHA) to recruit and retain high-quality physicians. A  strong clinical workforce capable of providing quality and timely care to  our nation’s veterans is critical to the success of VHA, which operates  one of the largest health care systems in the United States, providing  care at 1,252 facilities, including 170 VA medical centers (VAMC). As the  demand for VHA’s services grows—due in part to increasing demand  from servicemembers returning from the United States’ military operations  in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the growing needs of an aging veteran  population—attracting, hiring, and retaining top talent is critical to VHA’s  mission to provide high-quality and timely health care for our nation’s  veterans.

Physicians—who provide and supervise a broad range of care, including  primary and specialty care—serve an integral role in VHA’s mission. VHA  indicated that physicians occupy a top spot on its annual list of mission- critical occupations, as a result of factors including the time frames  needed for VHA’s hiring process, a limited supply of candidates, and  competition for candidates. Within the physician category, VHA has also  identified the top five physician occupations that are the hardest to recruit  and retain. We use the term “mission-critical physician occupations” to  refer to the top five physician occupations VHA identified in fiscal year  2016 as most in need of staffing: primary care, mental health,  gastroenterology, orthopedic surgery, and emergency medicine. VHA  hires more than 2,800 mission-critical physicians annually. Yet,  physicians have consistently been identified by VHA as a critical staffing  priority due to recruitment and retention concerns.

Over the past two decades, we and others have expressed concerns  about VHA’s ability to ensure that it has the appropriate clinical workforce  to meet the current and future needs of veterans. A 2015 independent  assessment found that if VHA does not increase its total number of  clinical employees, including physicians, it will be difficult for it to meet the  projected demand for services. Further, in July 2016, we found that the  number of physicians who leave VHA had steadily increased from fiscal  years 2011 through 2015. During this time, physicians were among the 10  occupations with the highest rates of attrition each year. The attrition was  primarily due to voluntary resignations and retirements.

My statement today is based on our October 2017 report examining VHA  physician staffing, recruitment, and retention strategies. In particular, my  statement focuses on (1) VHA information on how many mission-critical  physicians provided care at VAMCs; (2) VHA guidance for determining its  physician staffing needs; and (3) the strategies VHA used to support the  recruitment and retention of physicians at VAMCs, and the extent to  which it has evaluated these strategies to determine their effectiveness.  As part of that work, we made several recommendations for VHA to  improve staffing, recruitment, and retention strategies for physicians.

To do the work for our October 2017 report, we reviewed key documents  and interviewed knowledgeable officials from VHA in headquarters  offices, as well as in six VAMCs across the country. More detailed  information on the objectives, scope, and methodology for our 2017  report can be found in that report. For this statement, we obtained  information from VHA officials in June 2018 about any steps they have  taken to implement our 2017 recommendations.

This statement is based on work conducted 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.

The attrition among VHA physicians has been of particular concern given  that the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)  anticipates that by 2025 the national demand for physician services will  exceed supply. HRSA’s Office of Rural Health Policy reported, in 2017,  that physician shortages were exacerbated in rural areas, where  communities struggle to attract and keep well-trained providers. This  difficulty has posed a particular challenge for VHA, as approximately one  in four VAMCs is located in a rural area.

Most physicians providing care at VAMCs are employed by VHA. VHA  also supplements the capacity of its employed physician staff by acquiring  additional physician services through fee-basis arrangements or  contracts. Under fee-basis arrangements, providers are paid a pre- agreed-upon amount for each service provided. Under contracts,  physician services may be obtained on a short-term basis; for example,  through sole-source contracts with academic affiliates. VAMCs may also  use physicians who volunteer their time, who are referred to as work- without-compensation providers.

In addition to VHA-employed, contract, and fee-basis physicians, VAMCs  often supplement their capacity by using physician trainees, who include  medical residents and advanced fellows. In 2016, 135 of the 170 VAMCs  had active physician training programs. According to VHA officials, there  were 43,768 medical residents who trained at a VAMC in 2016. VHA has  been expanding its physician training program, as directed by the  Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, as amended.  In 2017, VHA added 175 physician trainee positions across VAMCs  nationwide, including 3 VAMCs that did not have physician trainees prior  to this expansion. VHA’s objective is to add 953 additional physician  trainee positions to its VAMCs by 2025 in order to improve access and  hire additional physicians. Further, VHA officials told us they want to  continue to add new positions that would eventually allow all VAMCs  access to physician trainees.

VHA Lacked Information on the Total Number of Mission-Critical Physicians Who Provided Care at VAMCs and Does Not Plan to Collect this Information

In our October 2017 report, we found that VHA’s data on physicians who  provided care at VAMCs were incomplete. Specifically, we found that  VHA had data on the number of mission-critical physicians it employed  (more than 11,000) and who provided services on a fee-basis (about  2,800), but lacked data on the number of contract physicians and  physician trainees. As a result, VHA did not have data on the extent to  which VAMCs used these arrangements and thus, underestimated its  physician use overall. Therefore, VHA was unable to ensure that its  workforce planning processes sufficiently addressed any gaps in staffing.

All six VAMCs included in our review used at least one type of  arrangement other than employment for physicians, and five of the six  used contract physicians or physician trainees. (See fig. 1.) On average,  contract and fee-basis physicians made up 5 to 40 percent of the  physicians in a given mission-critical physician occupation at each VAMC  in our review. For example, officials from a large, highly complex VAMC  told us that, in March 2017, they augmented the 86 employed primary  care physicians with eight contract and three fee-basis physicians, which  represented about 16 percent of their primary care physician workforce.  Further, this VAMC also had about 64 primary care physician trainees  providing certain medical services under the supervision of a senior  physician.

During the course of our work for the October 2017 report, VHA officials  told us that its personnel databases were designed to manage VHA’s  payroll systems, but that these databases did not contain information on  contract physicians or physician trainees. VHA officials told us they were  working to include information on physician trainees in a new human  resources (HR) database—HR Smart—which at the time of our review,  was scheduled to be implemented in 2017. However, these officials were  not aware of plans to add information to the database on contract  physicians. Instead, VAMC leaders used locally devised methods to  identify and track contract physicians, fee-basis physicians, and physician  trainees. For example, one VAMC in our October 2017 review used a  locally maintained spreadsheet to track its physicians under  arrangements other than employment, while another VAMC asked  department leaders to identify how many of these provided care within  their respective departments. At each of the six VAMCs in our review, we  found that department leaders were generally knowledgeable about the  total number of physicians that provided care within the departments they  managed. However, this locally maintained information was not readily  accessible by VHA officials.

To address the limitations in VHA’s data, we recommended in our  October 2017 report that VHA develop and implement a process to  accurately count all physicians providing care at each of its VAMCs,  including physicians not employed by VHA. VHA did not concur with this  recommendation, stating that it uses other tools for workforce planning.  However, a VHA official acknowledged that data sources used for  workforce planning may not include all types of contract physicians or  work-without-compensation physicians.

As we discussed in our prior report, implementing such a systematic  process would eliminate the need for individual VAMCs to use their own  mechanisms, such as a locally developed and maintained spreadsheet to  track its physician workforce, as was done by one VAMC in our prior  review. Further, local mechanisms may not be readily accessible to VHA  officials engaged in workforce planning, resulting in incomplete  information for decision-making purposes.

Since our report, VHA officials told us that they have completed  implementation of HR Smart, which provides the capability to track every  position with a unique position number, and each employee’s full  employment history. However, VHA officials told us they do not plan to  enhance the capability of HR Smart to track contractors.

We continue to believe that having a systematic and consistent process  to account for all physicians who provide care across VAMCs, including  physicians not employed by VHA, would help address concerns that VHA  is unable to identify all physicians providing care at its VAMCs.

VHA Has Begun to Develop Guidance for Determining Its Staffing Needs for All Physicians

In our October 2017 report, we found that VHA gave responsibility for  determining staffing needs to its VAMCs and provided its facilities with  guidance, through policies and directives, on how to determine the  number of physicians and support staff needed for some physician  occupations. Specifically, VHA provided this guidance for primary care,  mental health, and emergency medicine, but lacked sufficient guidance  for its medical and surgical specialties, including occupations such as  gastroenterology and orthopedic surgery. For these occupations, VHA  provided guidance on the minimum number of physicians, but did not  provide information on how to determine appropriate staffing levels for  physicians or support staff based on the need for care.

Specifically, the VHA guidance available at the time set a minimum  requirement that VAMCs of a certain complexity level have at least one  gastroenterologist and one orthopedic surgeon that is available within 15  minutes by phone or 60 minutes in person 24 hours a day, 7 days a  week. VHA guidance did not include information on how to use data,  such as workload data, to manage the demand for care or help inform  staffing levels for these physician occupations beyond this minimum  requirement. Officials from four of the six VAMCs we reviewed for our  October 2017 report told us that because they lacked (1) guidance on  how to determine the number of physicians and support staff needed, and  (2) data on how their staffing levels compared with those of similar  VAMCs, they were sometimes unsure whether their staffing levels were  adequate.

In our October 2017 report, we discussed that VHA had previously  established, in 2016, a specialty physician staffing workgroup that  examined the relationships between staffing levels, provider workload and  productivity, veterans’ access, and cost across VAMCs for its medical and  surgical specialties, including gastroenterology and orthopedic surgery.  This group’s work culminated in a January 2017 report that found VHA  was unable to assess and report on the staffing at each VAMC, as  required by the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014,  because a staffing model for specialty care had not been established and  applied across VAMCs. This report made a number of recommendations,  including that VHA provide guidance to its VAMCs on what level of  staffing is appropriate for its mission-critical physician occupations.  However, as we noted in our October 2017 report, VHA leadership had  not yet taken steps to develop such staffing guidance. We reported that,  according to a VHA official, other priorities were taking precedence and  continued work in this area had not yet been approved by VHA  leadership. Although VHA officials agreed that further steps should be  taken, they did not indicate when these would occur. In our report, we  concluded that until VHA issues guidance on staffing levels for certain  physician occupations that provide specialty care to veterans, there would  continue to be ambiguity for VAMCs on how to determine appropriate  staffing levels.

To address this, we recommended that VHA develop and issue guidance  to VAMCs on determining appropriate staffing levels for all mission-critical  physician occupations. VHA concurred with our recommendation and  reported it would evaluate and develop staffing guidance for its medical  and surgical specialties.

Since our report, VHA officials told us that on November 27, 2017, the  Executive-in-Charge for VHA signed the specialty care workgroup  charter. The primary goal of the workgroup is to develop a specialty care  staffing model that will include staffing information for all specialty care.  VHA anticipates completing its work and issuing staffing guidance by  December 2018.

VHA Used Multiple Strategies for Physician Recruitment and Retention, but Has Not Comprehensively Evaluated Them to Assess Effectiveness

In our October 2017 report, we found that VHA used various strategies to  recruit and retain its physician workforce, including providing assistance  recruiting for mission-critical physician occupations through the National  Recruitment Program; policies and guidance; financial incentives to  enhance hiring and retention offers; and a national physician training  program. (See table 1.)

In our October 2017 report, we found that VHA faced challenges using its  strategies for recruiting and retaining physicians. For example, according  to VHA officials, budget shortfalls in the Education Debt Reduction  Program—which reimburses qualifying education loan debt for  employees, including physicians, in hard-to-recruit positions—reduced  VAMCs’ ability to offer this recruitment incentive to physician candidates.  In addition, the relatively small number of physician recruiters in VHA’s  National Recruitment Program—19 recruiters for the 170 VAMCs at the  time of our report—limited their ability to understand the particular  nuances of some markets, particularly in rural areas.

Further, despite VHA’s large and expanding graduate medical training  program, VAMCs experienced difficulties hiring physicians who received  training through its residency and fellowship programs. VHA did not track  the number of physician trainees who were hired following graduation, but  officials told us that the number was small in comparison to the almost  44,000 physician trainees educated at VAMCs each year.

We found that VAMCs faced challenges hiring physician trainees, in part,  because VHA did not share information on graduating physician trainees  for recruitment purposes with VAMCs across the system. VHA officials  told us that recruitment efforts could be improved by developing and  maintaining a database of physician trainees, but said that VHA had no  such database. According to VHA officials, information sharing could help  both VAMCs in geographically remote locations that do not have a  residency program and help identify trainees who want to work at VHA  after graduating, but who received no offers from the VAMC they trained  at due to the lack of vacancies in their specialty.

We also reported in October 2017 that VHA did not have complete  information on whether its recruitment and retention strategies were  meeting its needs. VHA had gathered feedback on barriers VAMCs face  when offering financial incentives to physician candidates through its  Education Debt Reduction Program and created a workgroup to look at its  overall use of physician retention strategies, although it had not  completed a comprehensive review of its recruitment and retention  strategies to identify any areas for improvement. As a result, VHA did not  have complete information on the underlying causes of the difficulties  VAMCs faced or whether its recruitment and retention strategies met its  objective of having a robust physician workforce to meet the health care  needs of veterans.

To address these issues, we recommended that VHA (1) establish a  system-wide method to share information about physician trainees to help  fill vacancies across VAMCs, and (2) conduct a comprehensive, system- wide evaluation of its physician recruitment and retention efforts, and  establish an ongoing monitoring program. VHA concurred with our  recommendations, and reported it planned to enhance its personnel  database, HR Smart, to include physician trainees. Additionally, VHA said  it planned to complete a comprehensive, system-wide evaluation of the  physician recruitment and retention strategies.

Since our report, VHA reported taking some steps to address these  recommendations. Specifically, officials told us they are working to  include information in the newly implemented HR Smart database on  work-without-compensation employees, such as physician trainees, and  anticipate conducting pilot projects at various sites before fully  implementing this capability by September 30, 2019. Additionally, officials  said that they are in the process of completing a review of physician  recruitment and retention incentives. Furthermore, according to VHA  officials, beginning in October 2017, VHA’s Office of Workforce  Management and Consulting partnered with the Partnered Evidence- based Policy Resource Center—an internal VHA resource center—to  evaluate and recommend a systematic approach for allocating workforce  management resources, such as the Education Debt Reduction Program.  VHA expects to complete its efforts by September 2018.

Chairman Dunn, Ranking Member Brownley, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions you may have.

For further information about this statement, please contact Debra A.  Draper at (202) 512-7114 or draperd@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this testimony. Key contributors to this statement were  Janina Austin (Assistant Director), Sarah Harvey (Analyst-in-Charge),  Jennie Apter, Frederick Caison, Alexander Cattran, and Krister Friday.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

We have long expressed concern about the Veterans Health Administration’s ability to ensure that it has the staff to meet veterans' needs. This testimony is based on our 2017 report on its physician staffing challenges.

provide additional guidance on how to determine the staff size needed in some specialty areas. VHA reports this will be done by December.

comprehensively evaluate its recruitment and retention strategies' effectiveness. VHA reports taking steps to address this.

determine the number of contract and trainee physicians at its centers. VHA says it does not need this information for workforce planning.