5.0 Analysis of the TMCC Design Process

June 04, 2024

This section presents the findings from the baseline interviews with the eight demonstration sites. Where appropriate, the findings were supplemented with information from other sources that reflect baseline conditions, such as the MSAA proposals originally submitted by the sites, the sites’ detailed project plans, and material produced by other members of the MSAA project team, especially the technical assistance team and the impact evaluation team.

The findings are organized as follows:

Envisioning the TMCC and Anticipating Challenges (5.1)
Establishing a Foundation for the Design Process (5.2)
Stakeholder Involvement (5.3)
Transportation and Human Service Coordination (5.4)
Technology for Coordination (5.5)
Federal Support Mechanisms (5.6).

At the beginning of the TMCC design process, it is useful to understand what the demonstration sites want their TMCC designs to achieve to determine later on to what extent the vision was incorporated in the ultimate design. As a starting point Table 2 presents descriptions of the vision, goals, or objectives of the TMCC for each site based on the sites’ original grant proposals and descriptions in the evaluation impact strategy document for each site. All the sites expressed an overarching idea or ideas for what they want to achieve with the TMCC. Some are high-level vision statements (Aiken and Kent, for example) whereas others reveal more details on how they intend to carry it out (e.g., Fitchburg and Louisville). At this early stage, it may not be surprising to see this range from very general to highly specific, and as the sites move toward the development of their concept of operations, they will translate their visions into concrete terms for implementation.

During the baseline interviews, representatives of the demonstration sites discussed their vision in various ways, such as near- and long-term goals, specific approaches, and benefits that they hope to realize. They also expressed concern for barriers or challenges that would have to be addressed to achieve their vision.

Table 2: Demonstration Sites’ TMCC Vision, Goals, or Objectives

AIKEN: The vision is a system that helps consumers access transportation more easily, while better managing current resources and expanding transportation options. A centrally linked and coordinated system that uses proven technology, modified to fit a rural environment and ridership characteristics, to optimize and increase service for consumers, provide solutions for service agencies, and improve use of scarce transportation resources.
ATLANTA: The Human Services TMCC will provide functional and operational benefits for consumers, service providers, and human service agencies. Functional benefits will include information sharing via a customer service center that will inform consumers what services currently exist, route planning assistance, client screening, client matching, and education programs. Operational benefits will include improved reservation making, coordinated transportation service delivery, and “real time” travel information. For transit providers and human services agencies, the TMCC will provide coordinated communication among all regional providers, shared financial and operational resources, regional database management, accounting functions and a unified transportation tracking system. TMCC will be built on the existing Atlanta regional transportation system, ITS infrastructure, and the call center operated by the Atlanta Area Agency on Aging.
CAMDEN COUNTY: This project will use Medicaid Title XIX medical transportation as a case study and will have three primary elements/objectives: identify the most effective brokerage model, increase access to public transportation, and coordinate more thoroughly with non-governmental organizations. Through the proposed planning process, the Camden County stakeholders will establish a TMCC design that is deployment-ready for the Title XIX medical transportation and is replicable and scalable to support integrating services to seniors and disabled, low-income individuals and the general public for all travel needs.
FITCHBURG: At a high level, the M-ITS stakeholders want to increase transportation utilization, increase coordination among providers and funding agencies, and develop a coordination hub for north-central Massachusetts and possibly the rest of the state. The vision is to provide a delivery model that allows a traveler to obtain low-cost transportation across multiple modes of transportation offered by multiple providers. MART aims to leverage existing technological components to an integrated traveler service called M-ITS. (Source: site proposal) The first Phase of the M-ITS project is to offer these travel planning services to customers via a single point of access, albeit through the customer’s choice of mode: telephone, kiosk, personal digital assistant (PDA) or the Internet. In addition to the M-ITS offering riders a single point of access to plan their trips, the system also will offer a simple interface to multiple providers to input the route information that will facilitate this trip planning. This interface will be a web-based route-schedule and capacity-rate management system.
KENT: The vision for the TMCC is to be a centralized state-of-the-art call center that serves as a convenient access point for all consumers who require transportation, trip planning, traveler information, and reservations.
LOUISVILLE: The Travel Management Coordination Center (TMCC) project is intended to provide all transit customers in the Louisville metropolitan region with a single, one-call source for comprehensive trip planning, making trip reservations, and obtaining program eligibility. The TMCC will also act as the broker for transportation providers and consolidate participating human service organizations’ client travel needs. It will establish a comprehensive set of transportation services to meet the needs of all area residents, with an initial focus on older adults and people with disabilities. TMCC vision is to provide a decentralized call-taking and information center. This center combines all the managerial and logistical functions of the transportation partners that participate as partners. Two phases are envisioned. A first phase would receive calls from the users and matches the user with a provider. The second phase would combine and pool functions including scheduling and dispatch.
ORLANDO: The MORE-TMCC deployment plan’s overarching goal is integration, specifically in three key areas: institutional integration, operational integration, technology integration. The goal of the MORE-TMCC is to address each of these integration’s challenges individually, in the order presented above. While the design and deployment of the MORE-TMCC does involve the additional investment in a few pieces of ITS equipment, the focus is not necessarily on how the various providers can use the new technologies. Rather, the goal of the design is to capitalize on how these technologies and the existing or already planned technology enhancements can enhance the communications and scheduling systems already in use. Mission statement is for the TMCC to advance coordination between multiple transportation and HHS organizations within the region, to enhance transportation service, provide an opportunity to serve mobility demand in areas currently not served or underserved, utilize existing ITS, develop community resources, and engage stakeholders in interagency coordination and cooperation. TMCC concept includes processes for optimizing trip certification, trip booking, trip dispatch, passenger pick-up, and drop-offs.
PADUCAH: PATS goal for this enhancement project is to develop a replicable and scaleable system to expand the Regional Coordinated Human Service and Public Transportation Call Center services for eight counties in western Kentucky. The expanded system would be an operational model for the applicable use of technologies, appropriate interfaces between agencies, and stakeholder responsibilities. The PATS enhancement project involves the design and development of a Regional Coordinated Human Service and Public Transportation Call Center to provide service to general public customers, human service agencies, and Commonwealth of Kentucky Medicaid recipients in the Region 1 service area. The project involves integrating additional telephony, internet, and fixed route & paratransit based ITS enhancements with the Call Center to: Provide a higher level of service to customers in the Region 1 service area, Determine Medicaid eligibility for customer trip requests, Integration of fixed route and paratransit services, and Automated telephone and internet-based trip reservations. The Call Center would also enable persons within the region (and potentially statewide) with the capability to contact a single 1-800 telephone number to be referred to their nearest Medicaid broker and coordinate public/human service transportation system.

AIKEN: The vision is a system that helps consumers access transportation more easily, while better managing current resources and expanding transportation options.
A centrally linked and coordinated system that uses proven technology, modified to fit a rural environment and ridership characteristics, to optimize and increase service for consumers, provide solutions for service agencies, and improve use of scarce transportation resources.

ATLANTA: The Human Services TMCC will provide functional and operational benefits for consumers, service providers, and human service agencies. Functional benefits will include information sharing via a customer service center that will inform consumers what services currently exist, route planning assistance, client screening, client matching, and education programs. Operational benefits will include improved reservation making, coordinated transportation service delivery, and “real time” travel information.

For transit providers and human services agencies, the TMCC will provide coordinated communication among all regional providers, shared financial and operational resources, regional database management, accounting functions and a unified transportation tracking system.
TMCC will be built on the existing Atlanta regional transportation system, ITS infrastructure, and the call center operated by the Atlanta Area Agency on Aging.

CAMDEN COUNTY: This project will use Medicaid Title XIX medical transportation as a case study and will have three primary elements/objectives: identify the most effective brokerage model, increase access to public transportation, and coordinate more thoroughly with non-governmental organizations.

Through the proposed planning process, the Camden County stakeholders will establish a TMCC design that is deployment-ready for the Title XIX medical transportation and is replicable and scalable to support integrating services to seniors and disabled, low-income individuals and the general public for all travel needs.

FITCHBURG: At a high level, the M-ITS stakeholders want to increase transportation utilization, increase coordination among providers and funding agencies, and develop a coordination hub for north-central Massachusetts and possibly the rest of the state.

The vision is to provide a delivery model that allows a traveler to obtain low-cost transportation across multiple modes of transportation offered by multiple providers. MART aims to leverage existing technological components to an integrated traveler service called M-ITS. (Source: site proposal)

The first Phase of the M-ITS project is to offer these travel planning services to customers via a single point of access, albeit through the customer’s choice of mode: telephone, kiosk, personal digital assistant (PDA) or the Internet. In addition to the M-ITS offering riders a single point of access to plan their trips, the system also will offer a simple interface to multiple providers to input the route information that will facilitate this trip planning. This interface will be a web-based route-schedule and capacity-rate management system.

KENT: The vision for the TMCC is to be a centralized state-of-the-art call center that serves as a convenient access point for all consumers who require transportation, trip planning, traveler information, and reservations.

LOUISVILLE: The Travel Management Coordination Center (TMCC) project is intended to provide all transit customers in the Louisville metropolitan region with a single, one-call source for comprehensive trip planning, making trip reservations, and obtaining program eligibility. The TMCC will also act as the broker for transportation providers and consolidate participating human service organizations’ client travel needs. It will establish a comprehensive set of transportation services to meet the needs of all area residents, with an initial focus on older adults and people with disabilities.

TMCC vision is to provide a decentralized call-taking and information center. This center combines all the managerial and logistical functions of the transportation partners that participate as partners. Two phases are envisioned. A first phase would receive calls from the users and matches the user with a provider. The second phase would combine and pool functions including scheduling and dispatch.

ORLANDO: The MORE-TMCC deployment plan’s overarching goal is integration, specifically in three key areas: institutional integration, operational integration, technology integration. The goal of the MORE-TMCC is to address each of these integration’s challenges individually, in the order presented above. While the design and deployment of the MORE-TMCC does involve the additional investment in a few pieces of ITS equipment, the focus is not necessarily on how the various providers can use the new technologies. Rather, the goal of the design is to capitalize on how these technologies and the existing or already planned technology enhancements can enhance the communications and scheduling systems already in use.

Mission statement is for the TMCC to advance coordination between multiple transportation and HHS organizations within the region, to enhance transportation service, provide an opportunity to serve mobility demand in areas currently not served or underserved, utilize existing ITS, develop community resources, and engage stakeholders in interagency coordination and cooperation. TMCC concept includes processes for optimizing trip certification, trip booking, trip dispatch, passenger pick-up, and drop-offs.

PADUCAH: PATS goal for this enhancement project is to develop a replicable and scaleable system to expand the Regional Coordinated Human Service and Public Transportation Call Center services for eight counties in western Kentucky. The expanded system would be an operational model for the applicable use of technologies, appropriate interfaces between agencies, and stakeholder responsibilities.

The PATS enhancement project involves the design and development of a Regional Coordinated Human Service and Public Transportation Call Center to provide service to general public customers, human service agencies, and Commonwealth of Kentucky Medicaid recipients in the Region 1 service area. The project involves integrating additional telephony, internet, and fixed route & paratransit based ITS enhancements with the Call Center to:

Provide a higher level of service to customers in the Region 1 service area,
Determine Medicaid eligibility for customer trip requests,
Integration of fixed route and paratransit services, and
Automated telephone and internet-based trip reservations.

The Call Center would also enable persons within the region (and potentially statewide) with the capability to contact a single 1-800 telephone number to be referred to their nearest Medicaid broker and coordinate public/human service transportation system.

Table 3 summarizes the expectations articulated by interviewees at each site. It should be noted that the interviewees responded to open-ended questions in the interview. (See Appendix for interview questions.) The absence of a response in a particular category does not necessarily reflect a total absence of that characteristic at a particular site but instead reflects what was uppermost in the minds of those being interviewed.

All sites are customer oriented, envisioning a system that provides an easy means (e.g., one-stop) for a customer to get information about the transportation services available to them. Six of the eight sites also saw the TMCC as enabling them to serve more customers. Two sites, Fitchburg and Kent, specifically want service expanded to provide better transportation to jobs for those who need it.

The operational benefits of the TMCC were the second major area of emphasis. Most expect to realize efficiencies through, for example, elimination of duplication in paperwork or services. Themes of centralization and coordination were apparent in the responses of sites in terms of enhanced service delivery unified billing. Only one site, Atlanta, identified cost reduction as something they expected to achieve.

Four of the demonstration sites emphasized the role of the providers, expecting the TMCC to enable more providers, especially small operators, to be involved in human services transportation than currently. They also want to see more interaction among different modes in delivery of transportation services.

Four of the sites chose to emphasize the approach they were taking in the design of the TMCC. Three sites, Aiken, Atlanta and Paducah, saw the TMCC as a means for taking a regional or inter-county approach to coordinating transportation. Atlanta, Fitchburg, and Kent want to take some sort of phased approach rather than trying to build the ultimate system to start.

Among the challenges and barriers that the demonstration sites expect to encounter (Table 4) in designing the TMCC, various concerns about stakeholders and issues involving implementation are uppermost in their mind. With regard to stakeholders, the concerns are the sheer number in two of the large urban areas, Atlanta and Camden County; simply getting and maintaining stakeholder interest in the project in Fitchburg and Louisville; and expectations of turf issues among stakeholders and their fear of losing control in a centralized system in Louisville. Louisville also saw as potential barriers the differences in agency cultures and their perceptions of service quality and whether they will be able to get transportation providers to change how they currently do business to be part of the TMCC.

Among the implementation challenges, three sites cited the integration of technologies, such as getting existing and new technologies to work together. For example, Fitchburg reported concerns with integrating with third-party AVL providers. Aiken, a largely rural area, and Louisville, an urban area surrounded by growing suburban and rural areas, expressed concern about the limited or lack of services to people who need them and concern about the TMCC’s ability to serve them.

Four locations raised the customer as a challenge for the TMCC design. In different ways they recognized the challenge of keeping focus on who the TMCC is ultimately designed to serve. For example, an Aiken interviewee noted that medical patients have unique needs that must be taken into consideration in providing transportation service in a coordinated system.

Table 3: Demonstration Sites’ Visionof TMCC*

Expected Characteristics	Demonstration Sites
Expected Characteristics	Aiken	Atlanta	Camden Co.	Fitchburg	Kent	Louisville	Orlando	Paducah
Customer
Serve more customers/more types of clients/access or mobility for all/serviceon demand	X	X		X	X	X	X	X
One stop for users/ easier for user/ information on all choices/betterservice	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Expand service to transportation for jobs	X	X		X	X
Increasing outreach		X					X
Passenger as part of the solution		X					X
Providers
More providers/include small operators	X	X					X
More multi-modal interaction		X			X	X
Share vehicles of different groups	X	X				X
Operations
Enhance delivery/coordinate & streamline/transparent to user	X	X
Efficiency/eliminate duplication of paper work or service	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Benefit of centralized dispatch & scheduling	X	X					X
Centralized information hub, possibly operation hub	X	X					X
Unified billing		X					X
Technology for more effectiveness or better service	X	X				X	X
Reduce cost		X
Riders from different funding sources travel together	X	X						X
Approach
Regional rather than county/intercounty coordination	X	X						X
Start small then expand to more areas or providers		X			X
Phased approach to ease transition for users and providers	X	X
Build on current robust system				X
Centralize forms first then later replace with on-line					X

* Responses to open-ended questions volunteered by interviewee. Absence of a response does not mean a specific expected characteristic is not applicable to a site.

Table 4: Challenges and Barriers Anticipated by Demonstration Sites*

Challenges and Barriers	Demonstration Sites
Challenges and Barriers	Aiken	Atlanta	Camden Co.	Fitchburg	Kent	Louisville	Orlando	Paducah
Stakeholders
Complexity in dealing with large number		X	X
Getting and maintaining interest		X		X		X
Turf issues and perceived loss of control	X	X					X
Cultural or attitudinal differences about service						X
Transportation providers willingness be involved and to change		X				X
Implementation
Rural service difficulties	X					X
Difficulties in coordinating vehicle usage		X	X
Getting technologies to work together	X	X		X	X	X
Operational challenge of serving agencies, providers, users simultaneously		X		X
Customer
Keeping it convenient for customer		X					X
Unique needs of patients/human services transportation users	X	X
Understanding the customer’s perspective and needs		X					X
Other
Need for flexibility	X	X
Funding needed for region not county	X	X
Funding cutbacks threaten service						X
Federal and state rules not necessarily synchronized	X	X				X
Seek more state government involvement								X

* Responses to open-ended questions volunteered by interviewee. Absence of a response does not mean a specific expected characteristic is not applicable to a site.

Among the other challenges or barriers identified, funding was cited by two locations. In Louisville, potential transit funding cutbacks may lead to actual reductions of service. For Aiken, the funding issue was one of how the funds are allocated geographically. Regional funding, rather than by county, would provide more flexibility in delivering service. Paducah felt that more involvement from state agencies involved in human service transportation would be desirable, as it would lend greater legitimacy to their effort in development of a TMCC.

Key components for a successful project are the structure and functioning of the team. For definitional purposes, the project team consists of the partners directly responsible for the design, whereas stakeholders are consulted for their input to the design. To assess the team’s foundation for undertaking the design process, the project managers of the demonstration sites were asked to provide the following information which is summarized in Table 5:

Size and composition of the project team
History of collaboration
Prior experience leading similar projects
Key skills needed
Schedule issues
Senior-level support.

The project teams range in size from two partners in the case of Atlanta and Fitchburg to eight in Aiken. In both Fitchburg and Atlanta, the team consists of the public sector lead agency plus a private sector contractor. Five teams have at least one other public agency as a partner, and all teams have one or more members from the private sector. In all but one site, Camden County, some or all of the team members have successfully collaborated on other projects in the past.

Five of the sites are led by a transit provider or broker. They include Fitchburg, Kent, Louisville, Orlando, and Paducah. As the primary transit provider in the region, the lead agencies are able to leverage their knowledge of transportation options and operations to this effort. Three sites have a regional agency that does not operate a transit system in the lead role. They include the Lower Savannah Council of Governments in Aiken, the Atlanta Regional Commission, and the Camden County Workforce Investment Board, all of whom are seeking to leverage their knowledge of the local area and institutional arrangements in their leadership role.

The private sector team members’ role varies among the sites. Five of the sites are partnered with vendors who supply transit systems (e.g., RouteMatch™ in Aiken, Louisville, and Paducah; HB Software Solutions in Fitchburg; and Trapeze Group in Kent), and while mindful of a potential conflict of interest the sites value the expertise the vendors bring and the potential to speed the design process along. Consultants provide expertise and additional manpower at five of the sites. For example, Kent and Camden County have enlisted consultant help specifically for stakeholder facilitation tasks. Atlanta has hired a team of consultants to assist with technical and outreach activities.

Universities are team members at three sites: Aiken, Camden County, and Orlando. The Voorhees Center at Rutgers University in providing transportation and technology expertise to Camden County; the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida is evaluating the project in Orlando; and the Clyburn Transportation Center of South Carolina State University will be evaluating the project in Aiken.

Having experience with similar projects could be an advantage in managing the TMCC design effort, and all but one lead agency had prior experience with projects funded by federal grants. With a few exceptions, the lead agency had prior experience with technology implementations. However, some sites felt the TMCC design project was different. The project manager in Kent said that his agency “had done technology deployments projects, but not anything like this.” Similarly, the Louisville project manager felt that the TMCC was different from previous projects, “because of the requirement that the design be replicable and scalable. Thus, they need to work on two tracks at the same time”

A variety of skills needed for the TMCC design project was identified by the project managers, with “people” and facilitation skills cited by six of the eight agencies. Technology knowledge was mentioned by five agencies. When the identified skills are examined as a whole, it would appear that concern about the institutional side of a coordinated system is greater than the technical and operational issues. Added together, skills such as institutional knowledge, credibility, facilitation, and outreach constitute 63% of all the interviewees’ responses. Given that dealing with stakeholders was identified as a significant challenge earlier in this section, it is not surprising that the project team would view as important the skills needed to meet that challenge.

When asked about the size of the staff involved in the TMCC design effort, the number was not always easy to calculate. As shown in Table 5, the staff size ranged from two (Kent) to twelve (Paducah), but these were a mixture of both pubic agency and contractor personnel as well as staff working full and part-time on the project.

Since the interviews took place approximately three months from the start of the project, all the sites had developed a schedule and submitted them to FTA as part of their project plan deliverable. While still early in the project, three sites indicated that they were somewhat behind schedule or had a concern about the schedule. For example, the Fitchburg project manager indicated that the fifteen months of the project seemed like a long time, but as they get into the details, it does not seem as long anymore. These schedule concerns have been addressed by adjusting activities in their proposed project plans and the sites are comfortable in meeting the deadlines for this task.

Senior level support can be a significant boost for a project, helping to ensure that sufficient resources are available or to help with difficult issues that arise, particularly of a policy or inter-agency nature. Five of the sites indicated that they had good-to-very-strong support within the lead agency or beyond, including support from elected officials in some cases, such as Paducah. On the other hand, Atlanta was just beginning to gain senior-level support through the summit they had recently held and Kent had recently asked for help from senior people within the lead agency and state representatives.

Table 5: Project Team Structure and Functioning by Demonstration Sites

Characteristic	Demonstration Sites
Characteristic	Aiken	Atlanta	Camden Co.	Fitchburg	Kent	Louisville	Orlando	Paducah
Team Size and Composition
Total	8	2	3	2	4	5	6	3
Public Sector	3	1	1	1	2	4	3	2
Private Sector	4	1	1	1	2	1	2	1
University	1		1				1
Lead Organization
Regional Organization (i.e., planning or workforce investment board)	X	X	X
Transit Provider/Broker				X	X	X	X	X
Private Sector Team Member
Vendor (e.g., transit software product)	X			X	X	X		X
Consultant(s)	X	X	X		X		X
History of Collaboration (by two or more team members)	X	X		X	X	X	X	X
Lead Organization’s Experience
With Federal Grants	X	X	X	X		X	X	X
With Technology Deployments		X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Skills Needed for Project
Local Knowledge/Institutional Knowledge	X	X	X	X	X			X
Credibility with Local Officials	X	X			X
People/Facilitation Skills	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Technology Knowledge	X	X	X	X	X	X
Operational Knowledge/Experience	X	X		X
Outreach/Sharing Information	X	X				X	X	X
Transportation Knowledge/Experience	X	X	X			X
Staff Size (estimate of public and private, full & part time)
Schedule Issues/Delays to Date
Senior-level Support to Project (as perceived by the site)

Stakeholder involvement is probably one of the most critical aspects of the TMCC design. The demonstration sites recognize that if the TMCC concept is to succeed, it needs to be developed using a collaborative effort and reflect the needs of the entire region, and not just the lead agency. Identifying the local agencies and contacts and involving them throughout the project has been one of the early success stories of the TMCC design process.

5.3.1 Identifying Stakeholders

All the sites have identified a large set of stakeholders they would like to involve in the TMCC design. The range of stakeholders is impressive across all the sites and includes transportation providers, human services agencies, and user groups. All the sites have also held a local kick-off meeting with their stakeholders to begin developing the concept for the TMCC.

Several sites have been trying to use existing committees, forums, and groups as a means to engage the stakeholder community for the TMCC project. Using these existing arrangements has helped these sites get off to a running start by quickly identifying and engaging the appropriate personnel for the TMCC project. Some specific examples include

Aiken’s use of the Regional Transportation Management Association (RTMA), which is a group of regional transportation providers, and the Systems Transformation Grant Working Group, a very active stakeholder group with representation from consumers and advocacy groups.
Camden County used past partnerships that they could build upon, such as the One Stop Center, for the TMCC project. In addition, several stakeholders were already working together with the Untied We Ride strategic planning committee. Camden County is using the United We Ride planning efforts as a base foundation for TMCC to build upon.
Fitchburg has been reaching out to the Massachusetts Department of Mental Retardation committee called CREST (Central Regional Employment Service Team) for improving transportation options for employment.
Louisville has had success in engaging stakeholders through the Regional Mobility Council (RMC). The RMC consists of a variety of human service and transportation providers who will be serving as an advisory arm to the grant. The RMC has been especially helpful, as it brings together human service and transportation providers to process and identify different coordinated and collaborative projects that they can work on. For example, the Transportation Authority, Area Agency on Aging, AARP, and Senior Center Network are partnering to implement a travel-training program for seniors.
Paducah is using an existing stakeholder group set up in the region—the Call Center Technical Advisory Committee (CCTAC).
In Orlando, a committee of transit users called the Transit Advisory Committee, hosted by LYNX, is being used to gather input for the TMCC project.

In an alternative approach, Atlanta found it useful to organize a Human Service Transportation (HST) Summit in June 2007 to bring together all the stakeholders in the ARC project region involved in transportation. There was overwhelming interest around the region with over 170 attendees from the region. The summit helped broaden the support for the notion of the TMCC and the coordination of human service transportation and built new relationships in the region.

5.3.2 Obtaining stakeholder input and continuing stakeholder involvement

One of the challenges of this project is to ensure that the stakeholders are engaged through the lifecycle of the project and the initial project euphoria is nurtured throughout the project.

Five of the eight sites have set-up technical or steering committees as mechanisms for stakeholder participation. Some sites have also set up advisory committees to guide and shape the region’s policies and address institutional and organizational barriers specifically. As an alternative, Kent and Fitchburg reported that, in lieu of a formal committee structure, they have been conducting detailed interviews with their stakeholders to collect input. Table 6 lists the methods used by the sites for stakeholder involvement.

Table 6: Methods Used for Stakeholder Involvement

Sites	Stakeholder Agency Involvement Method
Aiken	Mobility Center Advisory Committee – Using members from RTMA and other stakeholder for this project. A sub-group was formed to function as a technical sub-committee that works between meetings to consider possibilities for system integration, technology applications, and reports.
Atlanta	The ARC team’s approach to secure long-term participation of key stakeholders is to establish two main stakeholder groups: the Interagency Advisory Committee, to look at broad policy and high-level institutional issues and a Technical Stakeholder Committee to look at technical issues and review design aspects of the TMCC
Camden	Steering committee of key stakeholders in the region has been established. Also working on a larger stakeholder group of 26 agencies for planning. It is comprised of County leadership, transportation providers and planners, human services organizations, and consumer advocates.
Fitchburg	Primary method of stakeholder involvement is through individual stakeholder interviews. No formal committee structure. Use existing Human Service Transportation Area Advisory Councils and CREST for project review and input.
Kent	Interviews with stakeholders. Steering committee of key stakeholders to review project results and participate in focus group is planned.
Louisville	No formal committee structure. The Regional Mobility Council will be the primary group for stakeholder involvement.
Orlando	Small group meetings. No formal community structure.
Paducah	Existing Call Center Technical Advisory Committee will be used for this project.

5.3.3 Involving the End-users

Involving the end-users early in the design process is critical to a customer-centric TMCC design. While the user involvement has been minimal so far, several sites have plans to solicit input from the end-users. In Aiken, Louisville, and Orlando, the advisory committee includes end-users and advocacy groups. Camden, Fitchburg, Atlanta, and Paducah are planning focus groups with select riders during the course of this project. Table 7 lists the end-user involvement methods used by the sites.

Table 7: End-user Involvement

Sites	End-user Involvement Method
Aiken	The advisory group has consumers and advocacy groups who will provide input to the design. LSCOG also works with Easter Seals/Project Action. Considering public meetings and outreach with Easter Seals.
Atlanta	ARC is going to set up a focus group before the TMCC is designed to see if there are any issues to work out, and have a focus group afterwards to discuss what aspects worked well.
Camden County	Focus groups with critical population segments and Town Meetings to obtain broader community input
Fitchburg	Plan to get individual riders who might be interested in helping. There is a targeted group of individuals that are being asked for input in the project. These are users who use “subscription services,” are very familiar with MART, and use multiple services.
Kent	Surveys of special services agency customers are planned
Louisville	The project will use focus groups to get an initial reaction, and once the scope is mapped out, it will be reviewed with the users. The plan calls for three points of contact with users: beginning, middle, and end.
Orlando	Using the Transit Advisory Committee, a user committee set up by LYNX, which meets monthly.
Paducah	A rider focus group is also going to meet quarterly to keep them informed on the design. The focus group was thought for this project and was so successful that PATS is going to continue doing it, as they are able to generate vital rider input.

HST coordination can be described in four dimensions with the scalability and replicability aspects in each. Table 8 shows the four dimensions of integration.

Table 8: Dimensions of Human Service Transportation Coordination

Dimension	Scalability	Replicability
Institutional	System to add (or remove participating agencies/organizations)	Other institutions to adopt same model or process
Functional	Expand (or reduce) system functionalities	Other functional areas to adopt the same model/process
Geographical	Expand (or contract) geographical coverage of service	Other communities to adopt the same model/process
Operational	Add or change the operations of transportation providers	Other transportation providers to adopt the same model/process

Sites varied widely by their history, the extent, and the nature of human service coordination. In many cases, they had different levels in different dimensions and are hoping this project can help them improve their coordination in the dimensions where they currently lack a regional approach. The sites responses to each of the above four dimensions of integration are discussed below: Aiken, Fitchburg, Orlando, and Paducah have been most active with coordination effort in the past.

5.4.1 Institutional Coordination

Several sites reported a high-degree of institutional coordination in the region. All the sites reported working relationships with other agencies in the region and work through several forums, committees, and advisory groups. The following are some illustrative examples sites on the types on institutional cooperation.

Aiken noted that there is a long history of developing coordination in the region. The region was the first group in the state to bring stakeholders together and eliminate turf issues and deal with service in a more cost-effective manner. Setting up of the RTMA (Regional Transportation Management Association) in 2000 was a major step in addressing coordination. Medicaid was the driving force, and provided a base from which to work. RTMA meets quarterly, but works as a consortium to identify their costs and work at uniform cost across providers. That way they weren’t bidding against each other for clients when the Medicaid brokerage system came about.
Fitchburg also reported a high-degree of existing institutional and operational coordination. There are extensive linkages between MART and human service agencies, especially with the Department of Mental Retardation (DMR) region and the Massachusetts Human Service Transportation (HST) office. MART is the Medicaid broker and also serves DMR and other human service agencies. Human service transportation is a large operation in the region, with four DMR regions, nine HST areas, and seven RTAs.
In Orlando, the legislative and institutional framework in the state of Florida favors coordination. All human service agencies would have to come through the designated transportation coordinator (LYNX in Orlando’s case) to get federal or state reimbursement. LYNX, as the coordinator, will determine whether the service can be provided by existing transit or whether a separate contract is needed for the human service agency to provide service. LYNX coordinates transportation-disadvantaged services for over 63 agencies providing and/or brokering services.
In Paducah, PATS serves as the coordinated human service and Medicaid Broker for transportation services in Western Kentucky. PATS provides coordinated transportation for human service agencies, including the Kentucky Department of Medicaid Services, Kentucky Department of Vocation Rehabilitation, Kentucky Department of The Blind, Kentucky Department of Disability, Medicaid-Foster Parent Program, Medicaid-Private Auto Transportation Program, the Paducah Housing Authority (funded by the USHUD R.O.S.S. elderly & disabled program), United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Paducah-McCracken County senior services (funded by USDHHS Administration on Aging Title 3B Program), Oscar Cross Boys & Girls Clubs (Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice and United Way), and employment transportation.

On the other side of the spectrum, some of the sites (i.e., Atlanta, Kent) reported a limited level of coordination region-wide. While agency-specific coordination efforts exist, these sites plan to use this project as a springboard to develop a concept for the entire region, crosscutting agencies and jurisdictions.

Cooperation with non-traditional transportation providers and services was frequently reported as an interest by the sites. Several sites reported a desire to coordinate with private providers (Louisville, Atlanta etc). Atlanta has set up an online survey on the ARC website, collecting transit provider (including public, private and other non-traditional transportation) information regarding areas, costs and schedules. Camden County is attempting to better coordinate with faith-based transportation services through the faith-based coalition, which is comprised of over 45 local churches and synagogues. Orlando reported several innovative transportation services which they would like to incorporate into a TMCC model. Illustrative programs cited by the interviewee in Orlando included:

Volunteers in Motion. A service coordinator at the Breward Space Coast Area transit coordinates volunteers driving county vehicles to provide transportation. The program is very successful and has been in operation for over 10 years. This program expands the capacity of the Transportation Disadvantaged service and mass transit in the region. The program coordinator works with the lead contractors/providers in the county for eligibility and intake.
Senior Tran – Downtown Orlando. A shuttle service for seniors living in high-rises in downtown Orlando for day-to-day trips (medical, groceries etc).
ITN – Orlando. Independent Transportation Network was noted as very successful program involving part-time and volunteers driving personal automobiles (no signs) to help senior with transit needs. Seniors (65 and over) and other individuals who have visual impairments can join with annual membership and draw down on their trip account balances. There are no restrictions on the types of trips. Consumers cover 50% of the fees. Growing rapidly. Provided over 2000 trips since last year.

Funding and Medicaid transportation were among the two challenges in bettering institutional coordination. Three locations expressed concerns and uncertainty with the private Medicaid brokerage in the region, specifically the role that the private brokerage will play in the TMCC. All three sites indicated that they are in communication with the brokerage provider and will evolve to a better understanding of the level of involvement. One site reported a desire for additional coordination with state human service agencies and noted that there is a role for the federal liaisons in encouraging state-level participation in the local efforts at coordination. Another issue raised in the interview was potential union issues especially in a service area with some unionized and un-unionized providers and the difference in their labor costs.

5.4.2 Functional Coordination

Fewer sites reported functional coordination efforts. At a fundamental level, agencies still follow their own functions and processes.

Enabling a high level of functional coordination is also easier in places like Fitchburg, Kent, and Paducah where there is a primary transit provider in the region. In these places, a majority of the functions are carried out or determined by the lead agency. Common types of functional coordination reported include automated client eligibility verification (Paducah, Fitchburg), and common billing (Fitchburg, Paducah, Orlando), use of a common electronic vendor portal for Medicaid subcontractors for trip scheduling, billing, etc (Fitchburg), or database links for vendors to download trips etc (Paducah). Several of these agencies also reported use or planned deployment of AVL/MDC systems.

In larger regions with multiple transit providers and a more splintered transportation and human service framework, functional coordination is harder to achieve. Regional efforts reported by the sites include establishing a common radio system and AVL system (Aiken), common drug testing systems (Aiken), regional fare payment systems (Atlanta, Orlando), and a common scheduling software or seat licenses (Aiken).

5.4.3 Geographical Coordination

Most sites reported only a low-level of geographic coordination in terms of cross-jurisdiction operations but all of them expressed a high-desire to ascertain more possibilities as part of this project. Primarily, these coordination activities are specific to the participating agencies and not part of a regional effort.

In Atlanta, CCT and MARTA are extending trips into each other’s service area. This takes place primarily between the affected transit agencies and not regionally. In Orlando, LYNX reported cross-boundary operations with Volusia counties to Daytona. Similar services are also offered in Lake County and Polk County. TARC has inter-jurisdictional physical coordination, for example with Oldham County. Camden reported that the transfer system is one example of partnership across jurisdictions. The South Jersey Transportation Authority provides shuttle services for veterans in three counties by coordinating by the day of week for more efficient use of vehicles. One of the goals of the RTMA is to foster geographic coordination. Aiken hopes to draw in transit providers who operate in a greater number of counties allowing for more flexibility in service to their riders while optimizing the vehicle loading. For example, a trip to Charleston can multi-load with riders from multiple counties rather than have, say, six vehicles with one person each.

5.4.4 Operational Coordination

The interviews revealed that operational coordination, especially in the larger sites is mostly agency-specific and there has not been a regional approach yet. Individual agencies and groups of agencies have developed innovative arrangements and practices but no regional applications yet have been developed. Several sites reported that the United We Ride planning, the SAFETEA-LU coordination requirements and the TMCC project are helping the region focus on identifying and advancing the case for operational coordination.

In Louisville, for example, there are existing operational linkages between transit agencies because of the physical connection with the TARC fixed-route services. In addition, TARC has a non-profit vehicle maintenance program that helps with on-going maintenance for a reduced fee. TARC also has contracts with Yellow Cabs and American Red Cross to dispatch rides from the TARC dispatch center.

In Fitchburg, HHS has a large transportation operation in the region with several inter-jurisdictional and operational linkages, encompassing over 300 routes and three Regional Transit Authorities (RTAs). Fitchburg reported that they are working with two adjoining RTAs (Worcester and Lowell) to assign trips for Medicaid transportation in overlapping areas. There are about 20 subcontractors, which have mostly vans, but a few cabs as well.

In Paducah, PATS has a few existing operational linkages with the adjoining counties of Fulton and Murray-Calloway, but only on Medicaid trips. PATS has working relationships with all HHS agencies and provides service to most of them in McCracken County.

Table 9 shows the baseline technologies that the demonstration sites have so far identified as existing in the region.

Table 9: Baseline Technologies Reported by the Sites

Baseline Technologies	Demonstration Sites
Baseline Technologies	Aiken	Atlanta	Camden Co.	Fitchburg	Kent	Louisville	Orlando	Paducah
Automated Routing and Scheduling System (GIS based)	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Wireless Communications/Radio Systems	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
In-vehicle Mobile Data Computers	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Electronic Fare Collection System (Smart Card Technology)	Planned	X					X
Customer Service Center/Support		X		X		X	X
Electronic Bus Routes/Schedules		X
Real-time Vehicle Tracking (AVL)	X	X		X	X	X	X	X
Real-time Traveler Information		X					Planned	X (participating in KY 511)
Automated Reservation Management		X		X
Vehicle Arrival Notifications System		X
Web-based and Telephone-based Travel Planners	X	X		Planned			X
Accounting/Billing Software	X	X		X	X
Help-line/Call Centers	X	X		X				X
Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System for Reducing Call Volume	X			X
Web-reservations				Planned
Automated Client Eligibility Verification				X				X
Computerized Complaint Management System				X
Portable Computer-based Driver Training Simulator								X

A wide variety of ITS technologies is shown to exist in some manner among the sites. The next step for all the sites will be to refine their understanding of the technologies in their region, especially who uses them and how. Currently, all the sites are gathering information regarding technology.

Atlanta is working on developing a detailed inventory of ITS in the region focusing on identifying and differentiating between agency-specific and regional (like electronic fare collection) technologies. Atlanta is working on a needs assessment, which will include the inventory and allow ARC to see what gaps, potential weaknesses and needs exist.

In Camden County, the federal technical assistance team has been contacted to help with the properties of interfacing with existing software. Camden County is still working on understanding the best way to phase in the technology—whether they should interface existing technology or have one technology as the successor—and is planning to evaluate this from a cost/benefit and results perspective.

Four of the demonstration sites (Paducah, Kent, Fitchburg, and Aiken) have a common technology platform available across most of their systems. As part of the technology assessments, these sites are looking at ways to improve and expand their current deployments to include a more regional and coordinated concept of operations.

Aiken is planning additional technology applications such as a specialized coordination module, a smart farecard system, electronic cost allocation, and ridership tracking modules.
In Fitchburg, where a sophisticated system exists for brokerage operations, additional modules such as a trip-planning tool are being planned as part of this grant.
Kent is assessing technology improvements and alternatives and is leaning towards a system that is browser-based, since that is easy to scale up and replicate. They are also working on database sharing with different database structures, but are waiting on the information gathering interviews being carried out by the project team to completely determine the needs of the region before making a final decision. They are also planning public meetings to gather user and agency needs before reaching for a technological solution.
From participation in public education and information meetings, Paducah has identified some needs to consider in the TMCC design. Based on the feedback from the meetings, Paducah noticed common responses, such as wanting to: use the web to make reservations; use cell phones to make trips; speak to a live person; use an IVR system; have automated notification for arrival; and use of smart cards. While most ideas can be implemented, some appropriate phasing will be needed.

When a common platform was not present, integration was mentioned as a challenge especially with legacy systems. Atlanta and Camden identified integration of the existing legacy systems as a challenge, as most agencies have their own systems in the region.

Atlanta noted that it did not want to limit the options of the TMCC until it is clear what the needs are and what the best technology to use could be. The TMCC design also needs to leverage the comfort that agencies already have with the legacy systems they are using and be able to integrate that with new systems. Another challenge is maintaining, updating, and interfacing the systems. Atlanta noted that they need to look at technology on a regional level, as most agencies are either boundary- or client-based, but they need to look at a broader scope. Transit is one component, but they need to integrate and include the human services legacy systems, as well. In addition, the costs of upgrading, maintaining, and designing systems will need to be addressed.

Camden has contacted the federal technical assistance team for help with the properties of interfacing with existing software. The team is still working on understanding the best way to phase in the technology—whether they should join together or have one technology as the successor. Camden is hoping that technology improvements gives greater efficiencies built into the project, as they already have a rich public transportation system.

In some of the sites that are smaller operations or have a widely deployed common platform, integration of legacy systems was not mentioned as much of a concern. Paducah stated that while other transportation providers in the area can benefit by stating their needs/wants to try to get them translated into the TMCC design, other counties do not have as much technology as PATS, and that will need to be taken into consideration. Paducah has made their system software available to adjoining counties, who can download Medicaid trips from the server.

Fitchburg, also reported that while there are a few legacy systems, such as the fare box, most technologies are already integrated into Integrated Transit Management System (ITMS) software used by MART. Some software modules are not integrated with each other, primarily because there has been no need to date. However, some integration possibilities exist, such as combining AVL with trip planning for just-in-time booking or the use of IVR with trip planning.

Fitchburg anticipated integrating with a third-party AVL system as one of the biggest problems for them. The companies that build AVL are not the same as the ones who build the other ITS components, such as scheduling.

The project team at Kent is conducting interviews to assess the needs of the project, which have not yet been completed. The following text box shows the barriers that Kent project team has identified for typical technical concerns of coordination efforts. While not specific to PARTA and the region, these represent the superset of issues that Kent is expecting to encounter based on their experience with similar systems. The list will serve as a reminder that will help ensure that they address potential issues during the course of the design development.

TECHNICAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE KENT PROJECT TEAM ITS Hardware Are MDCs in each vehicle, even providers? What happens if they are not? Are the same MDCs being used? Same protocols? Are GPS accuracies the same between fleets? Communications Are fleets sharing same MDC communications backbone? How does system know which database/site to send messages? How do you deal with different protocols? How do you deal with different system timings? What happens went there are dead spots/down time? What happens when there is an emergency? GIS Engine – Very likely different map sources/GIS engines. How do you deal with different GIS reference points? How often will the maps be updated? Can each agency make map data changes? What happens when Geocodes don’t match between datasets? Data Exchange How do you send and merge data? Rider eligibility systems and issues? What if different sites are using different Database Engines? Multi-Model data exchange? Providers may get trips/data from different agencies? Integrating with 211 and 511 systems. Data Control Who owns data? What if there are conflicts between agencies? Many more possibly and issues? Client ID numbers, eligibility dates, etc.? Security – Who do you want to see the data? Should competitors see each others information? What about sensitive client data? Internet Connectivity – Speed of internet connectivity depends upon data exchange needs. What will bandwidth issues be fore each agency? What will bandwidth cost? – operations expense/budget? What of future bandwidth needs? Contingency Plans Data Backup and Redundancy issues? Disaster Recovery Plans? Politics Different operational requirements? Data control issues? Data Liabilities? Operational Liabilities (i.e., accidents, transfers, driver training)? Revenue/cost sharing? Faring Differences? IOA? Unions? Providers combining with their other business? Reporting Needs – Much greater needs and issues. How do they differ? Billing Needs? Statistic Calculation?

TECHNICAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE KENT PROJECT TEAM

ITS Hardware
Are MDCs in each vehicle, even providers? What happens if they are not? Are the same MDCs being used? Same protocols? Are GPS accuracies the same between fleets?

Communications
Are fleets sharing same MDC communications backbone? How does system know which database/site to send messages? How do you deal with different protocols? How do you deal with different system timings? What happens went there are dead spots/down time? What happens when there is an emergency?

GIS Engine – Very likely different map sources/GIS engines.
How do you deal with different GIS reference points? How often will the maps be updated? Can each agency make map data changes? What happens when Geocodes don’t match between datasets?

Data Exchange
How do you send and merge data? Rider eligibility systems and issues? What if different sites are using different Database Engines? Multi-Model data exchange? Providers may get trips/data from different agencies? Integrating with 211 and 511 systems.

Data Control
Who owns data? What if there are conflicts between agencies? Many more possibly and issues? Client ID numbers, eligibility dates, etc.?

Security – Who do you want to see the data?
Should competitors see each others information? What about sensitive client data?

Internet Connectivity – Speed of internet connectivity depends upon data exchange needs.
What will bandwidth issues be fore each agency? What will bandwidth cost? – operations expense/budget? What of future bandwidth needs?

Contingency Plans
Data Backup and Redundancy issues? Disaster Recovery Plans?

Politics
Different operational requirements? Data control issues? Data Liabilities? Operational Liabilities (i.e., accidents, transfers, driver training)? Revenue/cost sharing? Faring Differences? IOA? Unions? Providers combining with their other business?

Reporting Needs – Much greater needs and issues.
How do they differ? Billing Needs? Statistic Calculation?

Two locations (Paducah and Orlando) also mentioned that they are interested in how the TMCC project can take advantage of the regional 511 system. In Orlando, there is an existing 511 system with transit information as option 3 and callers are connected to the LYNX call center for fixed route service, to MV transit for paratransit service, or to a car-pool ride matching center. Orlando reported that it is a real possibility that 511 could be the one-call number for the region and will work with the Florida DOT to see how best to use 511 for this task.

5.5.1 Use of the National ITS Architecture

The use of the National ITS architecture in the TMCC design process has been strongly encouraged by the U.S. DOT. While the demonstration sites reported they are looking into the regional ITS architectures, it has not yet been a uniform or systematic approach. Two of the sites reported that the regional architecture did not contain enough human service transportation information and they see gaps that need to be addressed in the architecture. The other sites indicated that they are reviewing available information and will consider architecture more during the development of the concept of operations. It should be noted that an ITS architecture gap analysis report is a deliverable that each site will be submitting to FTA.

The MSAA program offers several types of support to the demonstration sites intended to assist the sites in their TMCC design process. These include the federal liaisons, the technical assistants, and an on-line community website. In addition, the kickoff workshop held in March 2007 in Washington, DC, introduced participants to members of each site, providing site representatives an opportunity for dialogue among themselves. The project managers of each site provided their perspective on these forms of support.

5.6.1 Inter-site Contacts since Kickoff Workshop

The Kickoff Workshop received mixed reviews from the site representatives. While most felt that it provided a good opportunity to hear what the other sites were doing, some felt that the packed agenda and venue limited networking opportunities. Nevertheless, five sites (Aiken, Atlanta, Kent, Orlando, and Paducah) reported contacts with other sites since the Workshop. Aiken, in particular, appears to have been active in contacting other sites. One site, Louisville, felt that the competitive nature of the second stage of the project may have inhibited contact among the sites.

The on-line community website was not fully functioning at the time of interviews, and only two sites (Fitchburg and Orlando) reported using it. The Orlando project manager reported that he had been posting on the website, but had not been getting many responses.

5.6.2 Federal Liaisons Support

The federal liaisons are viewed by most sites as a valuable form of assistance, although some sites have used them more extensively than others. For example, Fitchburg has monthly calls with their federal liaison and technical assistants, and Kent said they were in regular contact with their federal liaison. In terms of the types of support received, Aiken reported being very happy with the assistance on Medicaid issues and program guidance, and Atlanta sought assistance on policy issues. Paducah has used the federal liaison to ensure that deliverables are being submitted satisfactorily. At the time of the interview, Louisville and Orlando reported they had no contact with their federal liaison since the Kickoff Workshop, although it does not appear that they have actively sought federal liaison’s help.

5.6.3 Technical Assistants

At the time of the interviews, all the sites had had at least one conference call with their technical assistants (TAs). Since then the TAs have prepared technical assistance plans for each site, either in draft or final form, and visits by the TAs to each site are underway. Although the relationship with the TAs was still evolving at the time of the process evaluation interviews, half the sites reported that they had already made regular use of help from the TA team. Those using the TAs reported the following types of assistance to date and/or expectations for the future:

Aiken – review of the detailed project plan and in the future plan to use TAs for more technical aspects such as wireless communication
Atlanta – review concept of operations when ready and other types of technical help as needed
Camden County – review of project timetable and planning a systems engineering workshop
Fitchburg – plan to use extensively in reviewing documents, concepts, and ideas
Orlando – assistance on National Transit Database reporting
Paducah – help in the future on how to interface with the 511 system.

Review of the technical assistance plans for each site and the TA monthly reports to U.S. DOT indicate that monthly conference calls are taking place with each site and other interaction by phone or e-mail will occur as needed to respond to a site’s needs. Some of the specific requests for assistance that have been made are:

Technical/ITS issues: data communications between vehicles and the TMCC; linking two proprietary software systems; and data warehousing and management
Coordination issues: advice on technical committee composition; information on insurance issues; information on cost savings from coordination of trips; brokerage systems for Medicare trips
Project Management issues: concept of operations; review of detailed project plan; systems engineering training; quarterly reporting to FTA; budgetary question.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

ncG1vNJzZmimpKG%2FprzOrKCtp6Kue6O4zptlnKeimnu4tc2dprCrXqOytXvLoplooqCksbCv0mipnqikqKy1sY5qa21oY5SzqrjErGasnZNqe3GrwKeYpbGjnsBvtNOm