Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
11.1 Background and Purpose The Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation is a primary resource for state-level data on transit funding and is used by states across the country to examine their public transportation funding programs in relation to other states. Prepared by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Office of Survey Programs under the auspices of AASHTO and APTA, the Survey presents an array of useful informa- tion on funding by state. The data, however, are not presented in a way that is easy to make comparisons between states for purposes of benchmarking or conducting peer analyses. The bulk of the Survey is organized by state with two pages per state showing the sources and eligible uses for each stateâs transit funding. The Survey report also provides an overview of state and local ballot initiatives related to transit and con- tains a set of summary tables displaying information on pub- lic transportation funding by state, including the following: ⢠Historical state and federal funding of public transportation ⢠Major sources of state transit funding ⢠Types of expenditures for state transit funding ⢠Changes in state transit funding levels Each of these sections presents information in a similar manner to how it is received from the states, with informa- tion presented in alphabetical order by state. As a result, states need information on how to conduct valid assessments and comparisons of their programs using data from the Survey. The purpose of this NCHRP report is to develop infor- mation to help states conduct additional peer analyses and other comparative assessments of their transit funding pro- grams, relying upon data contained in the Survey and other data sources. It presents a framework for using the data in the Survey to conduct peer analyses. It demonstrates how the cur- rent data in the Survey can be presented in a meaningful man- ner through a visual display of information. Finally, it provides suggestions for enhancing the collection of data for the Sur- vey in the future, so as to enable states to conduct additional analyses. This NCHRP report is structured as follows: ⢠Section 1, Introduction, sets the context for the analysis in this report by describing its purpose, the research approach, and a brief summary of the results of the Survey. ⢠Section 2, Peer Group Framework and Analysis, presents a framework for conducting peer analyses using data in the Survey and other sources. It identifies options for creating peer groups, describes metrics for analysis, and provides a detailed analysis using one set of peer groups selected by the NCHRP project panel. ⢠Section 3, Visual Display of Funding Information, dis- cusses principles of information design to help effectively communicate information contained within the Survey. It includes displays of Survey data created by converting tables from the Survey into effective graphs and charts. ⢠Section 4,Additional Information for the Survey, provides recommendations for enhancements that could be made to the Survey in the future to allow for additional comparisons among states and to provide more complete information. ⢠Section 5, Conclusions, concisely presents the results of this project. Some additional analyses that were requested by the proj- ect panel are presented in the appendix. Comparisons of state and federal transit funding over time nationally and for each state, as well as comparisons of highway and transit funding over time nationally and for each state, are shown. 1.2 Research Approach This report is the culmination of several phases of research. First, the research team conducted interviews with a wide range of individuals from organizations with a strong interest in improving the usefulness of the Survey (Task 1). These S E C T I O N 1 Introduction
individuals included members of the NCHRP project panel, the AASHTO Standing Committee on Public Transporta- tion, the AASHTO Multi-state Technical Assistance Program (MTAP), and the APTA State Affairs Committee and staff at AASHTO, APTA, and the Community Transportation Asso- ciation of America (CTAA). The research team asked each interviewee for the following: ⢠Questions they want to see answered by this project ⢠Potential analyses they want to see in the Survey ⢠Suggestions for additional questions for future versions of the Survey Based on these interviews, the research teamâs own assess- ment of the survey data, and input from the project panel, the following analyses were selected as the focus for this study: ⢠Funding comparisons among peer groups ⢠Enhanced visual display of information ⢠Comparisons of state and federal transit funding at a national and state level ⢠Comparisons of highway and transit funding at a national and state level (Tasks 2 to 3) These analyses were conducted (Task 4), recommendations were developed (Task 5), and information was packaged in a way that makes analyses dynamic and useful for the intended audience. The result is this report (Task 6). 1.3 Summary of 2004 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation This section briefly summarizes the Survey to provide some context for the analysis that follows. The 2004 Survey was the 24th compilation on state funding of public transportation and was prepared by BTS. The Survey is primarily a collection of data without accompanying analyses. It includes four sections: 1. Introduction and Summary. This brief section presents a few summary observations regarding the data within the Survey, two tables of basic data regarding transit funding over time, an explanation of the survey methodology, and an outline of the organization of the report. Tables 1 and 2 are excerpts from the two tables shown in this section of the Survey (Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 of the Survey) and are reproduced here for context. These are the tables that are analyzed and improved in Section 3 of this report, and they provide the bulk of the information used for the peer group analyses. 2. State Transit Program Details. In this section, which is by far the bulk of the Survey, raw data for each state is provided in alphabetical order. States indicate the source, programming, amount, eligible uses, and type of fund- ing for transit in their state. States also provide additional remarks or comments that can provide insight into their particular situation. Although the results of this section are included in the data reported in the Survey, and thus ana- lyzed by this report, this section is not specifically re-worked in this report. 3. Highlights of State Transit Funding. This section pres- ents several summary tables that are analyzed in detail in this report. The Survey itself provides some limited dis- cussion of these tables, including an explanation of their contents and observations of trends and data points. This report attempts to re-work these tables into a more mean- ingful format where appropriate. Tables 3 through 7 show excerpts from the original tables in the Survey. 4. Overview of State and Local Ballot Initiatives. This sec- tion simply lists all state and local ballot initiatives related 2 State 1990 1995 2000 2003 2004 AR $400,000 $331,900 $0 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 Alabama $453,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 AK $1,128,607 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arizona $382,961 $445,000 $329,096 $13,768,000 $20,068,000 California $113,579,750 $340,162,248 $1,344,778,819 $1,294,100,000 $1,317,933,858 Colorado $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Connecticut $87,614,575 $113,241,041 $163,266,135 $186,100,000 $200,167,000 District of Columbia $115,007,775 $123,051,000 NR $198,038,000 $208,252,896 West Virginia $1,261,9031 $1,537,898 $1,395,489 $2,200,000 $2,294,162 Wyoming $0 $976,736 NR $1,500,000 $2,466,127 TOTALS $3,742,211,127 $4,760,994,970 $7,499,314,371 $8,993,815,661 $9,317,772,184 1=$374,972 of this figure represents direct state operating assistance to public transit. $697,281 is provided by the WV Dept. of Health & Human Services and the WV Commission on Aging and is used for the provision of specialized services to the elderly and handicapped. $90,000 is used by the small urban and rural properties as fare box revenue to offset operating expenses. Table 1. Excerpt from Table 1.1 of the Survey, State Funding of Public Transitâ1990, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2004.
Table 3. Excerpt from Table 3.1 of the Survey, Major Sources for Overall Transit Funding. State General Fund Gas Tax Motor Vehicle/Rental Car Sales Tax Registration/ License/ Title Fees Bond Proceeds General Sales Tax Interest Income Other Arizona 0.3% 99.7% Arkansas 100% California X X X X Connecticut X X X X X Maryland 29% 31% 17% 18% 4% Massachusetts X X X X Mississippi 100% Missouri 100% Washington 100% West Virginia 100% Wisconsin X X X Wyoming X 100% to transit services as reported by all states. This report does not deal with the information reported in this section of the Survey. Some of the findings reported in the 2004 Survey follow: ⢠Compared to 1990, the total amount of funds programmed for public transit has more than doubled. ⢠Compared to 2000, funding levels in 2004 increased a total of $1.8 billion. ⢠Of 45 states reporting data in 2000, 27 states increased their funding, 6 states showed no change in funding, and 12 states showed a decline. ⢠The most utilized sources for transit funding were the general fund (19 states) and gas taxes (15 states). How- ever, 25 states reported that they used âotherâ sources for funding. ⢠Of states providing transit funding, 63% reported specific funding for capital, 61% reported specific funding for oper- ating expenses, and 65% reported funding that could be used for either operating or capital expenses. ⢠Approximately 2.5 times as many dollars were reported for use on operating compared to capital expenditures. ⢠Out of a total of 184 funding amounts reported by the 51 programs, about 162 were divided among three classifi- cations: capital expenditures, operating expenditures only, and those funds that could be used for either capital or operating expenses. ⢠Total transit funding for individual states ranges from zero to $1.811 billion. 3 State 1995 2000 2003 2004 Federal State Federal State Federal State Federal State Alabama $16,902,560 $0 $49,114,988 $0 $55,708,644 $0 $58,794,397 $0 Alaska $4,841,362 $0 $40,378,506 $0 $35,037,287 $0 $35,920,706 $0 Arizona $41,261,418 $445,000 $14,709,692 $329,096 $21,234,890 $13,768,000 $88,099,376 $20,068,000 Arkansas $8,488,925 $331,900 $48,283,188 $0 $83,400,160 $2,800,000 $23,171,920 $2,800,000 California $649,601,617 $340,162,248 $803,945,774 $1,344,778,819 $1,037,264,991 $1,294,100,000 $1,037,401,691 $1,317,933,858 Michigan $85,840,495 $124,400,599 $100,549,339 $187,197,690 $108,026,968 $207,800,000 $118,174,988 $209,652,400 Minnesota $39,476,237 $47,988,633 $106,819,233 $80,289,455 $143,169,667 $229,200,000 $147,726,131 $214,255,000 Mississippi $8,142,041 0 $14,673,609 $115,185 $15,681,001 $0 $18,810,488 $800,000 Wisconsin $54,763,914 $77,321,415 $65,748,459 $100,448,100 $71,247,923 $108,900,000 $69,340,585 $109,077,870 Wyoming $1,835,208 $976,736 $2,307,708 NR $5,447,663 $1,500,000 $4,935,641 $2,466,127 TOTALS $4,470,747,013 $4,760,994,970 $5,567,260,670 $7,499,314,371 $6,922,443,161 $8,993,815,661 $7,021,489,256 $9,317,772,184 Note: Federal fund information provided by the Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Table 2. Excerpt from Table 1.2 of the Survey, Federal and State Funding for Public Transitâ1995, 2000, 2003, 2004.
4State Total Reported Capital Operating Either/Both Comments FY 2004 Amt % Amt % Amt % Indiana $36,200,751 $36,200,751 100.0% Iowa $8,600,000 $8,300,000 96.5% $300,000 (3.5%) for marketing, training, etc. Kansas $6,000,000 $2,190,000 36.5% $3,810,000 63.5% Kentucky $1,400,000 $1,400,000 100.0% Maryland $789,511,418 $9,019,000 1.1% $780,492,018 98.9% Oklahoma $2,750,000 $2,750,000 100.0% Funds can be used for other purposes as well. Oregon $31,444,655 $9,970,093 31.7% $21,474,562 68.3% Some funds can be used for other purposes. Pennsylvania $785,151,000 $298,760,000 38.1% $282,065,000 35.9% $75,000,000 9.6% $129.3m (16.5%) for other purposes. Rhode Island $36,839,916 $1,202,516 3.3% $35,637,400 96.7% South Dakota $996,000 $996,000 100.0% Tennessee $38,532,100 $5,036,000 13.1% $15,554,000 40.4% $5,744,000 14.9% $12.2m (31.7%)- planning/training/etc. Texas $27,741,068 $27,741,068 100.0% Funds can be used for other purposes as well. TOTALS $9,317,772,184 $1,595,033,377 17.1% $4,128,882,967 44.3% $3,440,828,583 36.9% $153,027,257 (1.6%) for other purposes. Table 4. Excerpt from Table 3.2 of the Survey, Types of Expenditures for State Transit Funding. Table 5. Excerpt from Table 3.3 of the Survey, Changes in State Transit Funding Levels, 2003â2004. State FY 2004 Funding FY 2004 Per Capita FY 2003 Funding FY 2003 Per Capita % Change- Total Funding % Change- Per Capita Funding Idaho $312,000 $0.22 $312,000 $0.23 0.0% -4.3% Illinois $778,700,000 $61.25 $754,000,000 $59.59 3.3% 2.8% Indiana $36,200,751 $5.80 $34,800,000 $5.62 4.0% 3.2% Iowa $8,600,000 $2.91 $9,500,000 $3.23 -9.5% -9.9% Kansas $6,000,000 $2.19 $6,000,000 $2.20 0.0% -0.5% Kentucky $1,400,000 $0.34 $1,400,000 $0.34 0.0% 0.0% Louisiana $4,962,500 $1.10 $4,962,500 $1.10 0.0% 0.0% Maine $505,000 $0.38 $2,250,000 $1.72 -77.6% -77.9% Maryland $789,511,418 $142.05 $763,500,000 $138.59 3.4% 2.5% South Dakota $996,000 $1.29 $923,000 $1.21 7.9% 6.6% Tennessee $38,532,100 $6.53 $30,400,000 $5.20 26.8% 25.6% Texas $27,741,068 $1.23 $25,700,000 $1.16 7.9% 6.0% Washington $29,150,000 $4.70 $39,900,000 $6.51 -26.9% -27.8% West Virginia $2,294,162 $1.26 $2,200,000 $1.22 4.3% 3.3% Wisconsin $109,077,870 $19.80 $108,900,000 $19.90 0.2% -0.5% Wyoming $2,466,127 $4.87 $1,500,000 $2.99 64.4% 62.9%
Table 7. Excerpt from Table 3.5 of the Survey, Level of Investment Reported by All States and DC, Ranked by Per Capita Funding. State FY 2004 Funding FY 2004 Per Capita Costs Population Figures District of Columbia $208,252,896 $376.23 553,523 Massachusetts $1,291,363,175 $201.26 6,416,505 Maryland $789,511,418 $142.05 5,558,058 New Jersey $837,476,000 $96.27 8,698,879 New York $1,811,372,000 $94.21 19,227,088 Delaware $72,000,000 $86.71 830,364 Pennsylvania $785,151,000 $63.29 12,406,292 Illinois $778,700,000 $61.25 12,713,634 Connecticut $200,167,000 $57.13 3,503,604 Minnesota $214,255,000 $42.00 5,100,958 California $1,317,933,858 $36.72 35,893,799 Rhode Island $36,839,916 $34.09 1,080,632 Michigan $209,652,400 $20.73 10,112,620 Wisconsin $109,077,870 $19.80 5,509,026 Virginia $140,100,000 $18.78 7,459,827 Utah* $0 $0.00 2,389,039 Source: Annual estimate of the population for the United States as of July 1, 2004 (NST-EST2004-01), produced by the Population Division, US Census Bureau, released on 12/22/04. *Does not provide state funding for transit ⢠Changes in overall state funding show a wide variance, rang- ing from a 69% increase to a 78% decrease. ⢠Generally, states with more urban characteristics and more extensive public transit services reported higher total and per capita transit funding figures. As the previous tables and findings show, the Survey is not an analytical report. It serves primarily as a database. That database can potentially be tapped to show interesting and informative results that can be useful to practitioners. There- fore, the objective of this report is to present the same data shown previously, augmented in some cases with additional data, in a productive manner. This process begins with a peer group framework and analysis. 5 Table 6. Excerpt from Table 3.4 of the Survey, Level of Investment Reported by All States and DC, Ranked by Total Funding. State FY 2004 Funding FY 2004 Per Capita Costs Population Figures New York $1,811,372,000 $94.21 19,227,088 California $1,317,933,858 $36.72 35,893,799 Massachusetts $1,291,363,175 $201.26 6,416,505 New Jersey $837,476,000 $96.27 8,698,879 Maryland $789,511,418 $142.05 5,558,058 Pennsylvania $785,151,000 $63.29 12,406,292 Illinois $778,700,000 $61.25 12,713,634 Minnesota $214,255,000 $42.00 5,100,958 District of Columbia $208,252,896 $376.23 553,523 Michigan $209,652,400 $20.73 10,112,620 Connecticut $200,167,000 $57.13 3,503,604 North Carolina $154,680,000 $18.11 8,541,221 Virginia $140,100,000 $18.78 7,459,827 Wisconsin $109,077,870 $19.80 5,509,026 Source: Annual estimate of the population for the United States as of July 1, 2004 (NST-EST2004-01), produced by the population division, US Census Bureau, released on 12/22/04.
