National Academies Press: OpenBook

Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs (2006)

Chapter: Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information

« Previous: Section 2 - Peer Group Framework and Analysis
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14004.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14004.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14004.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14004.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14004.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14004.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14004.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14004.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Section 3 - Visual Display of Funding Information." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14004.
×
Page 40

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.

32 In the previous section some ways to develop groups of peer states were described and their funding levels were compared. In this section, direct data from the Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation will be used to illuminate overall trends across all states. The purpose is to demonstrate how good prin- ciples of information design can be used to develop graphics that show the reader trends and context that might be diffi- cult to discern in tables of numbers. The research team has attempted to display that data here in a useful manner. In particular, the following principles of in- formation design were observed in transforming the tables into graphics: • Compare like to like. The Survey shows state funding from 1990 and federal funding from 1995. Showing funding fig- ures for a 15-year period beside figures for a 10-year period would be misleading, because such juxtaposition implies that they are based on comparable data when they are not. Therefore, the research team chose to compare trends in state and federal funding for the same time period, 1995 to 2004. Using the same principle, the research team inflated the figures from earlier years to 2004 dollars so that all monetary units are comparable. • Show multiple dimensions of data. In several cases, the research team organized tables in such a way as to make visible several dimensions of data to facilitate comparisons. For example, one table combines information on funding sources (including percentages from each source where available) and relative level of state funding to enable the reader to see which sources are used most frequently and that states with higher funding levels tend to have a wide range of funding sources. These types of comparison lend richness to the data interpretation that would not be pres- ent in a simple pie chart of the frequency of funding sources. Of course, the visual display is only as good as the data underlying it. In some cases, for example, data from certain states were not available for particular years. In other cases, funding is shown as zero for certain years. If those states pro- vided no funding, the fluctuations in funding over a period of time can be analyzed effectively; however, if those zero amounts really reflect missing data, the analysis will be flawed. Although the data contained in the Survey are assumed to be correct, instances where the research team has such concerns will be mentioned throughout the section. This section relies on information from the following tables in the Survey: • Table 1.1, State Funding for Transit, 1990 to 2004 (data for 1990, 1995, 2000, 2003, and 2004) • Table 1.2, Federal Funding for Transit, 1995 to 2004 (data for 1995, 2000, 2003, and 2004) • Table 3.1, Sources of State Funding, 2004 • Table 3.2, State Funding Expenditures by Category, 2004 • Table 3.3, Per Capita State Funding, 2003 and 2004 • Tables 3.4 and 3.5, which both depict funding per capita data from 2004. This section is structured around some questions that the data can answer: • Is transit funding by states and the federal government increasing or decreasing? • Are state and federal funding levels changing in the same way? • Which states are experiencing the greatest changes in transit funding? • On a per capita basis, is funding increasing or decreasing? • What are the most commonly used sources of funds? • What are the most common expenditure types? Although information is available in the Survey on all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, some states have been excluded from this analysis because of missing data. Where that is the case, the exclusion is noted in the text. S E C T I O N 3 Visual Display of Funding Information

33 All figures in this section are adjusted for inflation. Inflation is calculated such that a 1995 dollar is worth $1.21 in 2004. 3.1 Trends in State and Federal Transit Funding Tables 1.1 and 1.2 from the Survey contain information on overall levels of state and federal funding for the years 1990 (state only), 1995, 2000, 2003, and 2004. Many of these absolute numbers are provided in Section 2. The figures in this sub- section compare state and federal funding and indicate whether funding is increasing or decreasing. Although states provide more total funding than the fed- eral government, the figures are skewed by a few very large states.Most states received more federal than state funding for transit in 2004. States provided a total of $9.3 billion in transit funding in 2004,while federal funds totaled $7 billion.However, the 7 largest states—New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Maryland—collectively had $7.6 billion in state funding, while the remaining 43 states and the District of Columbia had $1.7 billion. Almost $4 billion— more than half of all federal funds spent on transit—went to those seven states. Figure 32 shows the percentage of federal and state funding for each state. The states are arranged in order from highest total funding level to lowest. Among the states that contribute substantially to funding transit, many increased their share from 1995 to 2004. Fig- ure 33 shows the ratio of federal to state funding for 1995 and 2004 on a dollar basis. If the state falls at $1, it means that the state provided an equal amount of funding to what the federal government provides. Figure 33 compares the ratios for 1995 to those in 2004; 1995 values are graphed on the x-axis, 2004 values on the y-axis. If the data point falls above the diagonal line, it means the state increased its share of transit funding vis-à-vis the federal contribution from 1995 to 2004. As Figure 33 indicates, 13 states provided more than $1 for every dollar of federal funding in either 1995 or 2004. The clear outlier in this group is Massachusetts, which in 2004 provided almost six times as many transit dollars than the federal government ($1.3 billion as opposed to $221 million in federal funding). Most of the states in the $1 to $2 range 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% YN AC AM JN LI AP DM N M CD LF I M XT TC AW AV CN I W RO H O OC A G ZA NT NI ED OM TU AL LA KO IR VN YK IH AI C S K A SK RA SM MN EN VW TV DI EM HN DS DN T M Y W State Federal Average federal funding for states under $1B: 65% Average federal funding for states over $1B: 34% Figure 32. Percentage of federal and state funding by state (2004).

34 in Figure 33, those that provide between one-half and two- thirds of total transit funding, had a higher ratio in 2004 than in 1995, which means that those states increased their pro- portion of funding relative to federal funding. However, the majority of states provide far less at the state level than what the federal government provides, as shown by the data points clustered near $0 on the axes. While both state and federal funding are generally increas- ing, state funding is on the whole increasing more quickly. Figures 34 and 35 display the compound annual growth rates (CAGR) in state and federal transit funding. The CAGR is cal- culated based on the difference between funding levels in 1995 and 2004, and describes what the annual rate of growth would have been if it had grown at a steady rate each year. Although the Survey provides this information for states for the period 1990 to 2004 and for federal funding for the period 1995 to 2004, in keeping with the principle of com- paring like to like, the period 1995 to 2004 was used for both figures. The figures include only 39 states and the District of Columbia: four states had no state funding during this period (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado and Hawaii); three states (Idaho, Mississippi and Utah) had no state funding in either 1995 or 2004, making a meaningful increase or decrease impossible to calculate; and four states (Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana and New Mexico) have no data available for 1995. When adjusted for inflation, all but six states increased their transit funding over the 10-year period. The national average is 3.9%. The states with the largest increases—Arizona and New Hampshire—do not fall into the same peer group, so it is difficult to detect a particular trend here. Figure 35 shows similar data to that in Figure 34 for federal funding for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The two states that saw the largest percentage increases in federal fund- ing are Alaska and Colorado. Figure 36 compares the percentage changes in federal and state funding between 1995 and 2004 depicted in Figures 34 and 35 (note that only states in Figure 34, which shows changes in state funding, are included). For example, if federal funding increased by 3.5% and state funding increased by 1%, that state would be shown in Figure 36 as having a 2.5% greater increase in federal funding. As Figure 36 indicates, approximately two- thirds of the states saw greater increases in state funding than in federal funding over this period. However, Figure 36 does not address changes in the absolute dollar amount of state ver- sus federal funding, simply the rates of change over the period. A state with a larger percentage increase in state funding might have seen a larger dollar increase in federal funding, depending on the level of funding in 1995. Figure 36 shows the difference between state and federal funding growth rates from 1995 to 2004. Nationally, state fund- ing grew at 5.5% while federal funding grew at a rate of 2.9%, for a difference of 2.6%. For states in the top portion of the fig- ure, (Nevada through West Virginia), growth in federal fund- ing for their state has outpaced state funding in the last 9 years. VT TN NC CA WYFL DC IL MN NJ WI MI CT NY VA MD PA MA $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 State dollars spent per federal dollar in 1995 4002 ni rall od l ar edef r ep t neps sr all od etatS Figure 33. Ratio of total federal to state funding by state (1995–2004).

ZA HN RA TV CN SK TM AW NM OM AC DS NT LI KO AG YW AM YK DM DN IR JN AV TC CD IM XT VW CS IW YN EM AP AI LF EN RO HO VN %05%54%04%53%03%52%02%51%01%5%0%5-%01-%51- ZA HN RA TV CN SK TM AW NM OM AC DS NT LI KO AG YW AM YK DM DN IR JN AV TC CD IM XT VW CS IW YN EM AP AI LF EN RO HO VN )%9.3( egarevA lanoitaN Figure 34. CAGRs for state transit funding adjusted for inflation (1995–2004). Figure 35. CAGRs for federal transit funding adjusted for inflation (1995–2004). KA OC KO NM LA TU DI AW VN DN HN RA YW TV AV CS YK DS TM SM SK ZA IH CN NT LI EN NI AG EM LF AC VW XT TC AL AP AI OM JN IM AM YN IW MN HO IR DM ED RO CD %05%54%04%53%03%52%02%51%01%5%0%5-%01-%51- KA OC KO NM LA TU DI AW VN DN HN RA YW TV AV CS YK DS TM SM SK ZA IH CN NT LI EN NI AG EM LF AC VW XT TC AL AP AI OM JN IM AM YN IW MN HO IR DM ED RO CD )%3( egarevA lanoitaN 35

36 For example, federal funding for Nevada grew annually by 25% more than state funding. Nine states are not included in this figure. New Mexico, Louisiana, Indiana and Delaware did not report state fund- ing in 1995. Hawaii, Colorado, Alaska and Alabama all had no state funding in 2004. Mississippi had no state funding in 1995. While increasing more quickly than federal funding on average, state funding tends to fluctuate more year by year. Fluctuations in funding were calculated based on the 4 years of data available in the report: 1995, 2000, 2003 and 2004. After adjusting the funding for inflation, the research team calculated a simple measure for each state: the maximum funding amount less the minimum funding amount, divided by the average funding. This calculation yields a percentage measure of how much the high and low years of funding dif- fers from the average. A figure of more than 100% means that the difference between the high and low number was more than double the funding average. For example, if a state had on average $3 million in funding but a high of $3.5 million and a low of $2.5 million, the fluctuation measure would be 33% ($3.5 million minus $2.5 million, divided by $3 million). ZA HN CN RA OM SK TV AC TM CD DM AM LI NT IR AW AG DS JN IM NM TC IW XT YN %05%04%03%02%01%0 ZA HN CN RA OM SK TV AC TM CD DM AM LI NT IR AW AG DS JN IM NM TC IW XT YN VW YK YW AP AI EM AV DN RO LF KO EN CS HO V States with greater increases in federal funding States with greater increases in state funding N %05%04%03%02%01%0 Figure 36. Difference between state and federal CAGRs (1995–2004).

If the high were $5 million and the low $2 million, the fluctu- ation measure would be 100%: the higher the percentage, the greater the amount of fluctuation. Measures were calculated for both state and federal funding. Figure 37 shows the difference in the fluctuation for state and federal funding. Although only 6 states showed federal funding fluctuation of more than 100%, 19 states had fluctu- ation of more than 100% in state funding. Figure 37 clearly shows that for most states, their federal funding stream is more constant than their state funding. Several states (e.g., New Mexico, Utah and Mississippi) had high fluctuations because in several years they did not receive state funding. Delaware, Indiana and Louisiana had no data available in several years, so volatility was calculated on the basis of available data for the remaining years. 3.2 Per Capita Funding States that operate transit provide significantly higher per capita funds than those that do not. Per capita funding information is based on Table 3.3 of the Survey. As Figure 38 shows, the five states that operate transit—indicated by the larger squares—provided significantly higher funding than states of similar population levels. The “state”that provided the highest level of per capita funding is the District of Columbia, with an entirely urbanized population; it is not shown in Fig- ure 38 because it would obscure the detail for the other states. New York, which has the highest transit ridership of any state, also provided a significant amount of per capita funding. Figure 39 graphs the same state per capita funding levels against federal per capita funding. (The District of Columbia is also not shown on this figure, for the reason noted previ- ously.) Figure 39 shows that the states with the highest levels of per capita federal funding are Alaska, New York and New Jersey. Note also that while federal per capita funding is within a much smaller band than state funding (the highest federal funding per capita is about $55, while nine states have state per capita funding above $50), the states are more evenly dis- tributed along the x-axis, meaning that federal per capita funding varies less from state to state. 3.3 Sources of Funds Half of the states rely on a single funding source. The higher the state’s funding, the more likely it is to rely on mul- tiple sources. Table 27 is based on information in Table 3.1 of the Survey. It shows all states and the sources of their transit funds. The table includes 45 states and the District of Columbia; Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii and Utah did not provide any transit funding in 2004. The total dollar value of funds attributed to a source, $1.59 billion, represents only about 17% of all state funds 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% AR AZ AK UT WV OK DC CO OR NM MN WY ID AL VT NV WA MD KY ND VA MO TN SC NH ME SD HI MT KS MS LA NC GA IN MA DE FL RI CT TX IL NE CA IA OH WI NY NJ MI PA State Federal Avg federal volatility Avg state volatility Figure 37. Difference between state and federal fluctuation measures (1995–2004). 37

CA DE FLGA IL MD MA MI MN NJ NY OH PA RI VAWI $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 State Population g nid n uF atip aC r eP DC Figure 38. Per capita funding by population and transit operator status (2004). AK CA CO CT DE HI IL MD MA MI MN NV NJ NY NC OR PA RI VA WAWI $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Federal Per Capita Funding g nid n uF atipaC reP etatS DC Figure 39. Federal and state per capita funding by transit-operator status (2004).

39 State Other General Fund Gas Tax Motor Vehicle/ Rental Car Sales Tax Bond Proceeds Reg/ License/ Title Fees General Sales Tax Interest Income Nevada 100% New Hampshire 56% 44% Idaho 100% Montana 19% 81% Maine 100% Mississippi 100% South Dakota 100% Kentucky 100% Nebraska X X North Dakota 100% West Virginia 100% New Mexico 100% Wyoming 100% X Oklahoma 69% 31% Arkansas 100% Georgia 100% Louisiana 100% South Carolina 100% Kansas 100% Vermont 100% Missouri 100% Iowa 100% Ohio 100% Arizona 99.7% 0.3% Texas 100% Washington 100% Oregon X X X X Indiana 100% Rhode Island X 97% X Tennessee 100% Delaware X X X Florida X X X Wisconsin X X X Virginia X X X X X North Carolina X Connecticut X X X X X District of Columbia 79% 21% Michigan X X X X Minnesota X X Illinois X X Pennsylvania X X X X X Maryland 4% 29% 31% 18% 17% New Jersey 3% 23% X X Massachusetts X X X X California X X X X New York X 6% X g nid n uf ni n oilli m 001$ naht ssel hti w setatS g nid n uf ni n oilli m 001$ re v o hti w setatS for transit ($9.32 billion). This is generally because the states with higher transit funding did not supply a breakdown of their sources in the Survey. In general, states with higher overall amounts of funding relied on a larger number of sources than states with lower amounts of funding. Table 27 lists all states in order from the lowest to highest total state funding ($125,000 for Nevada to $1.81 billion for New York), and the data clearly show a pat- tern of higher numbers of funding sources for the higher funded states. Although it is a somewhat arbitrary dividing line, states with less than $100 million in funding had on aver- age 1.5 funding sources, while those with more than $100 mil- lion had an average of 3.4 sources. Only one state in the latter group, North Carolina, relied on a single source of funding. (An “X” indicates that the state reported funding from the source, but did not specify a percentage.) Table 27. Funding sources for all states with transit funding (2004).

40 The largest single source of funds, claimed by 25 states, is “other.” Given that the remaining choices cover a wide variety of funding sources, either a key source is missing from the sur- vey or states do not appropriately assign their funding between the available choices. The research team recommends contact- ing several of the states before the next survey is conducted to try to determine the issue. The survey is not particularly useful when such a high proportion of states use the “other”response. Of the 46 states, 24 relied on a single source of funds. Of those, seven relied on the general fund; two each on the gas tax and motor vehicle sales tax; one each on license fees, general sales tax, and interest income; and ten on “other” sources. 3.4 Funding Categories Most states have a fair amount of funding flexibility, but some states restrict their funds to either capital or operating. Figure 40 shows the distribution of categories of funding expenditures. “Either/both” means that funds are flexible, while funds designated “capital” or “operating” can be used only for those expenses.“Other” funds are often des- ignated for planning studies or administration. Figure 40 shows that 12 states allocated all of their funding to one category, while the others allocate it among two, three, or four categories. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SM DN KO TV XT NI DI YK VN EM OM DS AC DM AL AI LF AW HO MN RO KA ZA YW CN JN YN CS IM TM NT AP IW AV EN NM AG LI HN VW SK AM ED CD TC IR Either/Both Capital Operating Other Figure 40. Distribution of state transit spending (data from Table 3.2 of the Survey).

Next: Section 4 - Additional Information for the Survey »
Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 569: Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs examines the levels and types of state funding provided for public transportation. The report provides supplemental analyses of information collected in the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics' annual survey of state public transportation funding and explores a framework for conducting peer analyses and offers ideas on how the annual survey of state public transportation funding might be enhanced so that states could conduct additional analyses.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!