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

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.

41 This section presents the suggestions the research team developed for enhancing future versions of the Survey. These suggestions were developed in concert with the analysis of the survey data. Many of the suggestions come from the inter- views of state DOT officials and others who are regular users of the Survey and thus keenly aware of its contents and limi- tations. Other suggestions derive from work on the Survey— when the research team occasionally came across missing or obfuscated data that could potentially be remedied through an improved survey method. The research team was careful to balance the need for new suggestions with restrictions on the number of questions that can potentially be asked, because response rates for the Survey may drop if the burden of responding is seen as too high. Therefore only the suggestions that could likely be accomplished without increasing this apparent burden are provided. The suggestions are listed below in order of perceived pri- ority and fall into five separate categories: • Consistent reporting. In the course of the interviews with state DOT personnel intimately involved with the Survey, the issue of consistent data reporting arose. Apparently some states are reporting local funding sources in the sur- vey, while others are not. For example, one state reports local assessments from regional transit authorities. These municipalities pay an annual assessment for the reimburse- ment of the net operating deficit. Other states do not report similar assessments. The survey should clearly indicate whether such funding should be reported. However, this issue goes deeper than just local funding. In general, the survey needs more detailed definitions across the board for respondents. Even a concept as sim- ple as “state funding” must be defined explicitly. Similarly, questions should distinguish between enabling legislation and actual funding—some states seem to be confusing the two when they report their data and both are useful data points. • Alternative funding. Another issue brought up by inter- viewees was the idea that states should give more infor- mation regarding how they obtained “alternative” sources of funding for public transportation. Anything that is not a sales tax or a set-aside could be considered an “alter- native”source and information about how these funds were obtained would be quite useful. For example, states that use a gas tax or registration fee could indicate the rates of these assessments and how they are collected. States could also be queried about the potential costs and benefits of different funding sources. This information could be use- ful to other states attempting to obtain new sources of funding. • Reporting of funding sources. This related issue is by far the biggest issue encountered in this analysis, namely miss- ing capital and operating data. Some states reported sources for only some of their funding, not the total amount. Other states do not report percentages for funding sources at all. Most states report a large portion of their sources as coming from the “other” category, which provides very little information about the funding source. The survey should contain a standardized system that clarifies how this portion of the survey should be completed. It should be made clear that all state funds should be accounted for, and explanations should be provided for ambiguous categories. • Transfers between transit programs. Interviewees also suggested that one additional item the survey might cover would be transfers of funding between transit programs. Transfers are not currently tracked, and this survey might be a good place to present this information. Tracking could be accomplished with a question on the survey requesting data on how much funding was transferred and between which programs. Although data on funding transfers be- S E C T I O N 4 Additional Information for the Survey

tween highways and transit via the Surface Transportation Program is already available from FTA, they could also be included in the survey. • Breakdown by location. One interviewee suggested that states could break down where they are spending their funds geographically. This type of breakdown could probably be accomplished simply by asking states how much funding they spend in rural, compared to urban, areas, perhaps with a separate category for the larger urban areas. 42