Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
5
S.6 Criteria in Selecting and Evaluating Funding Sources
Each of the sources mentioned and described in this report has potential applicability in a
variety of settings. Whether a particular source is of potential use in a particular locale depends
on a variety of factors, many of which are contextual and unique to individual locales.
Contextual factors requiring review in the search for new funding sources are discussed more
thoroughly in Section 4.0. These factors include the following:
· Local and state governance traditions and philosophies of taxation and spending,
· The types of transit agencies and services to be funded,
· The elements for which funding is being sought (e.g., ongoing agency programs or individual
projects),
· The type of source that is desired and that is appropriate (e.g., pay-as-you-go funding or debt
financing [bonding]), and
· Local and regional perspectives on the role of public transportation in the community now
and in the future.
A good understanding of these contextual factors is an important prerequisite in the
search for enhanced transit funding. Once contextual factors are understood, all stake-
holders must come to a similar understanding of the general advantages and disadvantages
of alternative funding sources as well as an understanding of how the alternatives satisfy a
set of widely used criteria. Among the most important of these criteria are the following:
· Revenue yield adequacy and stability,
· Cost efficiency in the application of sources,
· Equity in the application of the alternatives across demographic and income groups as well as
regional jurisdictions,
· Economic efficiency in balancing who pays with who benefits from investments,
· Political and popular acceptability, and
· Technical feasibility.
Among these criteria, revenue yield is a principal consideration. An enormous amount of
effort is required to enact and sustain funding for any public service. When these efforts are
undertaken, sponsors should be certain that the resulting flow of funds will be adequate to
meet funding requirements, be reliable, and be predictable. Section 4.0 of this report also
addresses the advantages, disadvantages, and performance of various funding sources against
these criteria.
S.7 Steps in Enacting New Funding Sources
for Public Transportation
There have been wide-ranging, successful efforts in recent years to raise funding for public
transportation at the local and regional levels as the current and future importance of public
transportation options have become more widely recognized. From these experiences, some
of which are highlighted in Section 3.0, it is clear that raising funding for public transportation
must be viewed as a "campaign" in all senses of the word. Virtually all of the successful public
transportation funding campaigns have used the series of steps listed below:
1. Developing a consensus on the scope of current and future transportation and transit
needs and on the importance of actions to address them;
OCR for page 6
6
2. Developing a specific program of investments for which additional funding is needed, pro-
viding a clear and credible demonstration of the benefits expected, and detailing a campaign
plan for pursuing enactment of new funding sources;
3. Identifying the roles, responsibilities, and procedures for carrying out the campaign plan
and implementing the proposed improvements;
4. Describing in detail the proposed revenue sources to be enacted and the rationales for selec-
tion and use;
5. Determining who must act officially and unofficially at the state, regional, and local level,
through what processes, and on what timetables and further determine what their particular
familiarity and interest is in advancing (or denying) a transit funding campaign;
6. Designing, raising resources for, and carrying out a comprehensive public education and
advocacy campaign through multiple media, communications, and involvement strategies;
7. Developing broad-based community leadership and demonstrable sustained support for the
initiative; and
8. Laying out a reasonable timetable, work program, and management scheme for action.
To undertake these steps, particularly in pursuit of large, longer-term funding commit-
ments, it has proven to be necessary to consult with, if not engage formally, an individual or
firm experienced in directing public advocacy campaigns. Such expertise can be essential in
framing stakeholder interests through polling and other public opinion processes, exploring
varied political perspectives, understanding the precise and often arcane procedures for estab-
lishing the legal authority to raise and invest public funds, and in shaping and delivering mes-
sages that will both resonate with essential constituencies and counteract contrary opinions
where necessary.
