Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms for Public Transportation (2009)

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.

53 The database accompanying this report (available at http:// trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=9599) provides additional background information on the local and regional funding sources in use by the public transportation systems interviewed for this research. Below is a brief synopsis of the data elements contained in the database. A more in-depth user manual devel- oped for each user is also available on the TRB website at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=9599. For each public transportation system, information on sev- eral factors was captured in a database, including the following: • Urban or rural character of the service area or region; • Transit agency organizational structure, e.g., municipal/ county unit, regional authority, or for-profit/non-profit; • Special characteristics of the transit market, e.g., tourist des- tination, college/university community, or social service center; • 2000 urbanized/urban/rural population; • Types of transit services operated, e.g., bus, demand response, or light/heavy/commuter rail; • Peak bus fleet size; • Annual revenue vehicle miles and hours operated; • Annual ridership; • Annual operating and capital expenses; • Farebox recovery ratio; and • Recent major service improvements. For each funding source noted by a system, additional information was compiled on the following: • Type and nature of the funding source; • Number and type of jurisdictions using the funding source; • Base, rate, and annual yield of the funding source; • Extent of dedication to transit; • Use for capital investment and/or operating expenses; • Political or policy basis for the tax/fee, e.g., statutory (local and/or state) or administrative action; • Length of time the tax/fee is authorized; • Date of first enactment and latest increase/extension; • Availability of debt or bonding authority, applicable limits, and sources committed to service debt; and • Reasons for enacting the tax/fee and perceived advantages and disadvantages. 6.1 Access to the Resource Information The information contained in the database can be accessed as follows: • First, the database provides a series of standardized reports that cross tabulate information on local and regional fund- ing sources with characteristics of the individual transit agen- cies. These include reports on individual funding sources sorted by population, fleet size, organizational type, and mode as well as reports that provide an aggregated listing of systems organized by each funding source type and its related rate and yield. • Alternatively, interested users are also invited to do their own queries of the material based on their ability to work within the database system (MS Access). 6.2 Updating Local and Regional Public Transportation Funding Resource Material Local and regional transit funding initiatives are being under- taken on a continuing basis around the country. As the inter- views for this project suggest, there are sources that are widely used throughout the industry by systems of varying size, partic- ularly sales taxes and property taxes. The explanation for heavy reliance on these sources is that they are broad-based sources; they yield the largest and most predictable revenue streams; and they generally have proven to be broadly acceptable to the pub- lic and elected officials. S E C T I O N 6 . 0 Local and Regional Funding Database and Its Use

Nonetheless, a wide variety of other funding sources are being explored and enacted in an equally wide variety of contexts and circumstances. In the face of increasing inter- est in expanded transit services and the continuing rise in service costs, the search for new or enlarged funding sources will undoubtedly continue. To keep the information pre- sented here and on the accompanying database current, there are several strategies that might be employed, including the following: • Capturing information from existing reporting on new funding initiatives. With limited effort, the annual work and online reporting of CFTE on new state and local tran- sit funding initiatives and/or referenda could be tracked, and new information could be added to the current interview data. In some cases, follow-up inquiries might be necessary to establish the full range of information desired. Simply adding this information to Table 3.2 of this report, which shows the systems using specific sources in various population groups, would be a valu- able enhancement. • Regular surveying of state DOT transit managers and state transit association directors. Both of these groups of peo- ple proved invaluable to this research in identifying new or unique sources of local and regional funding around the country. These people will likely be aware of most of the future local and regional funding initiatives as well. These two groups, through AASHTO and APTA, might be polled or surveyed on a regular basis to identify new local and regional sources that are under consideration or have been enacted. At the very least, these activities could serve as a starting point for expanding current information on a reg- ular basis. • Collaboration with local public interest organizations. The transit industry’s interest in local and regional transit funding sources is shared by a number of other major national public interest organizations representing local governments and officials, including the following: – The National League of Cities (NLC), – The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), – The National Association of Counties (NACo), and – The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tions (AMPO). In addition, other national organizations are likely to have interest in this topic and/or information on funding sources, e.g., the American Public Works Association (APWA), the Municipal Finance Officers Association (MFOA), the Inter- national City/County Management Association (ICMA), as well as a host of state-based organizations. The possibility of collaboration among these groups to figure out how to share available information and the most appropriate ways to do this sharing should be explored. • Case studies through TCRP synthesis projects. Historical detail on why specific funding sources were pursued and how is quickly lost with turnover in staff as well as policy- makers. It may be important, therefore, to periodically frame inquiries into and analyses of the “whys” and “hows” of selected local and regional funding initiatives. This inquiry and analysis could be accomplished through a series of structured case studies that seek to document circumstances and processes involved in securing local and regional fund- ing in greater than usual detail. These case studies could be the subject of periodic TCRP syntheses, as is presently done in the synthesis series with a number of key topics. Now that TRB has provided the initial information through this project’s research, it is logical that responsibility for main- taining up-to-date information should fall to the transit industry. A model for this might be the procedure that evolved for assembly and updating of comprehensive information on the structure, content, and scope of state transit funding pro- grams. This procedure began with TCRP’s support of the ini- tial data development, guided jointly by APTA and AASHTO; long-term data updating and assembly has been carried out in 2-year cycles by the U.S. DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 54