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 10
possible with available resources and (2) ascertain the Table 3 Survey
cost of developing and maintaining these Coordina- responses by region.
tion Plans (in terms of time and money) to ensure that Northeast 4
Connecticut
resources are being used wisely and effectively, result- Delaware
ing in the better, more cost-effective and coordinated New Hampshire
programs that the plans are expected to foster. Vermont
The questions in the survey were divided into Midwest 5
Michigan
four sections: Minnesota
Ohio
1. Perceived Success of the Public Transit/ Pennsylvania
Human Services Coordination Plans South Dakota
2. Cost of Public Transit/Human Services Coor- South 5
Arkansas
dination Plan Development Kentucky
3. Awarding Section 5316 JARC and Section Missouri
5317 NF Grants South Carolina
4. Please Tell Us About Yourself Virginia
Southwest 3
Once a survey was created using SurveyMonkey. Arizona
New Mexico
com, an e-mail invitation to the survey was sent to Nevada
the American Association of State Highway and West 3
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Com- Alaska
Oregon
mittee on Public Transportation members by Shayne Washington
Gill, the AASHTO Public Transportation Program Unknown1 1
Manager. The e-mail invitation described the pur- Total Responses 21
1 One survey respondent declined provi-
pose of the study and the Internet survey, and pro- ding any information about the state in
vided a web link to the survey. The web link could be order to remain anonymous.
forwarded to others within the agency for assistance
with the survey; however, the link created a new sur-
vey response for each person. variety of responses from states throughout the coun-
This chapter summarizes the findings of the try provided a good pulse on the major issues encoun-
"Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant tered with the human services transportation plans
Programs" Internet survey. The results and responses and grant programs. The results of the survey pro-
for each section of the survey are summarized in the vided a solid starting point for the more detailed tele-
following section, "Summary of Survey Responses." phone interviews conducted during late 2009 and
The final section in this chapter, titled "Conclusions," early 2010.
highlights the coordination planning successes and The responses for each of the three remaining
challenges reported by survey respondents and iden- sections of the Internet survey are summarized as
tifies respondent suggestions that might alleviate or follows: (1) Perceived Success of the Public Trans-
reduce these challenges. The blank survey form is portation/Human Services Coordination Plans, (2)
contained in Appendix A, which is available online at Cost of Public Transit/Human Services Coordina-
http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165471.aspx. tion Plan Development, and (3) Awarding Section
5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF Grants.
Summary of Survey Responses
Perceived Success of the Public Transportation/
Please Tell Us About Yourself Human Services Coordination Plans
Of the agencies contacted, 21 state DOTs com- The first section of the Internet survey focused
pleted the survey, for a response rate of 42 percent. on the perceived success of the Coordination Plans,
Responses represented a valuable mix of regions specifically in meeting FTA goals, as well as state
throughout the country. Table 3 summarizes the re- and/or local goals. The survey attempted to identify
sponses received by region. lead participants in the Coordination Plans, the level
While the sample size of the survey was slightly of success achieved, and whether this level of suc-
smaller than the desired 50 percent response rate, the cess could have been achieved without the plans. All
10
OCR for page 11
Have the Coordination Plans been successful in
enhancing transportation access to target populations?
Significant Success
Moderate Success
Average Success
Little Success
No Success
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of Respondents
Figure 2 Perceived enhancement of transportation access for target
populations.
21 survey respondents completed this section of the State or Local Goals. In determining whether addi-
survey. A few questions were skipped, but there were tional state or local goals were met as a result of the
no fewer than 19 responses to any question in this federally required Coordination Plans, the survey
section of the survey. first explored whether states had any local and/or
FTA Goals. In general, the majority of survey re- state planning requirements already in place that
spondents (62 percent) felt that the Coordination Plans were used to satisfy the federal requirement. Over
were achieving average to moderate success in meet- one-half of the respondents (57 percent) already had
ing FTA's goal of enhancing transportation access for some local and/or state planning requirements, indi-
the target populations (the collective group of persons cating that the federal requirement did not represent
with disabilities, older adults, and individuals with a completely new process for all states. Figure 5
lower incomes) in their state. However, respondents summarizes the type of state and/or local planning
indicated that the plans have achieved average to little requirements already in place for some of the re-
success in meeting FTA's goals of minimizing the sponding states. It should be noted that not all states
duplication of transportation services (81 percent) provided an explanation or description of their state
and facilitating the most cost-effective transportation and/or local planning requirements.
possible with available resources (76 percent). Figures Even with more than one-half of respondents in-
2, 3, and 4 highlight the respondents' opinions on how dicating that they had similar state or local planning re-
well the Coordination Plans have met FTA goals. quirements already in place, 52 percent of respondents
Have Coordination Plans been successful in minimizing
duplication of transportation services for target
populations?
Significant Success
Moderate Success
Average Success
Little Success
No Success
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of Respondents
Figure 3 Assessment of duplication of transportation services for
target populations.
11
OCR for page 12
Have Coordination Plans been successful in facilitating
the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation
possible?
Significant Success
Moderate Success
Average Success
Little Success
No Success
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of Respondents
Figure 4 Perceived facilitation of most appropriate and
cost-effective transportation possible.
indicated that additional state or local goals had been While additional state and local goals have been
met by the federal Coordination Plan requirement. For met by the federal Coordination Plan requirement,
some states the federal requirement tied their local Co- only 26 percent of respondents indicated that the plans
ordination Plans to funding or brought the coordina- have led to additional state funds being allocated to
tion effort up to the state level. These varied additional public transit. Of the five respondents who stated that
goals included the following (one response each): additional funds were allocated, two indicated that the
· State coordination, rather than local additional funding was an indirect result of having the
· Tied coordination plans to funding right people involved in the planning process, which
· Mobility Management projects in areas with- fostered the identification of other sources of match-
ing funds. Additionally, two respondents stated that
out transit
the plans made better use of JARC/NF funding, and
· Developed regional coordination councils
one did not provide an explanation.
· Interagency Committee on Special Transporta-
tion goals Participation in Coordination Plans. In general, a
· Governor created transportation committee wide variety of agencies and groups were involved
· Did not have state/local specific goals in the coordination planning process. The most com-
· Demand response state-funded program monly listed lead participants in the process were
· 5317 provides alternative to paratransit the state DOT (33 percent), MPOs (25 percent), and
Local Planning
MPO Planning
State Fund Planning
Multimodal Planning
Job Access Plan
Coordination for Appropriations
Medicaid Planning
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of Respondents
Figure 5 State and/or local planning requirements used to satisfy
federal Coordination Plan requirement.
12
OCR for page 13
Which state and local agencies are taking the lead on
the Coordination Plans?
State transit office
MPOs
Transit agencies
Other
Interest/community groups
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Respondents
Figure 6 Lead agencies for the Coordination Plans.
transit agencies (21 percent). Figure 6 highlights the respondents used the opportunity to describe the situ-
lead participants in the planning process for the re- ation in their states. The two most common explana-
sponding states. tions (with two responses) were that the state paid
The agencies identified by the respondents as for and supported the planning, resulting in higher
"other" included regional planning agencies (three levels of commitment and participation, and that it
respondents) and 5310 recipients, counties, Native was impossible to include all participants in the
American tribal governments, private sector, public process, particularly in terms of attracting new agen-
transit provider, state planning bureau, and transit cies to the process. Respondents felt the funding
districts (each mentioned by one respondent). level and restrictive federal requirements for the
The survey respondents acknowledged that the JARC and NF grant programs often make it difficult
level of commitment/participation in the develop- to attract participants to the process. To increase par-
ment of the Coordination Plans has been relatively ticipation of Section 5310 participants, one state of-
strong at both the state and local levels. Over 70 per- fered an incentive for the participating agencies' ap-
cent of the survey respondents indicated that the level plications for vehicle grants. The explanations for
of commitment/participation at the state and local
levels of commitment and participation at the state
levels was average or better, as shown in Figure 7
and local level are summarized in Figure 9.
and Figure 8.
When asked to provide an explanation of the Perceptions of Level of Coordination Achieved. The
ratings for state and local commitment/participation, last two questions of this section asked whether the
What level of commitment/participation has been seen
in the Coordination Plans at the state level?
Full Participation
Moderate Participation
Average Participation
Little Participation
No Participation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of Respondents
Figure 7 Reported state commitment/participation in the
Coordination Plans.
13
OCR for page 14
What level of commitment/participation has been seen
in the Coordination Plans at the local level?
Full Participation
Moderate Participation
Average Participation
Little Participation
No Participation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Respondents
Figure 8 Reported local commitment/participation in the
Coordination Plans.
state achieved the same level of coordination on state requirements. Additionally, one respondent ex-
transportation for the target populations before the planation indicated that, to date, the achievement of
federal requirements were introduced and whether the plan primarily has been pointing out what ser-
the same program objectives could be achieved vices are lacking.
without the Coordination Plans. Sixty-seven percent While most of the respondents indicated that the
of the respondents believed that the level of coordi- level of coordination had improved after the federal
nation was not the same as before the federal re- requirement for Coordination Plans, 62 percent of
quirement, as shown in Figure 10. Of the 11 respon- respondents believed that the same objectives could
dents that provided an explanation for their answer, be met without the plans, as shown in Figure 11. Of
six (55 percent) indicated that the coordination is the 10 respondents that provided an explanation for
better now, two (18 percent) indicated that there is their answer, five indicated that their state already
now increased awareness and additional stakeholder had the same type of planning requirement in place,
participation, and two (18 percent) stated that the but not the funds to pay for it; two stated that the fed-
federal requirement duplicates or overlaps existing eral requirement sped up the process; two responded
State paid for and supported planning
Impossible to include all stakeholders
FTA guidelines too specific for local agencies
Non-transportation agencies informed but not involved
Not enough funding to engage locals
Some conflict of interest with local agencies and funding
State provided template
State personnel reviewed the plans for compliance
Varies by region
Consultant helped local agencies
0 1 2 3
Number of Respondents
Figure 9 Explanation of levels of commitment/participation at the state and local levels.
14
OCR for page 15
Did your state achieve the same level of coordination on
transportation for the target populations before the
requirements came into being?
No
Yes
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of Respondents
Figure 10 Reported change in level of coordination achieved.
that they did not have a similar state planning re- fewer than 19 responses to any question in this sec-
quirement; and one stated that coordination requires tion of the survey.
mandates.
Cost of the Coordination Plans. While the cost may
vary by region/locality, the questions in this portion
Cost of Public Transit/Human Services
of the survey were focused on the total cost for the
Coordination Plan Development
development of all Coordination Plans throughout
This section of the Internet survey focused on the the state. The intent of the questions was to arrive at
cost of developing the Coordination Plans, specifi- a total dollar amount (including both state and local
cally in terms of a dollar amount and/or time spent on money); however, many respondents could only re-
the initial plan development and maintaining the port how much the state spent on the plans (exclud-
plans. The survey attempted to identify where the ing local expenses) because they did not know how
money and time for the Coordination Plan develop- much the MPOs and regions spent. As a result, the
ment is coming from, whether other projects have cost of the plans of responding states was largely less
been curtailed or eliminated to fund the plans, and than $250,000 (57 percent) as shown in Figure 12.
whether any additional costs have been incurred, in- For those states spending more money on the initial
cluding hiring new employees or consultants. All 21 plan development, many indicated that the state was
survey respondents completed this section of the sur- providing a significant portion of the money for the
vey. A few questions were skipped, but there were no Coordination Plan development.
Could the same program objectives be achieved in your
state without the Coordination Plans?
No
Yes
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of Respondents
Figure 11 Estimated achievement of program objectives without
the Coordination Plans.
15
OCR for page 16
How much money is being spent for the initial public transit/human services
Coordination Plans in your state (statewide total)?
More than $1,000,000
$750,001$1,000,000
$500,001$750,000
$250,001$500,000
Less than $250,000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of Respondents
Figure 12 Cost of initial Coordination Plans (statewide total).
Similarly, Figure 13 demonstrates that most of Source of Funding for Coordination Plans. The
the projected annual state costs for maintaining the primary sources of funds for the development of
Coordination Plans are expected to be less than the Coordination Plans for the responding states
$250,000 (86 percent). As mentioned previously, were federal planning/administrative funds (48 per-
many respondents could only indicate how much the cent) and state funds (30 percent). Figure 14 sum-
state is expected to spend on the maintenance of the marizes the funding sources mentioned by survey
Coordination Plans because they were not aware of respondents.
how much the MPOs and regions expect to spend. In addition, five of seven survey respondents in-
Many respondents indicated that the Coordina- dicated that these revenue sources are not sustainable
tion Plans have a "shelf life" of 4 years for non- for Coordination Plan development. The respondents
attainment areas and 5 years for attainment areas, and concerned with sustainability of the revenue source(s)
they do not anticipate that the costs will be in excess primarily depended on state grants. Respondents in-
of $250,000 (at least for the state). Additionally, dicated that many of the state funds came from a one-
while some states paid for the cost of initial Coordi- time source (such as an Executive Order) or were
nation Plan development, no state responded that the taken from funds (both state and federal) that would
state would pay for the maintenance of the plans, have gone toward providing services. These responses
which likely contributed to the lower projected costs indicate that funding for the plans may become increas-
for plan maintenance. ingly a local responsibility.
What is the projected annual cost for maintaining the public transit/human
services Coordination Plans in your state (statewide total)?
More than $1,000,000
$750,001$1,000,000
$500,001$750,000
$250,001$500,000
Less than $250,000
0 5 10 15 20
Number of Respondents
Figure 13 Cost of maintaining Coordination Plans
(statewide total).
16
OCR for page 17
Where is the money to develop these plans coming from in your state?
Federal
State
Local
Executive Order
UWR Grant
Planning Funds
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Number of Respondents
Figure 14 Sources of funds for Coordination Plan development.
While some respondents were concerned about participation from either planning commissions or
sustainability of funding sources for the Coordina- service providers.
tion Plans, only two respondents (10 percent) indi- However, when the Internet survey probed fur-
cated that other projects had been curtailed or elim- ther into the additional implementation costs, nine
inated to fund the plans. One respondent stated that respondents (43 percent) had hired consultants or
services were cut or curtailed to fund the plans; the additional employees to help meet the Coordination
other respondent did not describe the project(s) that Plan requirements at the state level, and 53 percent
had been reduced or eliminated. had hired consultants or additional employees at the
local level. In addition, one respondent indicated
Additional Costs or Issues with Preparation of the Co- that they are not allowed to expand staff, even if the
ordination Plans. The majority of survey respondents position is 100 percent grant funded. As shown in
(68 percent) did not identify additional implementa- Figure 15, most of the additional hiring has been for
tion costs or issues with the preparation of the Coor- consultants.
dination Plans. Of the six respondents that identified In addition to hiring consultants or new employ-
additional costs or issues, four were cost related (find- ees, the responsibilities for preparing the Coordination
ing consultants, insurance, additional staff time, and Plans have fallen largely on existing staff. Eighteen
workshops for MPOs and regional planning commis- respondents (86 percent) indicated that the plans have
sions) and two were issues with receiving adequate placed an additional burden on the state transit office.
Consultants
Mobility Manager
County Association
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of Respondents
Figure 15 Additional hiring to meet requirement for Coordination
Plan.
17
OCR for page 18
Short staffed
Time consuming
Ensuring federal requirements
Monitoring plan
Travel expenses
Want a block grant approach
State record kept differently
than FTA requirements
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Respondents
Figure 16 Perceived additional administrative burdens.
The explanations for the additional administrative bur- JARC) because the need is significantly larger than
den varied, but the common responses were that the the funds. As a result, they report that the funds
agency is already short-staffed (one respondent has a frequently are used for existing/on-going services
hiring freeze and another has had reductions in staff) (preservation) rather than new projects. Several re-
and the process is time consuming. Figure 16 summa- spondents also indicated that awarding of NF grants
rizes the additional administrative burdens described has been hindered by the restrictions on eligible proj-
by the respondents. ects and lack of understanding of the beyond ADA
requirement by potential recipients. There is some
Awarding Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 hope by respondents that the recent clarification on
NF Grants NF projects will make awarding the grants easier.
This section of the Internet survey focused on the Figure 17 and Figure 18 summarize the challenges
success states have had in awarding/obligating the faced by the survey respondents in awarding JARC
Section 5316 JARC and Section 5317 NF grants. and NF grants, respectively.
The survey attempted to identify the level of success The recipients of JARC and NF grants were quite
in awarding the grants, the type of projects receiving varied for the survey respondents. The most common
JARC grant recipients were transit agencies (27 per-
the grants, how/if the Coordination Plans have im-
cent), non-profit agencies (15 percent), and rural
proved grant awards, and concerns associated with
agencies (12 percent), while NF grants were received
the grant programs. All 21 survey respondents com- primarily by transit agencies and non-profit agencies
pleted this section of the survey. A few questions (27 percent each). Figure 19 and Figure 20 sum-
were skipped, but there were no fewer than 20 re- marize the types of JARC and NF grant recipients,
sponses to any question in this section of the survey. respectively.
Successes and Challenges in Awarding JARC and Additionally, survey respondents provided a di-
NF Grants. In general, the survey respondents indi- verse list of projects that have been funded by JARC
cated that they have had success in awarding both and NF grants. JARC grants largely help pay for ex-
the JARC and NF funds. Ninety percent of all re- panded services, operating costs, work-related, and
spondents felt they had at least average success in capital purchases, while NF grants primarily funded
awarding JARC funds, while only 75 percent of re- mobility management, capital purchases, operating
spondents felt they had at least average success in costs, and ADA services. Figure 21 and Figure 22
awarding NF funds. Based on the responses, the summarize the type of projects funded by JARC and
greatest problems in awarding the grants have been NF grants, respectively.
the lack of funds available in the program and find- Obligating JARC and NF Grants. A review of the
ing a local match. Respondents indicated that there FTA data for FY 20062008 revealed that nation-
is not enough money in these programs (particularly wide, there was general difficulty in obligating all
18
OCR for page 19
Not enough funding
Not enough local match
Money is not guaranteed
RFP process should be replaced
Short staffed
Segregated urban and rural money
Few eligible projects
Difficult to prioritize
Decrease in funds with SAFETEA-LU
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Respondents
Figure 17 Reported challenges in awarding Section 5316
JARC Grants.
Beyond ADA requirements
Limiting in match and use
Lack of funding
Plans adopted before funds awarded
Obligate funds by population size
Monitoring
Funds not guaranteed
Too much work for little money
Difficult to prioritize
Diversity of projects
Slow to start
Protest from rival grant applicant
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Respondents
Figure 18 Reported challenges in awarding Section 5317 NF Grants.
What types of recipients have received Section 5316 JARC funding?
Transit Agency
Non-Profit Agency
Rural Agency
Human Services and Public Transportation Agencies
Tribes
Urban Transit Agency
Regional Transportation Partnership
Private Contractors
For Profit Agency
County Action Agencies
Cities
5311 Agencies
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of Respondents
Figure 19 JARC grant recipients.
19
OCR for page 20
What types of recipients have received Section 5317 New Freedom funding?
Transit Agency
Non-Profit Agency
Cities
Tribes
Human Services and Public Transportation Agencies
For Profit Agency
County Transportation Departments
Rural Agency
Area Agencies on Aging
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Respondents
Figure 20 NF grant recipients.
What types of projects have received Section 5316 JARC funding?
Expanded Service
Work-related
Operating Funds
Capital Purchases
Low-income
Mobility Management
Rural Connectivity
Vanpool
Purchase of Rides
Medical
Educational
Demand Response
Entertainment
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of Respondents
Figure 21 JARC projects.
What types of projects have received Section 5317 New Freedom funding?
Mobility Management
Operating Funds
Capital Purchases
ADA Service
Flex Route Bus Service
Travel Training
Expanded Service
Dial-a-Ride
Demand Response
Feeder Service
Volunteer Transportation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Respondents
Figure 22 NF projects.
20
OCR for page 21
Lack of local match
Difficulty with beyond ADA requirement
Plans must be adopted before funds awarded
Segregating Small Urban and Rural money
Selection process too long
Splitting projects by population difficult
Award biennially
Administrative burden
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Respondents
Figure 23 Reported challenges in obligating JARC and NF grants.
appropriated JARC and NF funds. Of the FY 2006 many smaller projects, which is hard for states to
appropriations, between 84 and 88 percent of the administer.
JARC and NF funds were obligated by FY 2008 (ex- While many responding states indicated that they
piration date of the funding). Similarly, for FY 2007 have had difficulty in obligating JARC and NF grants,
appropriations, between 38 and 40 percent of the only five respondents (24 percent) have actually had
funding had been obligated by FY 2008 (only 1 year JARC or NF grants expire before they could be oblig-
remaining before expiration in FY 2009); and of the ated. Some recipients provided multiple explanations
FY 2008 appropriations, only 12 to 14 percent had for the expiration, but the most common reasons for
been obligated by the end of FY 2008. The majority the lapses were limited project requests, lack of eli-
of survey respondents (71 percent) indicated that gible projects, and lack of matching funds, as shown
this delay in obligations is typical in their state. Fig- in Figure 24.
ure 23 describes some of the reasons for the diffi- Lastly, survey respondents were asked whether
culty in obligating these funds, the most common of the percentage of JARC funds obligated had improved
which are the lack of local match and difficulty with with the Coordination Plan requirement. Of the 21 re-
the beyond ADA requirement for NF projects. Due spondents, only two stated that the obligation of JARC
to these difficulties, states often end up selecting funds had improved with the federal requirement.
Lack of matching funds
Lack of eligible projects
Limited project requests
New FTA descriptions make obligated funds
unworkable
Inability to move funds from metropolitan to
rural area
Difficulty with beyond ADA requirement
Funds were not worth the work on the plan
0 1 2 3
Number of Respondents
Figure 24 Reported reasons for expiring JARC and NF grants.
21
OCR for page 22
For those respondents that did not think the obliga- cent felt that there is an understanding of the types of
tion of JARC funds had improved with the Coordi- projects eligible for JARC funding and 71 percent felt
nation Plan requirement, several felt the obligation that there is a similar understanding for NF projects.
process actually has become more difficult, while The 2009 clarification of NF projects published in the
others stated that the JARC funding was larger Federal Register (74 FR 19624, April 29, 2009) may
when the program was provided through competi- have helped to improve this response rate. Addition-
tive application designations rather than a formula. ally, only two respondents (10 percent) indicated that
Only one respondent felt that the obligations and types there have been difficulties in designating entities to
of projects had not changed, but rather the plan al- administer the grants, one of which indicated that
lowed the services to be implemented for a broader there has been a lack of participation by the MPOs be-
range of individuals. Figure 25 summarizes the re- cause not all feel that they should have to participate.
spondents' explanations for why the percentage of The survey respondents also did not indicate that
JARC funding obligated has not improved with the there is a widespread concern about the competitive
Coordination Plans. selection process requirement for the JARC and NF
Expressed Concerns/Issues with JARC and NF grant programs. Only five respondents (24 percent)
Grants. Research indicated that there are some gen- stated that the competitive selection process impacts
eral concerns with the JARC and NF grant programs their state's ability to obligate JARC and NF funds.
that are perceived to make it more difficult to oblig- The primary concerns with the competitive selection
ate these funds, including: process expressed by the respondents were that there
is a lack of eligible applicants (two respondents), it
· Lack of understating what types of projects is difficult to run an open, helpful and non-biased
are eligible for these grants program (one respondent), and that the process is
· Difficulty in designating entities to administer time consuming (one respondent).
the grants The survey respondents' greatest concern with
· Competitive selection process requirement the grant programs was the matching requirements
· Local matching requirements (20 percent for capital and 50 percent for operat-
· Limited size of the programs ing). Of those who responded, 76 percent indicated
· Reluctance to start new services with these that these matching requirements impact their proj-
funds ect selections because many projects do not have
The survey results, however, revealed that in gen- the required local match, or there is concern that
eral there is an understanding of the types of projects these matching funds may not be available after the
that are eligible for these grants and that the states first year.
have not had great difficulty in designating entities to When asked about their state's greatest concern
administer the grants. Of the 21 respondents, 86 per- with the JARC and NF matching requirements, 18
Plans were completed prior to first solicitation
Plan made it more difficult to obligate funds
Much larger funding when earmarked
Already spent more than received from FTA
Broader range of recipients
0 1 2 3
Number of Respondents
Figure 25 Perceived reasons JARC obligations have not improved
with Coordination Plans.
22
OCR for page 23
What is your state's greatest concern with the matching requirements for the
Section 5316 and 5317 grants?
Ability of the state and/or local agency to
provide matching funds
Need to reprogram matching funds from
existing uses
Potential restrictions on the use of matching
funds from other federal programs
Other
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Number of Respondents
Figure 26 Greatest concern with JARC and NF matching requirements.
of 21 respondents (86 percent) stated it was the abil- projects. Of the reasons for the impact, the most com-
ity of the state and/or local regions to provide match- mon response was that the NF funding levels are too
ing funds. One respondent selected "other," but ex- small for regional or statewide projects. Additionally
plained that the ability to find state/local matching the small size combined with the segregated funds for
funds and the need to reprogram matching funds rural and small urban areas results in smaller projects.
from existing uses were equally important. Accord- The concerns with the NF program are summarized
ing to respondents, many local agencies have run out in Figure 27.
of local funds for matching, and non-DOT agencies In addition to the limited size of the programs, the
do not always believe that their federal funds may majority of survey respondents (70 percent) stated
match the JARC and NF grants. Figure 26 depicts that there is reluctance in their states to start new ser-
the responding state agencies' greatest concern with vices with the JARC and NF funds. The primary rea-
the matching requirements for JARC and NF. son provided by the respondents (79 percent) was the
An additional concern expressed by the respon- concern that these funds are not sustainable. Agen-
dents is the limited size of the Section 5317 NF cies stated that they do not want to start new services
program. Just over one-half of the respondents with JARC or NF funds when there is no guarantee
(57 percent) indicated that the limited size of the that these projects will receive awards in future years
NF program does hinder the ability of their state (or or that any of their matching funds for the project are
the localities in their state) from undertaking large sustainable. As a result, agencies have indicated that
Funds too small for regional/statewide
projects
Not guaranteed revenue
Match requirement limits
Looking for more sustainable projects
Struggle to obligate funds before they
expire
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of Respondents
Figure 27 Additional concerns with the NF program.
23
