Click for next page ( 11


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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 10
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