Click for next page ( 26

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 25
What suggestions do you have to improve the use and management of the Section 5316 and 5317 grant programs that could be considered as part of Reauthorization? Consolidate with 5310 Increase funds Combine 5316 and 5317 Consolidate with 5310 and 5311 Consolidate with 5311 Lower the operating match Lessen restrictions Eliminate obligation by population size End the local coordinated plan Consolidate with 5307, 5311 Consolidate with 5307, 5310, 5311 Combine 5317 and 5310 Consolidate with 5309, 5310, 5311 Better coordination between 5316 and 5317 Allow moving funds from area to area 0 1 2 3 4 Number of Respondents Figure 28 Responses on improving the use and management of JARC and NF grant programs. consolidated grant program. The survey respondents October 2009 resulted in the completion of 21 sur- indicated that combining the JARC and NF grant veys. After a review of the 21 survey responses, a programs would allow greater flexibility in awarding draft list of six states to contact for further interviews projects and moving funds from one area to another, was developed for the panel's review based on the and would be more efficient for states to manage. following: Willingness to participate CHAPTER 3 TELEPHONE SURVEY OF STATE Mix of rural and urban areas DOTs AND REPRESENTATIVE AGENCIES Level of success of Coordination Plans Whether the state already had state/local re- Based on the results of the Internet survey con- quirements for Coordination Plans ducted in late 2009, six states were selected to par- Level of participation in the planning process ticipate in follow-up discussions via telephone Ability to achieve the same level of coordina- interviews. Only state DOT representatives who in- tion without the federal requirement dicated a willingness to discuss their responses fur- Ability to achieve the same program objec- ther were contacted, and the six states were selected tives without the requirement with the goal of having a mix of geographic loca- Amount of money being spent on the plans tions, urbanized versus rural states, and states indi- Issues in awarding JARC funds cating varying levels of satisfaction with the Human Issues in awarding NF funds Services Coordination Plan process and results. The Expiration of any JARC or NF funds states selected for further discussion were: Missouri, Reluctance to start new services with JARC Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and and NF funds Washington. Every attempt was made to include a mix of states that represented a diversity of geographic locations, Selection of States urban and rural areas, varying levels of success in de- The Internet survey sent to AASHTO Standing veloping Coordination Plans, states where state/local Committee on Public Transportation Members in requirements were already in place, states where 25