Click for next page ( 27


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 26
state/local requirements were not in place, diversity have been challenging for the state given the in the amount of money spent on the initial plans, restrictive nature of the program beyond the and varying levels of success in awarding JARC and ADA requirements. NF funds. Virginia. Virginia provides the local match for Table 4 highlights the recommended states and NF program, but not JARC. As a result, the NF their general survey responses, as well as those grant program has been quite successful, while states that were considered but not selected. Please the JARC program has had more difficulty in note that only the states responding to the survey finding projects with a local match identified. were considered for additional interviews. In addition, unlike many states, Virginia has Some additional areas of interest for the selected hired a part-time person at the state level to help states are summarized as follows. with coordinated planning requirements and local areas have hired Mobility Managers. Missouri. Missouri experienced success in Washington. Washington had coordinated developing Coordination Plans, but it occurred planning requirements in place at the state level slowly. Missouri did not have any state/local before the federal requirement in SAFETEA- Coordination Plan requirements in place before LU. As a result, the state has rural or regional SAFETEA-LU; as a result, the state developed versions of MPOs in place to develop the plans. and conducted workshops to help develop the In addition, the state provides funding to each plans. In addition, the state received more dis- county (and additional funding if there is a cretionary JARC funding during TEA-21 than small urban MPO) to help with the develop- under SAFETEA-LU's formula; therefore, ment of the plans. Washington has had success there are more JARC projects than funds. Mis- with JARC funds but only moderate success souri has struggled with awarding NF funds. with NF. The state's concerns with the NF pro- Ohio. Ohio did not have any state/local Co- gram are not the planning requirements but the ordination Plan requirements in place before tight restrictions on what projects are eligible SAFETEA-LU. As part of the development of as well as dividing the funds available for small the Coordination Plans, the state provided fund- urban and rural areas. ing for local communities to begin the process, technical support, and assistance with multi- Of the states considered but not recommended, jurisdictional planning. Ohio has had aver- three of the states (Alaska, Connecticut, and Ore- age success in awarding JARC and NF funds; gon) were not selected for recommendation because matching funds is an issue. they were case studies in NCHRP Project 20-65, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania provides a match Task 14 "Current Practice and Future Guidance on for the non-federal share for large urban, small the Development of SAFETEA-LU-Required Coor- urban, and non-urban areas. The Coordination dinated Public Transit-Human Services Transporta- Plans have not been entirely successful be- tion Plans." In an attempt to obtain a broader per- cause they have focused on identifying proj- spective, the research team did not think it prudent to ects for JARC and NF rather than minimizing select states that had already been the subject of case duplication of services or most appropriate/ studies for human services transportation planning. In cost-effective services. As a result Pennsylva- addition, New Hampshire and Minnesota's concerns nia has had difficulty prioritizing local rankings were similar to other states selected and were not rec- at the state level. In addition, some FY 2007 NF ommended in order to include states that had a better funds did expire. The state is concerned about mix of urban and rural areas and/or that had spent the sustainability of JARC and NF. more money developing the Coordination Plans (two South Carolina. South Carolina indicated that states recommended also spent less than $250,000). it had a late start on the process, but the state planning efforts have been successful and par- Interview Process ticipation levels strong. However, this planning success hasn't transferred to the awarding of Each state DOT representative was contacted for JARC and NF funds. The state's biggest chal- the purpose of further discussion of their responses to lenge with JARC funds is the required 50-50 the Internet survey, clarification of their responses (if match for operations. In addition, NF funds needed), and identification of agencies and contact 26

OCR for page 26
Table 4 States considered for telephone interviews. Believe Think Believe the they Plans are same level of achieve Reluctance Mix of at least Perceive at coordination the same Amount of to start new Case study rural moderately least a achieved program money Perceive Issues in Have had service in previous and successful Already had moderate without the objectives being spent additional awarding Issues in JARC or with JARC NCHRP Willingness urban in meeting state/local level of federal without on initial administrative JARC awarding NF Funds and NF Coordinated to States areas FTA goals requirements participation requirement the plans plans burden funds NF funds Expire funds Plans Study participate Missouri Yes Yes No No No No $500,001- Yes Reduced Yes No Yes No Yes $750,000 grants with SAFETEA- LU Ohio Yes No No Yes No Yes $500,001- Yes No No No No No Yes $1,000,000 Recommended Pennsylvania Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Less than Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes $250,000 South Yes No Yes Yes No No Less than Yes Yes Yes No, but No No Yes Carolina $250,000 close Virginia Yes Yes No Yes No No $500,001- Yes Yes No No No No Yes $1,000,000 Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes $500,001- No No A few No No No Yes $750,000 Alaska More No Yes No No No $250,001- Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes rural $500,000 Connecticut Yes No No No Yes Yes Less than Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes $250,000 Others Considered New More No No Yes No Yes Less than Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Hampshire rural $250,000 Minnesota Yes No No Yes No No Less than No No No No Yes No Yes $250,000 Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes $500,001- Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes $1,000,000