Click for next page ( 2


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 1
April 2011 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm Smith Research Results Digest 353 IDENTIFICATION OF LOCAL MATCHING FUND REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE-ADMINISTERED FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS This digest presents the results of NCHRP Project 20-65 (Task 23), "Identification of State and Local Matching Fund Requirements for State- Administered Federal and Non-Federal Public Transportation Programs." The project was conducted by AECOM of Arlington, VA, with Principal Investigator Ashok Sundararajan, Vi Truong, and Laura Reigel. INTRODUCTION of the structure and the characteristics of each public transportation grant program. The Federal Transit Administration The report also summarizes state-by-state (FTA) has been providing financial assis- investment in public transportation from tance to transit agencies for more than four decades through its grant programs. federal, state, and local funding sources. Most of these grant programs require that NCHRP Report 569: Comparative Review either the state or the local entity contribute and Analysis of State Transit Funding Pro- a certain percentage of funds to match the grams used this survey's data to develop a Federal grant. Traditionally, the Federal framework for conducting peer analyses and grant covers about 80 percent of the cap- comparative assessment of transit funding ital project expenses, while the remaining programs across states. TCRP Report 129: non-federal share of 20 percent is either Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms matched by the state completely or partially for Public Transportation provides a com- matched by the state and the local entities. prehensive summary of funding sources The non-federal matching requirements are available for states and local entities to different among the states and even within fund public transportation. These studies the same state depending on the grant pro- are highly useful to state Department of C O N T E N T S gram. In addition, states administer their Transportation (DOT) transit officials and Introduction, 1 own public transit grant programs with spe- administrators in assessing and reviewing Research Approach, 2 cific matching fund requirements that may the levels of state and local funding pro- Internet Research, 2 Survey of State DOTs, 2 differ between programs and type of tran- vided for public transportation. However, sit systems (urban or rural). none of the existing resources comprehen- Survey Results, 2 Many resources are available on state sively documents the policies adopted by Conclusions and Suggested Research, 3 and local funding for public transporta- the states to provide matching funds for Appendix A: Summary of tion grant programs. The most authorita- state-administered federal and non-federal Matching Requirements tive source is the Survey of State Funding public transportation grant programs. by State, 4 for Public Transportation, published by the The objective of this research was to Appendix B: Summary of Matching Requirements by American Association of State Highway and develop a set of tables with information on Federal Program, 77 Transportation Officials (AASHTO). This (1) current state and local matching fund Appendix C: Survey Form, 115 annual report provides a snapshot by state percentage requirements for each urban and