Questions? Call 800-624-6242
|
|
|
|
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 2
rural federal program and (2) the local matching fund sit department of the state DOT in order to collect
requirements for each non-federal public transporta- missing data and verify the accuracy of the assem-
tion program administered by each state. bled data.
The research team used the contact list provided
in the Survey of State Funding for Public Transporta-
RESEARCH APPROACH
tion report. State public transit department websites
The data collection for this survey was accom- were also a source for the contact list.
plished in two steps. First, data from publicly avail- Once a key contact was identified, the table con-
able sources over the internet was assembled. Second, taining the data assembled for that state from the inter-
a survey of the 50 state DOTs and the District of net research was delivered electronically. A request
Columbia DOT was conducted to validate the infor- was made to arrange for a telephone interview upon
mation collected from the internet research and to receipt of survey results from most states. In the tele-
collect missing information. Forty-five states and the phone interview, the researchers
District of Columbia responded to the survey. Phone
interviews were conducted to confirm every survey · Verified that all federal grant programs admin-
response. istered by the state and the non-federal grant
programs were included
· Developed an understanding of the state's poli-
Internet Research cies on administering the federal and non-
This step involved assembling useful data from federal transit grants
existing data sources. The research team reviewed · Verified that the federal, state and/or local
current publications, including the latest final report matching requirements for each grant program
on Survey of State Funding for Public Transporta- were reported correctly
tion, state DOT's public transportation department
websites, and the FTA website. Depending on the SURVEY RESULTS
availability of data, the following information was
assembled for each state: The data collected from the states are presented
in two formats, provided as Appendixes A and B.
· Federal grants administered by the states and In Appendix A, the results are summarized by
federal/non-federal share requirements by eligi- state by grant program and by eligible expense type.
ble project expense type There is one exhibit for each state that responded and,
· State and local share of non-federal portion for within each state, the results are organized by state-
state-administered federal grants administered federal transit grant program and then
· State and local share for the state public trans- by state-administered non-federal grant programs.
portation grant programs In Appendix B, the results of state-administered
For each state, a separate table was prepared sum- federal transit grant programs are summarized
marizing the research team's findings on the match- by grant program. Within each grant program, the
ing requirements. Assembling data prior to survey results are documented by eligible expense type and
administration helped to solicit targeted information by state. Appendix B allows for easy comparison of
from the survey respondents so as to reduce the time the matching requirements across the states.
required by the survey respondents to provide input. During the survey, the researchers observed
Also, assembling the data prior to the survey ensured that some states distribute funds from the state-
that the researchers collected information consistently administered non-federal grant programs to the local
from all states. Appendix C provides the template entities, providing the local entities with the discre-
used to assemble data from the internet research. tion to either use these funds as 100 percent state
money (without requiring matching local funds) or
use these funds to match federal transit grant pro-
Survey of State DOTs
grams. In such instances, the researchers assumed
The data assembled from the internet research that the entire non-federal match was provided by the
was not complete for many states. In this step, the locals. Also, the state-administered non-federal tran-
research team contacted officials at the public tran- sit grant programs that only provide matching funds
2
