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 28
strategies addressing intercity bus services in rural FTA Program Funding Information
areas. The key points regarding the current status of
intercity bus service include: In November 2009, FTA's Office of Program
Management provided the research team with FY
· There is still a large national network of inter- 2007 and FY 2008 Section 5311(f) funding infor-
city services, despite publicity about service mation for all 50 states. Based on the FTA informa-
reductions. tion, Section 5311(f) program funds were obligated
· The growth of "curbside" services demon- by 40 states in FY 2007 and/or 2008. Nine states did
strates that non-traditional intercity bus riders not utilize Section 5311(f) during either of these years.
can be attracted to use such services. The Section 5311(f) implementation of one state
· The growth of the "airport" providers demon- (Hawaii) could not be determined based on the above
strates that non-traditional riders in rural areas information, but later information confirmed that
and small urban areas can be attracted and the state does not participate in the program.
served by non-traditional service models.
· The use of Section 5311(f) funding directed at Reconciling the Information
specific needs corridors has allowed rural and
Discrepancies were identified between state re-
small urban connections to be retained and in- sponses regarding program implementation and FTA
cluded in the network, filling gaps and feeding funding data. These include:
the national intercity bus network.
· There are private firms as well as non-profits · Delaware, New Hampshire, and New Jersey
and public agencies that are interested in work- each indicated having a Section 5311(f) pro-
ing with states and other partners to address gram; FTA data did not indicate Section 5311(f)
service needs. funding for these states in 2007 or 2008.
· Massachusetts indicated that it does not have
a Section 5311(f) program; FTA data indi-
CHAPTER 6 STATE PROGRAM cated Section 5311(f) funding for this state in
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS 2007 and 2008.
This chapter discusses states that have imple-
mented Section 5311(f) programs, as well as the cer- It is possible that some or all these discrepancies
tification that states execute, partial or complete, to could be attributable to the timing of funding cycles
determine the level of support for the Section 5311(f) combined with a state's change in program status (e.g.,
program. the state started or discontinued its Section 5311[f] in
2009). Also, program funds apportioned for a fiscal
year must be obligated for intercity bus transportation
STATES THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED within the period of availability (3 years), as men-
SECTION 5311(F) PROGRAMS tioned in C 9040.1F. In this respect, implementation
Table 6-1 presents the Section 5311(f) program of services/projects to address identified needs may
implementation status for each state based on the not necessarily occur when funds are apportioned.
survey responses and FTA FY 2007 and FY 2008 Also, as noted earlier, Utah and Wisconsin both
program funding information. started new Section 5311(f) programs in 2009.
To the best of the research team's knowledge
based on information available as of December 2009,
Survey Responses the following states currently have Section 5311(f)
A total of 32 states responded positively to the sur- programs:
vey question "Do you have a Section 5311(f) rural in-
tercity bus program?" Six replied negatively, although · AK · DE
the research team learned through further investiga- · AL · FL
tion in December 2009 that two of these states (Utah · AR · GA
and Wisconsin) added Section 5311(f) services to · AZ · IA
their funding programs. Twelve states did not respond · CA · ID
to either the survey or this particular question. · CO · IL
28
OCR for page 29
Table 6-1 Section 5311(f) program implementation by state.*
Do you have a S.5311(f) rural intercity bus program? Per FTA-Indicated FY 2007
State Yes No No Response and/or 2008 Funding
AK (1) Yes
AL Yes Yes
AR Yes Yes
AZ (2) Yes
CA Yes Yes
CO Yes Yes
CT No No
DE Yes No
FL (1) Yes
GA Yes Yes
HI (1) (3)
IA Yes Yes
ID Yes Yes
IL Yes Yes
IN Yes Yes
KS Yes Yes
KY (1) Yes
LA (1) Yes
MA No Yes
MD (1) Yes
ME (1) Yes
MI Yes Yes
MN Yes Yes
MO Yes Yes
MS Yes Yes
MT Yes Yes
NC (1) Yes
ND Yes Yes
NE Yes Yes
NH Yes No
NJ Yes No
NM Yes Yes
NV Yes (3)
NY Yes Yes
OH Yes Yes
OK (1) Yes
OR Yes Yes
PA Yes Yes
RI No No
SC No No
SD (1) Yes
TN Yes Yes
TX Yes Yes
UT (4) No (4) No
VA Yes Yes
VT (1) Yes
WA Yes Yes
WI (4) No (4) Yes
WV Yes Yes
WY Yes Yes
*Based on the information available as of November 2009.
(1) Did not complete the survey
(2) Did not respond to the question
(3) FTA-provided data was inconclusive
(4) Utah and Wisconsin implemented Section 5311(f) programs after the survey was conducted.
29
OCR for page 30
· IN · NM The following states do not currently have Sec-
· KS · NV tion 5311(f) programs:
· KY · NY
· LA · OH · CT
· MD · OK · HI
· ME · OR · RI
· MI · PA · SC
· MN · SD · VA
· MO · TN
· MS · TX The implementation status of the following states
· MT · UT is unknown based on the available data:
· NC · VT · MA
· ND · WA
· NE · WI Figure 6-1 illustrates which states are known to
· NH · WV have implemented Section 5311(f) programs as of
· NJ · WY December 2009.
AK Legend
States with S.5311(f) Operating Programs
AK
Anchorage
C A N A D A
Seattle
WA
Portland ME
MT ND
OR MN VT NH
ID
NY MA Boston
SD WI
MI
CT RI
WY
Milwaukee
Detroit New York
IA Chicago PA NJ
NE Philadelphia
San Francisco NV OH
DE
San Jose UT IN Columbus DC MD
Denver IL A t l a n t i c
CA WV
CO O c e a n
VA
KS MO
KY
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
NC
Los Angeles TN Charlotte
AZ OK Oklahoma City
Memphis
San Diego NM AR SC
Phoenix
MS AL GA
Fort Worth Dallas
0 100 200 400 El Paso
TX Jacksonville
Miles LA
Austin
Houston
San Antonio FL
G u l f o f
Honolulu
M e x i c o
M E X I C O
HI
Figure 6-1 States with S.5311(f) operating programs.
30
OCR for page 31
State programs include various combinations Discrepancies in Certification Information
of operating assistance, capital, and planning, which
will be described in the next chapter. A number of discrepancies were identified be-
tween state responses and FTA certification data
as of November 2009, as shown in Table 6-4.
STATES THAT CERTIFY The study team could not reconcile the differ-
ences between the survey responses and the data pro-
As described earlier in this digest, states that are
vided by FTA regarding certification status. There
not setting aside 15% of their annual Section 5311
are several possible explanations:
apportionment to support intercity bus service are
required to certify that all rural intercity bus needs · The states were replying regarding current
are met. A partial certification is also possible, if the fiscal year certification status, either submitted
needs utilize less than the full 15%. If the Governor or anticipated, while the FTA data reflected
certifies that intercity needs are met, the funding only FY 2007 or 2008 status; or
reverts to the overall Section 5311 program for use · State certification letters had been submitted
on other rural transit projects. by the states to the FTA regional offices, but
they were not yet reflected in the status report
Survey Responses provided by headquarters.
The survey asked states whether or not they had The latter explanation is most likely, as most of
certified in the past 3 years, and if so, whether it was the discrepancies consisted of a situation in which
a partial or complete certification and for which the state thought they had certified no unmet need,
years. State responses are presented in Table 6-2. and FTA was expecting such a certification letter but
As shown above, 19 states responded that they had not yet received it. Because the states have three
have certified in the last 3 years, and 20 states re- fiscal years to obligate funding, they may have waited
sponded that they have not certified in the last 3 years. some time before submitting a certification or partial
One of the states which has been certified (Iowa) certification if they have been undertaking the con-
indicated that they did so only for ARRA funding; sultation process to determine unmet needs (or the
the 15% of Section 5311 funding was not reallocated. lack of them).
Eight states indicated that they submitted partial cer-
tifications at least once in the past 3 years.
It should be noted that six states indicated in GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
their survey responses that they do not support a The following observations and conclusions were
Section 5311(f) program, yet of those, only four (RI, derived from the research findings regarding state
SC, UT, WI) stated that they filed for the complete Section 5311(f) program implementation and certi-
certification requirement and indicated that there fication status.
is "no unmet need," and one (CT) stated that they
filed for partial certification. One state indicated · The certification year and program funding
that they neither support a Section 5311f program cycle for which certification applies are not
nor certify; however, FTA funding data indicate necessarily the same.
that this state meets the 15% set-aside requirement · Certification may be partial if the need identi-
(i.e., has a Section 5311[f] program). fied requires less than the 15% set-aside.
· The consultation process, needs assessment,
and additional Section 5311 program funding
FTA Certification Information
are leading more states to initiate intercity bus
In addition to funding levels, FTA provided programs.
certification status for all 50 states for FY 2007 · Some states have not obligated or certified.
and FY 2008. Table 6-3 presents the Section 5311(f) These states could be considering needs assess-
funding percentage and resulting requirement for ment, consultation process, and application
certification according to FTA. process results.
31
OCR for page 32
Table 6-2 State certification status.
In the past three years has your state certified that there are no unmet rural intercity bus needs?
State Yes No If "Yes," was it a partial or complete certification? For which years?
AL Yes Every year since program inception until Fiscal Year 2008
AR Yes Partial, all 3 years
AZ No
The State of California has never certified that there are no unmet rural
CA No
intercity bus needs
CDOT has done a partial certification in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. We expect
CO Yes
to certify for 2009 as well.
CT Yes Complete, FFY 20042006
DE No
GA No
Only for ARRA. The 15% of annual 5311 apportionments has been used for
IA Yes
intercity bus.
ID No
IL No
IN Yes Complete certification for 2009, 2008, and 2007
KS Yes Complete certification 2006
MA No
MI No
MN No
MO Yes Partial, for every year
MS No
MT No
ND No
NE Yes Partial - each year
NH Yes Complete for past 3 years
NJ Yes Complete for FY 2006
NM No
NV No
NY No
Since the beginning of the Section 5311(f) program Ohio has requested partial
certifications every year except for the past two years FFY's 2007 and 2008.
Since Ohio's constitution does not allow our state to directly contract with
private intercity operators, in the past we have concentrated on planning
OH Yes
studies, construction/purchase of intermodal facilities, signage and marketing.
Ohio has funded one intercity route for the past 8 years in southeastern Ohio
through a Section 5311 rural grantee as the administrator. Ohio is in the
process of developing a new program.
OR No
PA No
RI Yes The certifications covered all nonurban areas in the state
SC Yes Complete certification
TN No
TX Yes Yes, 2008
UT Yes Complete. Contact us directly for the years.
VA Yes Complete
WA No
WI Yes Complete for 2006, 2007, 2008
WV Yes Partial for all 3 years
WY No
32
OCR for page 33
Table 6-3 Certification status by state, as indicated by FTA in November 2009.
FY 2007 FY 2008
Letter of Letter of
Certification Certification
State Received Intercity Bus Percentage Required Intercity Bus Percentage
AK $ 1,155,598 22% No $ 1,516,376 26%
AL $ 2,000,000 17% Yes $ - 0%
AR 10/15/2007 $ 75,950 1% 5/4/2008 $ 734,066 8%
AZ $ 1,225,011 15% No $ 1,472,904 16%
CA $ 2,999,801 15% Yes $ - 0%
CO $ 113,906 2% 8/14/2008 $ - 0%
CT * $ - 0% Yes $ - 0%
DE No $ - 0% Yes $ - 0%
FL $ 1,802,662 15% No $ 1,939,252 15%
GA $ 4,218,693 17% No $ 2,441,514 14%
HI * * * 3/1/2008 $ - 0%
IA * * * No $ 4,034,414 15%
ID $ 769,017 15% No $ 4,034,414 15%
IL $ 1,866,807 15% No $ 2,012,064 15%
IN 11/21/2007 $ 230,200 2% 11/18/2008 $ 230,200 2%
KS $ 1,171,314 15% Yes $ - 0%
KY $ 1,689,005 15% No $ 1,823,653 15%
LA $ 1,330,028 15% No $ 1,438,090 15%
MA $ 458,747 15% No $ 494,974 15%
MD $ 590,848 14% No $ 706,450 15%
ME $ 716,256 13% No $ 770,793 15%
MI $ 2,277,715 15% Yes $ - 0%
MN $ 1,676,796 15% No $ 1,808,078 15%
MO 7/2/2007 $ 265,000 2% Yes $ - 0%
MS $ 1,442,895 12% No $ 1,636,764 15%
MT $ 990,460 15% No $ 1,068,791 15%
NC $ 3,139,603 13% No $ 3,139,603 13%
ND No $ - 0% No $ 707,973 19%
NE $ 248,813 4% Yes $ 226,344 4%
NH No $ - 0% Yes $ - 0%
NJ No $ - 0% Yes $ - 0%
NM $ 1,114,479 15% No $ 1,397,725 18%
NV * * Yes $ - 0%
NY $ 2,307,821 15% Yes 0%
OH $ 2,627,939 15% 4/30/2008 $ 2,608,210 14%
OK No $ - 0% No $ 2,107,768 20%
OR $ 1,287,170 15% No $ 1,388,590 15%
PA $ 2,661,200 15% No $ 2,869,085 15%
RI No $ - 0% Yes $ - 0%
SC No $ - 0% Yes $ - 0%
SD No $ - 0% Yes $ 370,036 8%
TN $ 1,858,350 15% Yes $ - 0%
TX $ 2,223,915 7% No $ 4,490,972 14%
UT $ 5,000 0% Yes $ - 0%
VA No $ - 0% Yes $ - 0%
VT No $ - 0% 9/5/2008 $ - 0%
WA 8/29/2007 $ 1,258,831 15% Yes $ - 0%
WI 5/7/2007 $ - 0% Yes $ 75,723 1%
WV 2/22/2007 $ 140,000 2% 6/3/2008 $ 177,963 3%
WY $ 316,947 8% No $ 660,548 15%
*Information incomplete at this time.
Source: Section 5311(f) Program Summary, FTA Office of Program Management.
33
