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