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 34
Table 6-4 Discrepancies in state-reported certification status compared to FTA
FY 2007 and FY 2008 data (as of November 2009).
Certification Status per Survey
State Response Certification Status per FTA Data
Has certified every year since FY 2007: Certification not required/not received
AL
program inception until FY 2008 FY 2008: Certification required/not received
FY 2007: Partial certification required/not received
NE Partial certification each year
FY 2008: Partial certification required/not received
Complete certification for past three FY 2007: Certification required/not received
NH
years FY 2008: Certification required/not received
FY 2007: Certification required/not received
NJ Complete certification for FY 2006
FY 2008: Certification required/not received
Yes, the certifications covered all FY 2007: Certification required/not received
RI
nonurban areas in the state FY 2008: Certification required/not received
FY 2007: Certification required/not received
SC Complete certification
FY 2008: Certification required/not received
FY 2007: Partial certification required/not received
TX Yes, 2008
FY 2008: Certification not required/not received
Complete. Contact us directly for the FY 2007: Certification required/not received
UT
years. FY 2008: Certification required/not received
FY 2007: Certification required/not received
VA Complete
FY 2008: Certification required/not received
FY 2007: Certification received (although the state
WA No certification submitted met the 15% requirement)
FY 2008: Certification required/not received
Source: Section 5311(f) Program Summary, FTA Office of Program Management.
CHAPTER 7 STATE PROGRAM APPROACHES states do not have assigned or dedicated staff for the
intercity bus program; S.5311(f) program manage-
The second area of the study involved questions ment is assigned as a component of the duties of other
about the state intercity bus programs utilizing existing staff. Activities of staff include program man-
S.5311(f) funding. This part of the survey was di- agement, application process, consultation process,
rected at understanding the staffing levels, program grants management, and capital project oversight.
goals/policies, evaluation and selection of projects,
types of projects supported, and federal requirements
passed onto recipients of program funds. As noted STATE PROGRAM GOALS
earlier in this digest, although states are required to States were asked if they have any statement, for-
satisfy certain federal requirements, they do have a mal or informal, regarding state goals for their rural
great deal of flexibility in how they administer their intercity programs or for justifying rural intercity
Section 5311(f) programs. The survey responses projects. The responses are provided in Table 7-2.
related to how each state's program is implemented A total of 34 states responded to this question. A
represent a variety of implementation approaches total of 27 states identified using at least two criteria
used by the states. derived from the federal program goals as state pro-
gram goals. One of the National Objectives is "to sup-
STAFFING FOR SECTION 5311(F) port the connection between non-urbanized areas and
the larger regional or national system of intercity bus
In order to get an understanding of the personnel service." Typically, projects achieving this objective
used by state programs, a set of questions about staff are realized as operations that fill a gap in the network
levels and associated duties were posed. Table 7-1 of intercity bus services as identified by the state, the
presents the responses to questions regarding staffing network likely achieved through a statewide needs
for each state's intercity bus program. assessment. Another National Objective is "to support
Of the 30 states that answered this question, 16 services to meet the intercity travel needs of residents
have assigned or dedicated staff for intercity bus. Full- in non-urbanized areas." In this regard, services pro-
time equivalency for program staff ranged from 0.2 to vide linkages between rural and urban areas, and/or
2.5 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE). Fourteen responsive respond to regional or local transit needs.
34
OCR for page 35
Table 7-1 State S.5311(f) program staff.
Do you have staff
that are assigned or
dedicated to the
state's intercity bus How many staff
program? (FTE)? (Open- What are the duties of each person with respect to the
State Yes No Ended Response) intercity program? (Open-Ended Response)
AL No
AR No
Review on annual basis program guidelines, application
forms, application process, scoring/evaluation process.
CA Yes 2 Review and evaluate submitted applications.
CDOT has an Intercity Bus planner (me) and a 5311 Grant
Coordinator that handles intercity bus
CO Yes Roughly 0.5 FTE billing/reimbursements.
DE No
Updating the Section 5311(f) Administrative Guide,
reviewing applications, preparing specifications for the
intercity bus coach, preparing POs for purchase of buses,
inspecting MCI buses upon arrival, maintaining inventory of
all 5311(f) MCI buses, reviewing quarterly reports for
maintenance and mileage information, overseeing Lease
Agreements with the intercity bus providers and overseeing
GA Yes 1/2 FTE the disposition of aged MCI buses
IA Yes .2 FTE Application process, contracts, making payments
ID No
Administer the program along with regular 5311
IL Yes 2.5 transportation
IN No
KS No
1.5 - 1 FTE - and a
percentage of the
Bureau of Passenger
Transportations
Supervisor,
Manager,
Administrator, and Analyze and oversee intercity bus operations and marketing
Admin Support services related to state-assisted bus routes. Provide
totaling 1/2 of an technical support to carriers. Process payments for capital
MI Yes FTE and operational programs.
2 are working on the Planning, conduct study, meet with consultants, ensure
study update, 1 report is consistent with RFP. The manager of the program
operates the develops application, negotiates with carriers, reviews and
MN Yes program. approves invoices, monitors performance.
MO No
MS No
MT Yes 1 Oversight of funds awarded.
(continued on next page)
35
OCR for page 36
Table 7-1 (Continued)
Do you have staff
that are assigned or
dedicated to the
state's intercity bus How many staff
program? (FTE)? (Open- What are the duties of each person with respect to the
State Yes No Ended Response) intercity program? (Open-Ended Response)
NE Yes
NH No
NJ No
NM Yes 1 Manages NMDOT Park-and-Ride service
NV No
NY Yes 1 staff, 30% Program Development, Contract Mgmt, Oversight
OH No
Project coordinator manages program, division chief
PA Yes 2 oversees project coordinator
Program Manager--Develop program, administer program
and provide technical support and a Compliance
TN Yes 2 Officer--Subrecipient monitoring and technical visits
TX Yes 1 Program manager for 5307 and 5311
VA No
Program Manager provides oversight and review of service
provided, meets with contractors, and handles administrative
WA Yes 1 duties including service planning.
WV Yes 1 Administers entire Section 5311 grant program.
WY No
The following is a summary of the criteria used ation (NBTA) interlining, assistance for new feeder
by the states: routes, increasing public awareness, helping providers
to upgrade equipment and facilities.
· Nineteen states identified "Fill gaps in inter-
The survey responses, telephone follow-up, and
city network" as a program goal.
review of the applications and funded projects sug-
· Twenty-eight states identified "Provide link-
gest that there may be different definitions of "rural
ages between rural and urban areas" as one of
intercity" and different interpretations of the goals
their program goals.
of the program. Some states have focused the fund-
· Twenty states identified "Respond to regional
ing on the longest routes provided by rural transit
or local transit needs" among their goals.
operators (some of which may have replaced tradi-
· Nine states have a program goal of "Provide
tional intercity services), as opposed to funding the
for intermodal facilities."
traditional private intercity bus services. Increas-
· Seventeen states identified "Ensure accessibil-
ingly the FTA focus on the "meaningful connection"
ity of intercity bus services" as a program goal.
with the national intercity network is becoming a
· Four states indicated "No formal or informal
program goal or an evaluation factor for the states,
goals" (although two of them also checked
reflecting FTA guidance.
other responses).
· Two states indicated they are currently in the
process of developing program goals. EVALUATION AND PROJECT SELECTION
Several states indicated other goals, including pro- Once staff and program goals are in place, the
curing intercity coaches for intercity carriers, improv- solicitation and evaluation of potential projects can
ing accessibility between rural areas, preserving occur. The follow-up telephone interviews conducted
existing rural intercity services, increased visibility of under Task 25 supplemented the initial survey
program, increased interconnectivity in grant and con- responses to provide a more complete picture of each
tracting processes, General Transit Feed Specification state's S.5311(f) application solicitation and project
(GTFS) schedule data, National Bus Traffic Associ- evaluation process.
36
OCR for page 37
Table 7-2 State goals for rural intercity programs and projects.
Do you have any statement, formal or informal, regarding state goals for your rural intercity program or
for rural intercity projects? If so, what are your program goals?
intercity network.
between rural and
Provide linkages
regional or local
accessibility of
informal goals.
No formal or
transit needs.
intercity bus
urban areas.
Fill gaps in
Provide for
Respond to
intermodal
facilities.
services.
Ensure
State Other responses
AL X X
AR X X X
AZ
As a result of the California Rural Intercity
Bus Study, March 2008, California revised
its program guidelines. These guidelines
included the creation of the California
Intercity Bus Network, which included
CA X X X X specific goals.
CO X X X X
State Goals are to procure intercity bus
coaches under the Section 6311(f) Program
for Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Southeastern
GA Stages, Inc.
IA X X X X
We are currently in the process of
developing local, regional, and statewide
mobility plans that will address each of
ID X X X X X these items.
IL X X X X X
IN X X
KS X X X
MA X X
MI X X X X X
MN X
MO X X
MS X
MT X X X X X
ND X X X Improve accessibility between rural areas.
NE X X
NH X X X
Regarding the question below. It was
answered "NO" because those documents
NJ X X X X are still being prepared at this time.
NM X X Call to discuss
NV X X X X
NY X X Preserve existing rural intercity services
Again we are currently working on these
OH X policies and developing formal goals.
Prioritize service visibility and
interconnectivity in discretionary grant
process and contracting process; GTFS data
OR X X X X X and NBTA interlining are both pluses.
PA X X X X X
(continued on next page)
37
OCR for page 38
Table 7-2 (Continued)
Do you have any statement, formal or informal, regarding state goals for your rural intercity program or
for rural intercity projects? If so, what are your program goals?
intercity network.
between rural and
Provide linkages
regional or local
accessibility of
informal goals.
No formal or
transit needs.
intercity bus
urban areas.
Fill gaps in
Provide for
Respond to
intermodal
facilities.
services.
Ensure
State Other responses
The Multimodal Transportation Resources
Division is managing a multifaceted 5311(f)
program that will: (1) provide support for
the existing intercity bus routes that tie
Tennessee to the rest of the country, (2)
provide assistance for new feeder routes
which will give smaller communities not
served by the existing routes access to stops
along those routes, (3) increase public
awareness of the intercity connections
which are available through a targeted
intercity bus marketing program, and (4)
help providers to upgrade equipment and
facilities, including adding accessibility
features required by the Americans with
TN X X X X X Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
VA X
WA X X X
WI
WV X X X
WY X X X
Project Solicitation sents how each state solicits requests for S.5311(f)
funding.
This section reviews the survey and interview
To summarize, the following responses were col-
responses on how the connection is made between a
lected regarding the type of solicitation/application
state and an eligible applicant interested in partici-
pating in the S.5311(f) program. First, the research form used for S.5311(f) funding in each state:
team established that the states do indeed participate General Transit Application: 13 states
in the S. 5311(f) program. If so, the next step was to General Transit Application with
identify how the states conduct their solicitation for Separate Section for Intercity Bus: 5 states
projects. Does the state use a general grant solici- Separate Application Form: 19 states
tation process? How does the state administer the Request for Proposal: 3 states
related documents? The intent of these questions
was to understand how the program is presented to The results reveal that states generally use the
potential applicants--is it part of the general rural grant solicitation process. For this set of responses, it
transit (5311) application process or is there a sep- is relatively balanced as to how states present program
arate application process to address intercity tran- information to potential applicants--a general appli-
sit needs? A particular need can be described as a cation or incorporating specific goals/objectives for
corridor of interest, or a type of capital investment. rural intercity needs. The needs can be represented in
With this question, how the state administers the pro- the form of maintaining existing services and/or
gram within the context of the overall DOT policies infrastructure, new services, or a type of capital
and objectives was identified. In some cases, states investment. As for processing the proposed proj-
were undertaking a S.5311(f) program review and had ects for S.5311(f), states are split on what applica-
no information available on this matter. Table 7-3 pre- tion form to use--S.5311 program application or
38
OCR for page 39
Table 7-3 S.5311(f) program solicitation/application methodology by state.
State Administer S.5311(f)a Application Documentb
AK yes general rural transit application - no separate section
AL yes separate application for 5311(f)
AR yes general rural transit application - no separate section
AZ yes general rural transit application - no separate section
CA yes separate application for 5311(f)
CO yes separate application for 5311(f)
CT no none
DE yes unknown
FL yes separate application for 5311(f)
GA yes separate application for 5311(f)
HI no none
IA yes separate application for 5311(f)
ID yes general rural transit application with separate section for rural intercity
IL yes unknown
IN yes general rural transit application with separate section for rural intercity
KS yes separate application for 5311(f)
KY yes general rural transit application with separate section for rural intercity
LA under development under development
MA no general rural transit application - no separate section
MD yes separate application of 5311(f)
ME yes separate application for 5311(f)
MI yes separate application for 5311(f)
MN yes separate application for 5311(f)
MO yes general rural transit application - no separate section
MS yes general rural transit application with separate section for rural intercity
MT yes general rural transit application - no separate section
NC yes separate application for 5311(f)
ND yes general rural transit application - no separate section
NE yes general rural transit application - no separate section
NH yes separate application for 5311(f)
NJ yes separate application for 5311(f)
NM yes general rural transit application - no separate section
NV yes general rural transit application - no separate section
NY yes separate application for 5311(f)
OH yes separate application for 5311(f) and request for proposals
OK unknown unknown
OR yes general rural transit application and request for proposals
PA yes separate application for 5311(f)
RI no unknown
SC no general rural transit application - no separate section
SD yes general rural transit application - no separate section
TN yes separate application for 5311(f)
"Annual Request for Proposal(s) for Small Urban and Non Urbanized Public
TX yes Transportation Projects" with section for Intercity Bus proposals.
UT yes separate application under development
VA yes/noc general rural transit application
VT unknown unknown
(continued on next page)
39
OCR for page 40
Table 7-3 (Continued)
State Administer S.5311(f)a Application Documentb
WA yes request for proposals
WI under development unknown
WV yes separate application for S.5311(f)
WY yes general rural transit application with separate section for rural intercity
Note:
a
"Administer S.5311(f)"--This column identifies states that administer S.5311(f) programs based on the survey
response and/or follow-up interview.
b
"Application Document"--In this column, the method of solicitation and processing is identified: "general rural
transit application, no separate section" indicates that there are not separate criteria/priorities for
rural intercity projects; the general S.5311 application is used for rural intercity projects.
c
Virginia mentioned that it has fully certified, yet administers a S.5311(f) program.
Source: The follow-up interview effort, the web-based survey from, and review of each state DOT website.
a separate S.5311(f) application. Based on phone In Oregon, an existing program offered S.5311(f)
discussions, there was no information that revealed funding to carriers and operators without regard to
a strong preference for either method. Also, there are particular unmet needs. That aspect of the program
two states that use program funds to administer and continues as their "discretional grant" program. A
support a Request for Proposal (RFP) process; one of planning effort conducted by the Oregon DOT iden-
these states administers a general Grant Solicitation tified particular routes needing service that were
process and an RFP process. unserved by any of the existing S.5311(f) carriers
Review of several applications suggests that a or by the unsubsidized market. These specific routes
number of states are using needs studies and/or the were identified in a separate solicitation, and are con-
consultation process to identify routes or corridors in tracted in a manner similar to that in Washington.
which service is desired, and then communicating this This dual approach allows for local initiative in
information to potential applicants. In some cases identifying needs, and then the state directs providers
applications are sought only for services in these cor- to those areas remaining unserved.
ridors or areas; in other cases applications addressing A lower level of state direction is found in other
these needs receive priority in the application process, state programs. In California, a statewide study iden-
but other services will also be considered. This tified priority corridors not receiving service, and
approach, in which the state directs available funding applications to provide service in these areas receive
to meet needs it has identified and prioritized, con- extra points in the evaluation process. Colorado has
trasts with the more typical passive offering of grant conducted separate grant solicitations for particular
programs in which the funding is made available corridors where service had been discontinued by
(often on a formula basis) to any eligible applicant unsubsidized private carriers. In each solicitation
for the eligible purposes. the corridor was defined in terms of potential rout-
The degree of state direction varies in those cases ing and stops needing service. These were supported
in which states have used this approach to fill iden- by corridor and statewide intercity bus studies. In
tified service gaps. At one extreme, the State of Tennessee, priority needs were identified in the guid-
Washington used its statewide intercity bus plan to ance for the application, based on studies and input.
identify specific corridors and routes that will be Alabama DOT funded a university study that iden-
funded. These are identified as part of a statewide tified corridors needing service, and the application
intercity bus network, in which the rest of the routes was designed to solicit services to build this network.
are provided by unsubsidized private carriers. For In Minnesota and Maryland intercity bus studies
the identified routes not provided by unsubsidized identified particular corridor needs not served by
carriers, the state issues an RFP calling for a partic- existing services. The Minnesota approach is to
ular level of service on a particular route. Respond- continue funding existing S.5311(f) routes as long
ing firms are bidders, and the resulting agreement is as they meet a performance threshold (based on fare-
a contract to operate the service for the period of the box recovery, potentially with a ceiling on the sub-
contract. In effect the state is the grant recipient, and sidy cost per passenger), and to solicit applications
the operators are contractors. for new service in particular corridors identified in
40
OCR for page 41
the needs analysis. In Maryland, a state-sponsored goals and objectives, and set aside program funds to
study identified unserved corridors, and the consul- address the rural intercity bus needs.
tation process resulted in adding additional corridors. As for the personnel involved in the evaluation
The application solicits service in those identified of the projects, there was a mix of responses. The
corridors, but leaves open the possibility that appli- following categories were developed--transit unit
cants may apply for funding to meet other needs not staff, interagency (personnel from other state pro-
known to the state. grams), and a group that combines state DOT staff
and non-DOT staff. The results include:
Project Evaluation Criteria Transit Unit Staff: 10
Table 7-4 presents the responses to the web-based Interagency Committee: 16
survey question, "How do you evaluate and select DOT Staff and External: 7
potential projects?" with states indicating between For the most part, there was not much deviation
one and five evaluation criteria. in the composition of the personnel involved in eval-
Eight states use evaluation criteria and a com- uating the rural intercity projects. The interagency
mittee to select projects. Seven states reported using committee was the largest tally--with other state per-
a committee only. Three states use criteria only. Three sonnel from other transportation programs involved
states "pre-select" projects. in the evaluation process.
With regards to evaluating S.5311(f) projects, it
is important to note that, if these projects are eval- ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
uated in light of operating measures used for other
rural transit projects, then intercity bus projects are In the web-based survey, states were asked, "What
often at a disadvantage because the trips per mile types of entities are eligible to receive funds under
may be lower than other types of rural services, due your Section 5311(f) program?" In this question, the
to the long distance of this type of service. For this research team wanted to learn if states were taking
reason, S.5311(f) projects are often evaluated sepa- action in incorporating the FTA's language support-
rately from other S.5311 projects. ing funding arrangements with the private for-profit
operators. However, the inquiry included a review
of all other eligible applicants. The survey responses
Project Evaluation Approach
are provided in Table 7-6.
Additional details on the evaluation process The responses include:
were collected through both the web-based survey Public (jurisdiction, agency): 34 states
and the follow-up telephone interviews. This section Private non-profit: 29 states
reviews two aspects of how states evaluate proposed Private for-profit: 27 states
rural intercity projects: (1) whether intercity projects Tribal: 8 states
are reviewed separately or together with all other
rural transit projects, and (2) what personnel are The above totals include all responses in which the
involved in the review. Table 7-5 presents the state state can make contract arrangements with the entity
responses to these questions. directly, or where the entity must file an application
To summarize, as related to the first category, through an identified eligible applicant. For the private
the responses are: for-profit category, 15 states acknowledge the private
for-profit as an eligible applicant, while seven states
All in one rural transit pool: 18 states allow the private for-profit to access S.5311(f) funds
Rural Intercity Bus projects through a third party contract or purchase of service
reviewed in separate batch: 20 states agreement with an eligible applicant. States that do not
States are split on the method for evaluating acknowledge the private for-profit as an eligible ap-
projects, with no strong preference noted during the plicant mentioned that they prefer not to have arrange-
phone interviews. States that evaluate all rural transit ments with the private sector directly, and would
projects in one pool have an opportunity to compare rather have the private sector cultivate relationships
proposals directly between rural intercity and other with the local jurisdictions, thereby, in their opinion,
rural transit needs. States that use a separate batch for establishing a better understanding of the rural transit
evaluation of rural intercity bus projects have com- need. Of course, given this type of service and its inter-
mitted to establishing specific rural intercity program jurisdictional nature, it is also understood that the local
41
OCR for page 42
Table 7-4 Project evaluation and selection criteria.
How do you evaluate and select potential projects? (For example, evaluated by committee, scored using defined criteria, pre-selected by state, etc.)
State Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5
AL Evaluated by committee Scored using defined criteria
Approved based on
Reviewed annual application. reasonableness of proposed
AR Evaluated by committee. budget.
Evaluated and scored by
Program definition and State emphasis, established committee using defined
CA national objectives guidelines criteria
Requests for grant funding
are scored based on a set of
criteria and scored by an Projects/requests for funding
Interagency Advisory get a final determination by
CO Committee. the Transit Unit
Grant application
GA requirements
IA By committee (internal staff)
IL Evaluated by committee
IN Evaluated by committee
MA Pre-Selected by state
Level of coordination Request for Proposal Process
Adequacy of service to the Reasonableness of existing between human service (Review both technical and
elderly and persons with and proposed level of service agencies and public cost and award to the best
MI Eligibility under Act 51 disabilities to the general public transportation applicant value)
Evaluated by statewide Preservation of existing Capital - vehicle rehab,
MN committee service Marketing facilities, new vehicles System expansion
MO Percentage of fare recovery Cost per revenue mile Ridership per revenue mile
MS Evaluated by committee
OCR for page 43
Table 7-4 (Continued)
How do you evaluate and select potential projects? (For example, evaluated by committee, scored using defined criteria, pre-selected by state, etc.)
State Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5
By application, evaluated by
MT MDT Transit staff
Provides service within the
ND Meets S.5311(f) requirements state Completes application
NE Pre-selected by state
Application compared to
NH Evaluated by committee intercity bus goals
Will be scored using defined
NJ criteria
NM Pre-selected by state
Scored using defined criteria
NV by a committee
Operating Assistance
Allocations based upon three-
NY factor formula
Currently working on this
OH information
Impact on larger intercity
OR Need network Service visibility Service connectivity
PA Application process
Scored using defined criteria
Competitive Application by Committee and
TN Process Consultants Evaluated by Division
TX Scored using defined criteria
Same process we use for any
VA other 5311 project
Defined criteria from Demonstrated need from
WA statewide intercity bus study rural communities
WV Evaluated by state staff
WY Evaluated by committee
OCR for page 44
Table 7-5 State approaches to evaluating proposed S.5311(f) projects.
Project Evaluationa Evaluated byb
Committee:
All Rural Rural Intercity Transit Unit DOT Committee DOT Staff and
State Transit Projects Bus Projects Staff / Interagency External
AK X X
AL X X
AR X X
AZ X X
CA X X
CO X X
FL X X
GA X X
IA X X
ID X X
IL unknown unknown X
IN X X
KS X unknown
KY X X
MA X X
ME X unknown
MI X X
MN X X
MO X unknown
MS X X
MT X X
NC X X
ND X unknown
NE X unknown
NH X X
NJ X unknown
NM X X
NV X X
NY X X
OH X X
OK unknown unknown unknown
OR X X
PA X X
SC X X
SD X X
TN X X
TX X X
WA X X
WV X X
WY X X
Note:
a
"Project Evaluation"--In this group of columns, the evaluation is identified as either:
-- "All Rural Transit Projects"--All applications reviewed against each other, or
-- "Rural Intercity Bus Projects"--Only these projects will be reviewed against each other.
-- In some cases, states conduct a general solicitation, and once this process is closed,
all applications are reviewed; if there are applications that address rural intercity,
only then will they be reviewed under "Rural Intercity."
b
"Evaluated by"--In this group of columns, the personnel involved in reviewing the applications are identified as:
-- "Transit/Unit Staff"--The application reviewed only within this group
-- "Committee-DOT Interagency"--Includes other state DOT staff from other programs/agencies, or
-- "Committee: DOT Staff and External"--State DOT staff and individuals that are not DOT staff
-- In some cases, there was mention of a consultant review, but the consultant was not responsible
for making a determination.
Source: The follow-up interview effort, the web-based survey form, and review of each state DOT website.
44
OCR for page 45
Table 7-6 Type of entity eligible to apply for S.5311(f) funding.
Eligible Applican
State Public a Private Non-Profit Private For-Profit b Tribal
AK X X X
AL X X X X
AR X TP C c
AZ X X TP C X
CA X X X X
CO X X
FL X
GA X
IA X X
ID X X X X
IL X
IN X X TP C
KS X X X
KY X X TP C
MA X X
ME X X X
MI X
MN X X X
MO X X X
MS X X TP C
MT X X X
NC X X X
ND X X X
NE X
NH X X X
NJ X X X
NM X X X
NV X X TP C X
NY X X
OH X X
OK ?
OR X X X X
PA X X
SD X X POS d X
TN X X X
TX X X X
VA X X
WA X X
WV X X X
WYe X X X
Note:
a
The "Public" column includes all public jurisdictions/transit agencies/authorities.
b
The "Private For-Profit" cell was checked if the state identifies private for-profit carriers as an eligible
applicant. If not, certain designations were used to show that carriers can access funds through other
arrangements: either through a purchase of service with an eligible applicant, or as a third-party
contractor.
c
TPC = Third Party Contractor
d
POS = Purchase of Service Agreement
e
WY is currently reviewing its DRAFT State Management Plan 2010 that allows for private-for-profit
entities as an "eligible applicant" for funds in the S.5311(f) program.
Source: The follow-up interview effort, the survey form, and review of each state DOT website.
45
OCR for page 46
jurisdictions have the capacity and resources to coop- what criteria states require of the applicant, not as a
erate in supporting (sharing the costs of) such a service. matter of administrative procedures but in how the
entity is capable of providing the proposed service/
ADDITIONAL APPLICANT project. Responses are shown in Table 7-7.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA To summarize, responses include:
A follow-up interview question asked/probed on Operating Authority: 21 states
additional eligibility criteria related to the applicant's Insurance: 17 states
legal and technical capacity to provide the proposed History of Service: 8 states
service. The intent of this question is to understand Operations Attributes: 16 states
Table 7-7 Additional eligibility criteria.
Eligibility Criteria
Operating History of Operations
State Authority Insurance Service Attributes
AK
AL X X
AR X
AZ
CA X X X
CO X X X
FL X X X X
GA X
IA X
ID X X
IL
IN X
KS X X X X
KY X X X X
MA
ME
MI X X X X
MN X X X X
MO
MS X
MT
NC
ND X
NE
NH
NJ
NM X
NV X
NY X X
OH X X X X
OK
OR X X X
PA X
SD X X
TN X X X
TX X X X X
VA
WA X X X
WV X X
WY
Source: The follow-up interview, the survey form, and review of each state DOT website.
46
OCR for page 47
For the most part, the states required that the ap- ADA requirements. Most states did not respond to
plicant have operating authority--receiving approval this question during the phone interview, so responses
through a state agency/commission--and insurance were supplemented by information contained in
coverage that satisfies Federal Motor Carrier Safety application documentation available on the Internet.
Administration requirements. In about one-half of the
responses, states also provided that they anticipate the STATE FUNDING
recipient of funds to adhere to such project compo-
nents as interlining, marketing, and other aspects Based on industry experience, an important fac-
identified in Table 7-7 as "Operations Attributes." tor in the sustainability of S.5311(f) operations pro-
There are eight states that consider the applicant's his- jects is the ability to access other sources of funds to
tory in operations of such services. achieve the local match requirement. In this regard,
states were asked in the survey if state funding is
available to match intercity bus projects (Table 7-10).
TYPES OF PROJECTS Eighteen states do not have state funding avail-
Table 7-8 indicates the types of projects funded able for S.5311(f) projects--this includes some states
by state S.5311(f) programs in FY 2008 and FY that provide state match for other S.5311 projects.
2009, based on the web-based survey responses. Eleven states have at least some state matching fund-
Twelve states identified that they funded both ing available.
capital and non-capital projects (including operat- States with state matching funds available were
ing, planning, marketing, and administration) during also asked to indicate matching ratios. The responses
this period. Twelve states identified that they only to this question are indicated in Table 7-11. Several
funded non-capital projects (including operating, states that do not provide state matching funding in
planning, marketing, and administration), and only one or more of the categories also indicated S.5311(f)
two states responded that they only funded capital federal/local matching ratios for those categories, so
projects during this period. inclusion in this table does not necessarily indicate
For those states that reported funding non-capital availability of state funding.
projects, 26 funded operating projects, seven funded If there is no state match available, the only
planning projects, 11 funded marketing projects, eight sources of potential "local match" are local funds or
funded administrative projects, and one funded carrier funding. Private carriers provide match in
another type of project. some states, including Minnesota and Pennsylvania.
However, the requirement to provide a local match
REQUIREMENTS PASSED ONTO discourages private carriers, which generally aim
GRANT SUBRECIPIENTS to make a profit.
In lieu of a local match in cash, an increasing num-
One of the survey questions focused on ongoing ber of states are implementing the "Pilot Project" in-
program requirements for selected applicants: "What kind match method, as described in the next section.
requirements are passed on to eligible grantees to
qualify for these funds?" The purpose here is to iden- "PILOT PROJECT" IN-KIND MATCH
tify what is expected of the selected applicant if the
proposed project is approved, particularly, what As described in more depth in Chapter 2 of this
federal requirements are passed onto the applicant(s). report, in October 2006, FTA approved a 2-year pilot
The results are presented in Table 7-9. project allowing states to use the capital costs of un-
The responses include: subsidized connecting private sector intercity bus
service as in-kind match for the operating costs of
Local Match Requirements: 28 states rural intercity bus feeder service. Later guidance
Reporting/Auditing: 29 states has extended the period of the pilot, and recently
Other: 29 states has been extended through FY 2010, as posted in
Other: 5 states the Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 30, February 16,
The results show that most of the states require the 2010). Under this approach, the value of the capital
local match and reporting/auditing. For responses in cost portion of the total cost of connecting unsubsi-
the "Other" category, it was simply a matter of iden- dized services is used as in-kind match. Because the
tifying other general requirements, as states would operating cost portion of the unsubsidized miles is
identify compliance with all related FTA clauses, and offset by the revenues, there is no operating deficit on
47
OCR for page 48
Table 7-8 Types of projects funded.
What types of projects have been funded under S.5311(f) in FY 008 and FY 2009?
Capital - Capital - Capital - Capital -
Facilities - Facilities - Vehicles - Vehicles - Operating - Operating - Planning - Planning - Marketing - Marketing - Admin - Admin - Other - Other -
State FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2009
AL X
AR X X X X X
CA X X X X X X X X X
CO X X X X X X
GA X X
IA X X X X X X X
ID X X
IL X X X X X X
IN X X
KS X
MI X X X X X X X X
MN X X X X X X X X X
MO X X
MS X
MT X X
NE X X X X
NM X X
NV X
NY X X
OH X X X X
OK
OR X X X X X X X X
PA X X
TX X X X X X X X X X X
VA X
WA X X X X X X
WI X X X
WV X X
WY X X X X X X X X
OCR for page 49
Table 7-9 Federal program requirements that are passed on to local subrecipients.
State Requirements that are passed on:
Reporting /
Local Match Auditing Other Other
AL X X FTA
AR X X FTA
AZ X X Fin Capacity
CA X X Criteria FTA
CO X FTA
FL X FTA
GA X X FTA
IA X X X ADA
ID X
IL X FTA
IN X X
KS X X X
MA X X
MI X FTA
MN X X FTA
MO X X DBE
MS X X ADA X
MT X X FTA
ND X X FTA X
NE X FTA
NH X X FTA
NJ X X FTA
NM X X 5311
NV X X
OH X X FTA
OR X X Safety Customer Service
PA X X
SD ADA
TN X X FTA
TX X X FTA
VA X X FTA
WA X X
WV X X FTA
WY X
Source: The follow-up interview effort, the survey form, and review of each state DOT website.
that portion of the project, but the value of the capi- sidized connecting intercity bus service to be consid-
tal used on those miles (if provided by the carrier) ered as the in-kind capital contribution of the intercity
can be used as an in-kind match to address the 50% bus company to the rural intercity bus project.
local match requirement on the net operating deficit Table 7-12 presents state responses regarding
of the subsidized segment. Based on the precedent whether or not they use the "pilot project" approach in
of the FTA regulations permitting 50% of the total sponsoring intercity bus service in their state (current
cost of a turnkey operating contract to be considered or potential).
as eligible for the 80% capital match ratio, FTA has Of the 28 states that responded to this question,
allowed 50% of the total per-mile cost of the unsub- three indicated that they are utilizing the in-kind "pilot
49
OCR for page 50
Table 7-10 State funding available to match intercity bus projects.
Is state funding available to match intercity bus projects? (Check all types that receive funds.)
State None Capital Operating Planning Admin. Marketing Other
AL X
AR X
CA X X X X
CO X
GA X
IA X
ID X
IL X X X X X
IN X
KS X
MA
MI X X X
MN X
MO X
MS X
MT X
NH X
1/2 local match is
NJ proposed
NM X
NV X
NY X X
OH X
PA X X
TN X X X
Public agencies
receiving state funds
(5311) may use state
funds to match ICB
TX X funds.
VA X X
WA X
WV X
WY X
project" option. Another four indicated that they are · Utah
currently in the process of negotiating the use of in- · Washington
kind with the intercity carrier. Three states responded
Also, we understand that at least another three
that there is no interest or that it is not needed.
are contemplating its use:
The research team currently believes that at least
ten states either use or have issued guidance permit- · Idaho
ting its use: · Kansas
· New Hampshire
· Alabama
· California
· Colorado
CONSULTATION PROCESS
· Ohio
· Maryland As noted earlier in the report, under SAFETEA-
· Minnesota LU, a state that plans to certify that all rural inter-
· North Carolina city bus needs are met (partially or completely) must
· Oregon undergo a consultation process prior to certifying.
50
OCR for page 51
Table 7-11 Matching ratios for S.5311(f).
Federal/State/Local. For example, 80/0/20 represents 80% Federal, 0% State, and 20% Local shares
Capital- Capital- Capital-
State Vehicle Facilities Other Operating Planning Admin Marketing
CA 88.53/11.57 88.53/11.57 55.33/44.67 88.53/11.57 55.33/44.67 88.53/11.57
IL 80/20/0 80/20/0 50/0/50 80/0/20
MI 0/100/0 80/20/0 0/100/0 50/50/0 50/50/0
MT 86/0/14 86/0/14 54/0/46 80/0/20 70/0/30 70/0/30
NJ 80/10/10 50/25/25
10/90/0 for
Park and Ride
50/0/50 for
NM rural 5311s
NV 10%
NY 80/0/20 50/50/0
PA 80/10/10 80/10/10 50/25/25
TN 83/8.5/8.5 80/10/10 80/10/10 50/0/50 80/10/10 80/10/10
80% percent 50% FTA/
FTA/ state state match
match changes changes each
VA each year year
Table 7-12 "Pilot project" in-kind match utilization by state.
Does your state have any projects that utilize the FTA "Pilot Project" In-Kind Match for operations?
If "No", are you aware of any that are under development or likely to arise
State Yes No in the next year or two? (Please explain/describe)
AL No
AR No Unaware of any projects.
Project under consideration is expansion for evening service between Smith
River, CA and Arcata, CA to meet with evening Greyhound service between
CA No Bay area and Arcata.
CO Yes
GA No
IA No No
ID No
IL No
INDOT has had meetings with a private carrier regarding intercity service for
IN No 2010.
We are currently working with Greyhound on in-kind match for two routes. 1
KS No - Wichita - Pueblo, CO (in partnership with Colorado DOT) 2 - Salina - Wichita
MI No No projects in process
MN Yes
MO No No
MS No
MT No No
NH No Not currently aware of any
NJ No
NM No
NV No
NY No
We are trying to find out about working with Greyhound to match the 3
OH No routes that we are developing for our state.
PA No
TN No
TX No
VA No
WA Yes
WV No None planned at this time.
WY No
OCR for page 52
This process includes identifying private intercity tive process and a determination that the
carriers serving the state, conducting outreach activ- state's intercity needs are adequately met?
ities, involving intercity carriers in meetings and As a result, this requirement has increased impor-
planning activities, providing an opportunity for tance to the states, which are in turn becoming more
intercity carriers to submit information regarding proactive. As of December 2009, the consultation
service needs, a planning process that examines unmet process was known to have been initiated in at least
needs, and documentation that the results of the nine states. Some states are including it as part of the
consultation process support the decision to certify. needs assessment studies. The inclusion of questions
Table 7-13 presents the consultation processes about the consultation process in the FTA State Man-
described by states in the survey. agement Review will undoubtedly increase the num-
Of the states that responded to this question, ber of states that are conducting such a process, and
29 states identified that they do more than just identify result in additional documentation. Based on the state
intercity operators in the state and that they comply responses to the survey effort for this study, and sub-
with the "consultation process" as prescribed in FTA sequent input, many of the states believe that they are
Circular 9040.1F. Twenty-eight states identified that addressing this requirement.
they are proactive in reaching out to the intercity car-
riers by letter, phone, and/or email and including the
intercity carriers in the discussion of needs/gaps in Needs Assessment Activities
service. Other states report they are preparing to One of the survey questions asked the state if any
perform a consultation process. recent studies, inventories or surveys for their intercity
The survey also asked states if their consultation bus programs have been completed. Twelve states
process was documented and, if so, could a copy of indicated that they have taken recent action; of these,
the documentation be obtained by the research team. six identified that they do have a study. At the time
Fourteen states report they have documented the of the survey, 21 states had not taken recent action.
results of the consultation process, although several Several additional state studies were initiated or
reported that the documentation consisted of emails identified during the course of the project, and as of
and other formats not ready for public distribution. December 2009, the research team was aware of
States provided their consultation documentation in recent needs studies in at least 15 states:
the form of recent statewide intercity assessment or
as survey results. 1. Alabama
There is an increasing emphasis on the consul- 2. California
tation process, following the addition of questions 3. Colorado
regarding S.5311(f) program implementation to the 4. Florida
FTA State Management Review checklist. Specif- 5. Idaho
ically, the FY 2010 State Management Review 6. Indiana
Workshop workbook (pages 5-2 and 5-3) asks: 7. Minnesota
8. Missouri
1. What amount and percentage of Section 5311 9. North Carolina
funds has the state programmed for intercity 10. Ohio
bus service per Section 5311(f) for the past 11. Oregon
three years? 12. Tennessee
2. What activities is the state pursuing to support 13. Utah
intercity bus service in rural areas? Are these 14. Washington
activities eligible? 15. Wisconsin
3. If the state has programmed less than 15% on
intercity bus projects, has the governor cer-
tified that intercity bus service needs are CONCLUSIONS
adequately met in relation to other rural trans-
portation needs? If yes, did the state consult The survey of the states, and subsequent follow-
with intercity bus providers before the gover- up and review of applications and other documen-
nor certified? Does the consultative process tation, suggests that there is variation in the way in
meet minimum requirements? Is there a direct which the states are implementing this program.
correlation between the results of the consulta- There is increasing recognition that this program is
52
OCR for page 53
Table 7-13 Intercity carrier consultation process by state.
Please describe your consultation process. If it is evolving, describe the most recent efforts and
State discuss planned changes. (Open-Ended Response)
The consultation process was incorporated into a FY 2007 Intercity Bus Study conducted by the UTC
based on the campus of the University of Alabama. The process involved the following: Researchers
spoke with individuals representing four groups to discuss alternatives for a potential 5311(f)
program in Alabama including representatives from ALDOT, Greyhound, Capital Trailways, and
5311 providers. There are plans to meet early in future consultation processes to discuss such issues
AL as scheduling, feeder route selection, and private sector in-kind match.
AR Annual letter requesting their input and plans for AR. Recent effort 2/12/09.
AZ
California consultation process was identified in the California Rural Intercity Bus Study, March
CA 2008; as a result, California adopted this recommendation into its State Management Plan.
CDOT has conducted a Statewide ICB Study and has held a formal consultation with ICB providers.
We also informally identify ICB needs throughout the year and especially when grant funding is
announced. CDOT has also had very fruitful conversations with KDOT and UDOT in planning multi-
CO state routes and coordinating funding and application issues.
CT Attachment will be forwarded describing Connecticut's ICB consultation process.
Using the United We Ride funds, we had a forum to discuss transportation options throughout the
state. The information was collected in a document. Then a taskforce was assembled to gather steps
DE forward.
Consultation process is evolving. We have contacted Greyhound Lines, Inc. and decided to do the
GA complete consultation process when we update the Georgia Intercity Bus Plan to be initiated in 2009.
Ongoing contact and annual application process. Inter City carriers are also involved with the Des
IA Moines MPO planning process.
ID Development of statewide coordinated mobility plan.
IL Organized Technical Advisory Committee comprised of interested intercity bus stakeholders.
INDOT will invite carriers to participate in a teleconference to discuss funding availability for
IN intercity projects.
The two eligible carriers are issued S.5311 applications on an annual basis. Although other S.5311
applicants have a filing deadline, the private operators are allowed to submit an application at any
MA time.
MDOT has consulted with Intercity Bus Carriers to determine Long Range Plans (LRP) and activities
MI associated with the LRP - Also to coordinate services with surrounding states.
Mn/DOT meets with Jefferson Lines, our major carrier on a fairly regular basis. We discuss
subsidized routes and if necessary allow modifications. We started the new intercity pilot project on a
route that is on the verge of being abandoned. Mn/DOT is currently updating the intercity bus plan
as well as the 2010-2011 Intercity Bus Application. Additionally in light of Greyhound abandoning
most of its remaining service in Minnesota, we have had discussions with North Dakota, Washington,
MN and Montana about keeping a route from Missoula, Montana, to the Twin Cities (1,200 miles).
MO Letter to known intercity carriers and American Bus Association asking for letters of interest.
MS Provide public notices and letters to known intercity carriers; contact ABA via letter.
ND Phone conversations, email, close cooperation.
Intercity providers are invited to participate in discussions with state staff at the state transit
NE association annual meeting. Other phone or face-to-face consultations as needed.
The DOT mailed a request for projects to intercity bus carriers operating in the state, posted the
availability of funds and applications on its website, and announced the availability of intercity
funding at several monthly New Hampshire Transit Association meetings. Additionally, the
department frequently meets with intercity bus providers to discuss intercity needs, and participates
in meetings on the creation of locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services
NH transportation plans and encourages intercity bus providers to participate in these plans.
To date a conference call was held with Greyhound and American Bus Assn. NJ TRANSIT is about to
initiate an application and consultative process for the FY2007, 2008 and stimulus dollars. Anticipate
NJ April 2009 start.
(continued on next page)
53
