Click for next page ( 35


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 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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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 34
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