Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
43 This report has taken the data from one BTS survey and presented it in a manner that should be useful in making com- parisons between states. The key analysis performed herein was a peer group analysis, where the research team assembled states into one set of peer groups and compared their state and federal transit funding levels. However, this project went beyond simply creating and analyzing one set of peer groups. The goal was to create a tool that provides a framework for readers to create their own peer groups in the future, for the purposes of analyzing this or any other state-level data. More- over, the research team suggested some additional peer group sets that could prove relevant depending on the objectives of a given analysis. The research team also took the data presented in the Sur- vey, as already displayed in tables, and reorganized it to pres- ent it in a form that revealed additional information to the reader. The Survey is full of data presented alphabetically by state in table form. This table form makes the data difficult to use beyond the level of the individual state. Using principles of information design, the research team reformatted some of these tables into figures that display the information in a useful and visually appealing manner. Finally, overall trends in state, federal, highway, and transit funding were analyzed. These data-intensive analyses utilized some of the information in the Survey as well as outside data to provide an overall picture of transportation funding trends at the state and federal levels. These analyses can be viewed in the appendix. The Survey as it stands today is useful for looking up data for individual states, but it provides little comparative infor- mational analyses. This reportâs presentation of the data, in the form of peer group comparisons and visual displays, helps states compare their transit funding levels in additional mean- ingful ways. This report also presents suggestions for ways to enhance the collection of this type of data in the future. Through these suggestions, as well as the principles and analy- ses outlined in the report, the research team hopes that future versions of the Survey will be enhanced. S E C T I O N 5 Conclusions
