Comparative Review and Analysis of State Transit Funding Programs (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 6-31
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 6... ...
Some potential metrics follow: • Percent transit journey to work • Percent zero vehicles in household • Percent urban square miles • FTA flex funds One could develop peer groups on the basis of any one of these metrics individually. However, in many cases it is useful to develop peer groupings on the basis of a set of metrics that together provide for a more meaningful comparison, assigning weights to each metric.
|
From page 7... ...
• Percent zero vehicles in household (35%) • Percent urban square miles (10%)
|
From page 8... ...
Geographic peer groups -- summary characteristics. Northeast Mid-Atlantic Southeast Midwest Southwest Western Pacific Maine West Virginia Alabama Minnesota Arizona Montana California New Jersey District of Columbia Mississippi Illinois New Mexico North Dakota Washington NevadaNew York North Carolina Kentucky Tennessee Iowa Oklahoma Texas South Dakota KansasPennsylvania Virginia Ohio Oregon Connecticut Maryland Louisiana Wisconsin Colorado Idaho Hawaii Massachusetts Delaware South Carolina Michigan Utah Wyoming Alaska Vermont Arkansas Missouri Nebraska New Hampshire Florida Indiana Rhode Island Georgia Table 10.
|
From page 9... ...
Small Medium Large Extra-Large Alaska Arkansas Alabama California Delaware Connecticut Arizona Florida District of Columbia Iowa Kansas Colorado Georgia Hawaii Indiana Illinois Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Maine Mississippi Maryland New Jersey Montana Nebraska Nevada Massachusetts New York New Hampshire Minnesota North Carolina North Dakota New Mexico Missouri Ohio Rhode Island Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Pennsylvania TexasSouth Dakota Oregon Vermont Utah Washington Virginia Wyoming West Virginia Wisconsin Value: Contrasts state transit funding for predominantly rural and predominantly urban states. Limitations: Ignores the role of population density.
|
From page 10... ...
This last approach yielded both a four-group and five-group set. 10 Most Rural Rural Middle Urban Most Urban Montana New Mexico Wisconsin Arizona District of Columbia Wyoming Iowa Kentucky Delaware Hawaii North Dakota Maine Minnesota Georgia Illinois South Dakota Alaska South Carolina Nevada California Rhode Island Idaho Michigan Connecticut Nebraska Arkansas Kansas Oklahoma Ohio Florida Vermont New Hampshire Pennsylvania Maryland West Virginia Colorado Virginia New York Oregon Missouri Massachusetts Mississippi Alabama New Jersey Indiana Louisiana North Carolina Texas Washington Tennessee Utah Table 14.
|
From page 11... ...
The following metrics were used to choose the peer groups (all weighted equally) : • Percent urban area • Percent urban VMT • Percent Hispanic/Latino • Percent African-American • Percent household income below $30,000 • Percent transit journey to work • Total population • Percent population over 65 • Percent population disabled • FTA urbanized area formula • FTA flex funds • State transit funding Table 20 presents the results of this chosen grouping method.
|
From page 12... ...
and federal funding, state funding sources, and state funding expenditure categories. These comparisons allow states to compare their funding data to those of similar states.
|
From page 13... ...
Per Capita FTA Funding New Hampshire 0.42 $225 $0.17 $6,516 $5.01 South Dakota 0.42 $996 $1.29 $3,777 $4.90 North Dakota 0.50 $1,546 $2.44 $4,891 $7.71 Vermont 0.50 $6,103 $9.82 $12,667 $20.38 Montana 0.58 $390 $0.42 $2,812 $3.03 Maine 0.67 $505 $0.38 $14,330 $10.88 Alaska 0.75 $0 $0.00 $35,880 $54.74 Idaho 0.75 $312 $0.22 $11,444 $8.21 Wyoming 0.83 $2,466 $4.87 $4,215 $8.32 Group 1 Average 0.60 $1,394 $2.18 $10,726 $16.78† † The average per capita federal funding represents a weighted average by population. Table 22.
|
From page 14... ...
Per Capita State Funding FTA Funding (Thousands) Per Capita FTA Funding Texas 2.33 $27,741 $1.23 $310,673 $13.81 New Jersey*
|
From page 15... ...
. • Levels of federal transit funding • State versus federal funding shares • Funding sources • Funding expenditures Figure 2 compares the peer groups to one another on the basis of state funding for transit.
|
From page 16... ...
The only statement that can be made with certainty from this figure is that per capita spending tends to increase with peer group "size" and is highest for statewide transit operators. Figure 4 shows federal transit funding.
|
From page 17... ...
State versus federal shares of transit funding.
|
From page 18... ...
%0 %02 %04 %06 %08 %001 rotarepO tisnarTslatoT 5 puorGslatoT 4 puorGslatoT 3 puorGslatoT 2 puorGslatoT 1 puorG slatoT etatS latipaC gnitarepO htoB/rehtiE Figure 7. Funding expenditures, all peer groups.
|
From page 19... ...
Figure 8 compares total levels of federal and state funding for transit for Group 1. Most of the states in Group 1 have relatively low levels of total transit funding; Alaska's funding is the highest at a little more than $35 million, even though the state does not contribute any transit funding.
|
From page 20... ...
20 0$ 01$ 02$ 03$ 04$ 05$ 06$ gvAYWDIKAEMTMTVDNDSHN gnidnuF etatS gnidnuF laredeF Figure 9. Group 1 state and federal per capita funding.
|
From page 21... ...
Figure 12. Group 2 state and federal total transit funding (in thousands of dollars)
|
From page 22... ...
22 0$ 01$ 02$ 03$ 04$ 05$ 06$ 07$ 08$ 09$ 001$ gvATUMNYKRAEDIHSMSKAIVWEN gnidnuF etatS gnidnuF laredeF Figure 13. Group 2 state and federal per capita funding.
|
From page 23... ...
Figure 16. Group 3 state federal total transit funding (in thousands of dollars)
|
From page 24... ...
24 0$ 01$ 02$ 03$ 04$ 05$ 06$ 07$ 08$ 09$ 001$ gvAAVTCCSROVNOMNIIRKOOCLAIWNM gnidnuF etatS gnidnuF laredeF 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% gvAAVCSROVNOMNIIRKOOCLAIWNM emocnI tseretnI selaS lareneG xaT xaT saG dnuF lareneG oN atad oN atad oN sdnuf oN sdnuf oN atad oN atad Figure 17. Group 3 state and federal per capita funding.
|
From page 25... ...
As shown in Figure 29, the per capita funding among transitoperator states is more comparable than total transit funding. Data on sources of state funding were available for only three states in the transit-operator group; therefore, whether a different funding source pattern exists for this group than for the states as a whole is difficult to determine, as Figure 30 demonstrates.
|
From page 26... ...
Group 4 state and federal per capita funding. 0$ 001$ 002$ 003$ 004$ 005$ 006$ 007$ 008$ 009$ gvACDZACNIMAMAGNTHOAWDMAL gnidnuF etatS gnidnuF laredeF
|
From page 27... ...
Figure 23. Group 4 state funding expenditure categories.
|
From page 28... ...
Group 5 state and federal per capita funding.
|
From page 29... ...
Figure 27. Group 5 state funding expenditure categories.
|
From page 30... ...
Transit-operator group state and federal per capita funding.
|
From page 31... ...
Figure 31. Transit-operator group state funding expenditure categories.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.