A Review of Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 1-62
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 1... ...
. Section 5316 seeks to improve transportation services that provide access to employment and employment-related activities for welfare recipients and low-income A REVIEW OF HUMAN SERVICES TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND GRANT PROGRAMS This digest presents the results of NCHRP Project 20-65, Task 26, "An Analysis and Evaluation of States' Implementation of the FTA 5310, 5316, and 5317 Programs." The research was conducted by AECOM, Arlington, Virginia, with Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning (ITP)
|
From page 2... ...
In addition to state and grantee best practices, suggestions made by respondents for improving the accomplishment and effectiveness of the human services transportation grant programs, Coordination Plans, and the related requirements are reported. No conclusions are expressed regarding any of the suggested changes in the programs or requirements; the state and local agency comments are reported without elaboration.
|
From page 3... ...
The agencies stated that one of the primary reasons that obligating these funds is such a problem for the survey respondents is the difficulty in identifying local matching funds for projects. Local funds are limited and the higher matching requirements of the JARC and NF grant programs (particularly the 50 percent match for operations)
|
From page 4... ...
The objective was to identify a set of agencies within the state to interview for their perspectives on the human services Coordination Plans and the associated grant programs. Within each state, the study team attempted to contact a cross-section of agency types, including MPOs, RPOs, transit agencies, human services transportation providers, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
|
From page 5... ...
Most states noted that the prioritization of projects is based on gaps in service and where the proposed grant fits into the goals and objectives of the Coordination Plan. Perceived Project Continuation Needs/ Impediments to Using the Grant Programs A common theme across all states interviewed was that the lack of money available for local matches becomes a burden in the continuation of projects funded through the grant programs, as well as an impediment to using the grant programs in the first place.
|
From page 6... ...
Major Concerns/Desired Changes Expressed A consistent area of concern expressed by the states interviewed was the desire to remove the local match requirement due to the difficulty in identifying and sustaining local matching funds. Another common concern expressed was the lack of understanding regarding the requirements for NF grants.
|
From page 7... ...
As experience with the programs and coordinated planning process continues to grow, more applications are likely to be submitted, further reducing the amount of lapsed funds. Conclusions and Findings The findings from the Internet survey of state DOTs and the telephone interviews with local coordinated planning participants in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington helped identify the perceived costs and benefits associated with the human services transportation Coordination Plans and grant programs.
|
From page 8... ...
Planning organizations observed that the multiple levels of prioritization and project selection may interfere with transparency to local officials and stakeholders, which would adversely impact the commitment and perceived benefits of the coordinated planning process. These respondents suggested that more guidance from FTA on the grant selection and prioritization process could improve the understanding of all stakeholders (local and state)
|
From page 9... ...
There was concern expressed by some planning organizations interviewed that providers do not always see the benefit of coordinated planning efforts, given the distinction between the planning process and the grant approval and disbursement process. Those interviewed felt that federal guidance that strengthened the link between the planning process and the grants would be appreciated by both the planning organizations and the service providers; this could be accomplished by providing more technical advice, tying grant money to performance measures, and rewarding cooperative efforts.
|
From page 10... ...
Perceived Success of the Public Transportation/ Human Services Coordination Plans The first section of the Internet survey focused on the perceived success of the Coordination Plans, specifically in meeting FTA goals, as well as state and/or local goals. The survey attempted to identify lead participants in the Coordination Plans, the level of success achieved, and whether this level of success could have been achieved without the plans.
|
From page 11... ...
State or Local Goals. In determining whether additional state or local goals were met as a result of the federally required Coordination Plans, the survey first explored whether states had any local and/or state planning requirements already in place that were used to satisfy the federal requirement.
|
From page 12... ...
: • State coordination, rather than local • Tied coordination plans to funding • Mobility Management projects in areas without transit • Developed regional coordination councils • Interagency Committee on Special Transportation goals • Governor created transportation committee • Did not have state/local specific goals • Demand response state-funded program • 5317 provides alternative to paratransit While additional state and local goals have been met by the federal Coordination Plan requirement, only 26 percent of respondents indicated that the plans have led to additional state funds being allocated to public transit. Of the five respondents who stated that additional funds were allocated, two indicated that the additional funding was an indirect result of having the right people involved in the planning process, which fostered the identification of other sources of matching funds.
|
From page 13... ...
. The survey respondents acknowledged that the level of commitment/participation in the development of the Coordination Plans has been relatively strong at both the state and local levels.
|
From page 14... ...
State provided template Some conflict of interest with local agencies and funding Not enough funding to engage locals Non-transportation agencies informed but not involved FTA guidelines too specific for local agencies Impossible to include all stakeholders State paid for and supported planning 0 1 2 3 Consultant helped local agencies Varies by region State personnel reviewed the plans for compliance Number of Respondents Figure 9 Explanation of levels of commitment/participation at the state and local levels. state achieved the same level of coordination on transportation for the target populations before the federal requirements were introduced and whether the same program objectives could be achieved without the Coordination Plans.
|
From page 15... ...
that they did not have a similar state planning requirement; and one stated that coordination requires mandates. Cost of Public Transit/Human Services Coordination Plan Development This section of the Internet survey focused on the cost of developing the Coordination Plans, specifically in terms of a dollar amount and/or time spent on the initial plan development and maintaining the plans.
|
From page 16... ...
Source of Funding for Coordination Plans. The primary sources of funds for the development of the Coordination Plans for the responding states were federal planning/administrative funds (48 percent)
|
From page 17... ...
The majority of survey respondents (68 percent) did not identify additional implementation costs or issues with the preparation of the Coordination Plans.
|
From page 18... ...
The survey attempted to identify the level of success in awarding the grants, the type of projects receiving the grants, how/if the Coordination Plans have improved grant awards, and concerns associated with the grant programs. All 21 survey respondents completed this section of the survey.
|
From page 19... ...
What types of recipients have received Section 5316 JARC funding? Private Contractors Regional Transportation Partnership Urban Transit Agency Tribes Human Services and Public Transportation Agencies Rural Agency Non-Profit Agency Transit Agency 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5311 Agencies Cities County Action Agencies For Profit Agency Number of Respondents Figure 19 JARC grant recipients.
|
From page 20... ...
What types of projects have received Section 5316 JARC funding? Medical Purchase of Rides Vanpool Rural Connectivity Mobility Management Low-income Capital Purchases Operating Funds Work-related Expanded Service 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Entertainment Demand Response Educational Number of Respondents Figure 21 JARC projects.
|
From page 21... ...
have actually had JARC or NF grants expire before they could be obligated. Some recipients provided multiple explanations for the expiration, but the most common reasons for the lapses were limited project requests, lack of eligible projects, and lack of matching funds, as shown in Figure 24.
|
From page 22... ...
Research indicated that there are some general concerns with the JARC and NF grant programs that are perceived to make it more difficult to obligate these funds, including: • Lack of understating what types of projects are eligible for these grants • Difficulty in designating entities to administer the grants • Competitive selection process requirement • Local matching requirements • Limited size of the programs • Reluctance to start new services with these funds The survey results, however, revealed that in general there is an understanding of the types of projects that are eligible for these grants and that the states have not had great difficulty in designating entities to administer the grants. Of the 21 respondents, 86 percent felt that there is an understanding of the types of projects eligible for JARC funding and 71 percent felt that there is a similar understanding for NF projects.
|
From page 23... ...
stated it was the ability of the state and/or local regions to provide matching funds. One respondent selected "other," but explained that the ability to find state/local matching funds and the need to reprogram matching funds from existing uses were equally important.
|
From page 24... ...
. Conclusions The "Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Program" Internet survey completed by 21 state DOTs highlights several areas where the Coordination Plans have been relatively successful, such as in enhancing transportation access for target populations, increasing commitment/participation in the plan development at both the state and local levels, improving coordination, and creating a general understanding of eligible JARC and NF grants.
|
From page 25... ...
After a review of the 21 survey responses, a draft list of six states to contact for further interviews was developed for the panel's review based on the following: • Willingness to participate • Mix of rural and urban areas • Level of success of Coordination Plans • Whether the state already had state/local requirements for Coordination Plans • Level of participation in the planning process • Ability to achieve the same level of coordination without the federal requirement • Ability to achieve the same program objectives without the requirement • Amount of money being spent on the plans • Issues in awarding JARC funds • Issues in awarding NF funds • Expiration of any JARC or NF funds • Reluctance to start new services with JARC and NF funds Every attempt was made to include a mix of states that represented a diversity of geographic locations, urban and rural areas, varying levels of success in developing Coordination Plans, states where state/local requirements were already in place, states where 25 What suggestions do you have to improve the use and management of the Section 5316 and 5317 grant programs that could be considered as part of Reauthorization? Consolidate with 5307, 5311 End the local coordinated plan Eliminate obligation by population size Lessen restrictions Lower the operating match Consolidate with 5311 Consolidate with 5310 and 5311 Combine 5316 and 5317 Increase funds Consolidate with 5310 0 1 2 3 4 Allow moving funds from area to area Better coordination between 5316 and 5317 Consolidate with 5309, 5310, 5311 Combine 5317 and 5310 Consolidate with 5307, 5310, 5311 Number of Respondents Figure 28 Responses on improving the use and management of JARC and NF grant programs.
|
From page 26... ...
As part of the development of the Coordination Plans, the state provided funding for local communities to begin the process, technical support, and assistance with multijurisdictional planning. Ohio has had average success in awarding JARC and NF funds; matching funds is an issue.
|
From page 27... ...
States Mix of rural and urban areas Think Plans are at least moderately successful in meeting FTA goals Already had state/local requirements Perceive at least a moderate level of participation Believe the same level of coordination achieved without the federal requirement Believe they achieve the same program objectives without the plans Amount of money being spent on initial plans Perceive additional administrative burden Issues in awarding JARC funds Issues in awarding NF funds Have had JARC or NF Funds Expire Reluctance to start new service with JARC and NF funds Case study in previous NCHRP Coordinated Plans Study Willingness to participate R e c o m m e n d e d Missouri Yes Yes No No No No $500,001$750,000 Yes Reduced grants with SAFETEALU Yes No Yes No Yes Ohio Yes No No Yes No Yes $500,001$1,000,000 Yes No No No No No Yes Pennsylvania Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Less than $250,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes South Carolina Yes No Yes Yes No No Less than $250,000 Yes Yes Yes No, but close No No Yes Virginia Yes Yes No Yes No No $500,001$1,000,000 Yes Yes No No No No Yes Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes $500,001$750,000 No No A few No No No Yes O t h e r s C o n s i d e r e d Alaska More rural No Yes No No No $250,001$500,000 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Connecticut Yes No No No Yes Yes Less than $250,000 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes New Hampshire More rural No No Yes No Yes Less than $250,000 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Minnesota Yes No No Yes No No Less than $250,000 No No No No Yes No Yes Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes $500,001$1,000,000 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Table 4 States considered for telephone interviews.
|
From page 28... ...
Determining the extent to which the respondents believe coordinated public transit/human services transportation plans have met FTA goals of enhancing transportation access, minimizing duplication of services, and facilitating the most appropriate and cost-effective transportation possible with available resources; and 2. Ascertaining the cost of developing and maintaining these Coordination Plans (in terms of time and money)
|
From page 29... ...
Interview Topic Area Meramec Regional Planning Commission A rural regional planning commission Mr. Goodcents Foundation1 A public interest group Mid-America Regional Council of Governments1 A nonprofit urban MPO Southeast Missouri Transportation Services A non-profit general public transportation service Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; coordination did not exist prior to the plan.
|
From page 30... ...
Table 8 Pennsylvania interview summaries. Interview Topic Area Licking County Area Transportation Study A small urban MPO east of the Columbus metropolitan region Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Council A small urban MPO in Northwestern Ohio Delaware Area Transit Agency (DATA)
|
From page 31... ...
An urban transit agency Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Commission A rural planning district commission RADAR A rural non-profit Human Services Transportation provider Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans "Very positive" outcomes for interagency collaboration and service provision. "Big benefit" to the regional commission, plan requirements and the NF funding critical to improving human services transportation.
|
From page 32... ...
In addition, the respondents expressed concern that the Coordination Plan, when taken at face value, has decreased the availability of 5310 funds in Ohio due to a misunderstanding about the existing human services transportation fleets. 32 Interview Topic Area People For People A rural non-profit Human Services Transportation provider Puget Sound Regional Council A large urban MPO Thurston Regional Planning Commission A small urban and regional MPO Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; increased coordination; JARC and NF funded programs successful.
|
From page 33... ...
Respondents expressed concern over the sustainability of local funds for many projects, leading to a bias toward capital projects rather than operating assistance in grant proposals for Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 funding in the state. The agencies interviewed believe that the requirements for NF and JARC projects, and the dim forecast for local match, is leading to many projects being scaled back and proposals not being submitted.
|
From page 34... ...
An urban transit agency reported that the Coordination Plan was redundant with existing coordination framework. Have increased visibility of human services transportation needs with county and state officials.
|
From page 35... ...
State provides a stable source for matching grant funding for capital projects, but there is a lack of local grant matching funds for operating projects. Local match required, and recipients are considering cutbacks in service.
|
From page 36... ...
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington indicated that the plans built upon existing co36 Interview Topic Area Missouri Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia Washington Major Concerns Expressed Changing NF requirements caused confusion. Funding is very limited, projects don't reach new populations or meet demand for services.
|
From page 37... ...
Major Concerns/Desired Changes Expressed. A consistent area of concern expressed by the states interviewed was the desire to remove the local match requirement due to the difficulty in identifying and sustaining local matching funds.
|
From page 38... ...
In the allocation of Section 5310, 5316, and 5317 grants, state DOTs primarily serve as intermediaries between regional or local planning organizations and transportation providers and the FTA. However, large urban MPOs and transit agencies develop their own plans and work directly with the FTA.
|
From page 39... ...
Most metropolitan and regional organizations interviewed were involved in human services trans39 Interview Topic Area Missouri Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia Washington Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; coordination did not exist prior to the plan. Effective; prior to the Coordination Plans there was an "Ohio Coordination Program" that would have been discontinued had the federal requirements not been implemented.
|
From page 40... ...
Several respondents believe that the participation of such groups makes some of the requirements for public meetings and publication of material redundant at the regional level, as the public's views have already been incorporated at the local level by the participating human services transportation organizations. The requirement for formal documentation of need and the collection of data is a concern expressed by many urban and regional planning organizations interviewed.
|
From page 41... ...
Desire standardized performance measures to reduce time spent on performance evaluation but ensure that performance is well tracked. Table 16 Agency comparison table (small urban MPOs)
|
From page 42... ...
Local government transportation operators are dependent on government funding for operation. Local matching funds must therefore be provided by 42 Interview Topic Area Meramec Regional Planning Commission A rural regional planning commission St.
|
From page 43... ...
Some respondents indicated that apprehension over the sustainability of local matching funds has led to service reductions and decisions against applying for FTA grants. Non-profits noted that the administrative costs of preparing grant applications are significant and 43 Interview Topic Area Hampton Roads Transit (HRT)
|
From page 44... ...
However, the current financial climate does not favor the introduction of new projects when support for existing programs is facing retrenchment, so while longer term growth is likely, growth in Section 5317 requests is unlikely to be significant over the next several years. 44 Interview Topic Area Town & Country Transit A rural transit agency Armstrong County, PA Delaware Area Transit Agency A rural transit agency Delaware County, OH Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective.
|
From page 45... ...
A rural non-profit Lycoming and Clinton Counties, PA People For People A rural non-profit Human Services Transportation provider Yakima, WA RADAR A rural non-profit Human Services Transportation provider Roanoke, VA Perceived Efficacy of the Coordination Plans Effective; aided in the marketing of services. Effective Effective; increased coordination and JARC and NF funded programs were successful.
|
From page 46... ...
There was general agreement by those interviewed that uncertainty in funding is a significant issue, both uncertainty of the federal funds and local matching funds. In Missouri, the non-profit group Southeast Missouri Transportation Services (SMTS)
|
From page 47... ...
In addition, Washington State now has state programs that make use of the same planning requirements as the federal programs. Pennsylvania DOT commented that they believe the new programs have changed some of the focus of metropolitan and regional planning organizations from highway to transit.
|
From page 48... ...
In general, however, most projects implemented by those interviewed have become relatively permanent, in some cases being incorporated into fixedroute service or taken over by private operators. Conclusions Many general conclusions about the perceived success of the Coordination Plans, the level of effort that it takes to create them, the types of programs that are funded with the grant programs, and the concerns held by the interviewees are addressed throughout this document, particularly in the following sections: Cross-State Comparison of Interview Results, Responses by Agency Type, and Summary of Comments Received from Telephone Interviews.
|
From page 49... ...
Planning organizations observed that the multiple levels of prioritization and project selection may interfere with transparency to local officials and stakeholders, which would adversely impact commitment and perceived benefits of the coordinated planning process. Respondents noted that the year it can take between grant application and receipt of funds also impacts the link between planning efforts and the projects.
|
From page 50... ...
Summary of JARC and NF Programs Tables 21 and 22 summarize the total appropriated funds (for all states and urbanized area designated recipients) for the JARC and NF grant programs for FY 2006 through FY 2008.
|
From page 51... ...
state detail for each year, but rather talks about the obligations in general and includes data on those states and UZAs that had FY 2006 JARC funds lapse. As shown in Table 21, the states and urbanized areas have obligated (or transferred out)
|
From page 52... ...
52 Service Area Allocated Amount Lapsed Amount Lapsed % Large Urbanized Areas Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastian, PR $ 530,843 $ 530,843 100% Austin, TX $ 406,084 $ 406,084 100% Bakersfield, CA $ 318,265 $ 238,265 75% Barnstable Town, MA $ 75,115 $ 14,105 19% Columbia, SC $ 191,671 $ 191,671 100% Columbus, GA-AL $ 487,856 $ 149,168 31% Daytona Beach-Port Orange, FL $ 136,539 $ 136,539 100% Durham, NC $ 152,453 $ 18,975 12% Fayetteville, NC $ 152,079 $ 152,079 100% Greenville, SC $ 154,803 $ 154,803 100% Gulfport-Biloxi, MS $ 116,718 $ 116,718 100% Harrisburg, PA $ 118,352 $ 118,352 100% Honolulu, HI $ 296,056 $ 296,056 100% Jackson, MS $ 188,181 $ 188,181 100% Lexington-Fayette, KY $ 125,080 $ 125,080 100% Miami, FL $ 2,798,658 $ 2,798,658 100% Milwaukee, WI $ 586,353 $ 307,613 52% Mission Viejo, CA $ 110,760 $ 110,760 100% Palm Bay-Melbourne, FL $ 162,591 $ 162,591 100% Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD $ 2,177,282 $ 156,161 7% Port St. Lucie, FL $ 134,102 $ 134,102 100% Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY $ 138,244 $ 138,244 100% Reading, PA $ 108,520 $ 108,520 100% Richmond, VA $ 325,063 $ 292,557 90% Riverside-San Bernadino, CA $ 1,025,531 $ 347,894 34% San Juan, PR $ 3,175,710 $ 3,175,710 100% Spokane, WA-ID $ 178,704 $ 178,704 100% Victorville-Hesperia-Apple Valley, CA $ 130,784 $ 130,784 100% Total Large Urbanized Areas with Lapsed Funds $ 14,502,397 $ 10,879,217 75% Total All Large Urbanized Areas $ 81,972,000 $ 10,879,217 13% Small Urbanized Areas (State)
|
From page 53... ...
53 Apportionments Obligations Total Obligations % Obligated State 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006-2007 2006-2007 Alabama2 $ 1,428,410 $ 1,549,415 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Alaska $ 104,035 $ 116,682 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Arizona $ 1,361,883 $ 1,412,997 $ - $ 803,237 $ 803,237 28.9% Arkansas2 $ 1,004,603 $ 1,103,232 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% California $ 9,674,000 $ 10,241,457 $ 352,141 $ 1,608,351 $ 1,960,492 9.8% Colorado $ 1,058,292 $ 1,088,537 $ 472,048 $ - $ 472,048 22.0% Connecticut2 $ 6,963,755 $ 7,012,164 $ - $ 580,703 $ 580,703 4.2% Delaware2 $ 1,606,049 $ 1,581,231 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Florida2 $ 5,187,295 $ 5,697,223 $ 314,866 $ - $ 314,866 2.9% Georgia2 $ 2,463,121 $ 2,337,923 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Hawaii $ 289,784 $ 310,637 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Idaho2 $ 395,970 $ 434,827 $ - $ 10,552 $ 10,552 1.3% Illinois2 $ 4,112,410 $ 3,902,883 $ - $ 2,260,880 $ 2,260,880 28.2% Indiana2 $ 4,426,496 $ 4,399,392 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Iowa2 $ 819,690 $ 831,970 $ - $ 643,830 $ 643,830 39.0% Kansas2 $ 796,948 $ 842,226 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Kentucky2 $ 1,263,595 $ 1,541,572 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Louisiana $ 1,277,422 $ 1,399,660 $ 78,723 $ - $ 78,723 2.9% Maine $ 294,926 $ 353,257 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Maryland2 $ 3,625,637 $ 3,495,840 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Massachusetts2 $ 2,179,355 $ 2,198,497 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Michigan2 $ 2,962,718 $ 2,970,668 $ - $ 61,525 $ 61,525 1.0% Minnesota $ 951,281 $ 980,199 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Mississippi2 $ 955,515 $ 1,003,230 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Missouri2 $ 1,553,940 $ 1,627,581 $ - $ 120,279 $ 120,279 3.8% Montana $ 215,173 $ 222,185 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Nebraska2 $ 327,448 $ 346,509 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Nevada $ 527,671 $ 607,306 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% New Hampshire2 $ 1,534,771 $ 1,463,289 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% New Jersey2 $ 7,670,901 $ 7,718,454 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% New Mexico2 $ 560,598 $ 689,698 $ 51,249 $ 14,700 $ 65,949 5.3% New York2 $ 7,519,513 $ 7,710,296 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% North Carolina2 $ 2,131,719 $ 2,249,643 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% North Dakota $ 146,896 $ 164,289 $ - $ 51,343 $ 51,343 16.5% Ohio2 $ 2,819,825 $ 3,047,964 $ - $ 273,133 $ 273,133 4.7% Oklahoma $ 779,289 $ 882,760 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Oregon2 $ 826,913 $ 935,545 $ - $ 670,298 $ 670,298 38.0% Pennsylvania2 $ 3,921,041 $ 3,873,010 $ - $ 80,000 $ 80,000 1.0% Puerto Rico $ 1,325,846 $ 1,842,071 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Rhode Island2 $ 1,547,940 $ 1,522,115 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% South Carolina2 $ 1,358,241 $ 1,468,798 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% South Dakota $ 165,571 $ 172,368 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Tennessee2 $ 1,524,684 $ 1,732,247 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Texas2 $ 5,616,227 $ 5,917,447 $ - $ 500,280 $ 500,280 4.3% Utah $ 426,158 $ 479,139 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Vermont $ 118,817 $ 123,475 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Virginia2 $ 2,421,710 $ 2,352,142 $ - $ 73,036 $ 73,036 1.5% Washington2 $ 1,858,731 $ 2,029,587 $ - $ 1,272,783 $ 1,272,783 32.7% West Virginia $ 530,542 $ 620,419 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Wisconsin2 $ 1,377,298 $ 1,354,055 $ - $ - $ - 0.0% Wyoming $ 99,830 $ 119,156 $ - $ 218,986 $ 218,986 100.0% Total2 $ 104,110,483 $ 108,077,267 $ 1,269,027 $ 9,243,916 $ 10,512,943 5.0% Program Total $ 77,200,000 $ 81,000,000 6.6% Duplicated Urban Area Funds $ 26,910,483 $ 27,077,267 1Please note that while the percentage of NF funds obligated by the end of FY 2007 was only 6.6 percent, by the end of FY 2008, an additional $87.6 million of FY 2006 and FY 2007 NF appropriations was obligated, bringing the percentage of FY 2006 and FY 2007 appropriations that had been obligated up to 62 percent. 2Note that the apportionments for each state include money designated for urban areas.
|
From page 54... ...
Since many state DOTs do not announce the availability of funds or begin the competitive process until the annual federal apportionments are published, further delays in JARC and NF obligations are possible. CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS The findings from the Internet survey of state DOTs and the telephone interviews with local coordinated planning participants in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington helped identify the perceived costs and benefits associated with the human services transportation Coordination Plans and grant programs.
|
From page 55... ...
One respondent indicated that they are not allowed to expand staff, even if the position is 100 percent grant funded. The primary sources of funding for the development of the Coordination Plans for the responding state DOTs were federal planning/administrative funds (48 percent)
|
From page 56... ...
Successes Associated with Human Services Transportation Plans and Grant Programs The study attempted to determine the perceived success associated with the development of the Coordination Plans, particularly in terms of meeting FTA's goals of enhancing transportation access for target populations, minimizing the duplication of human services transportation provided, and facilitating the most appropriate and cost-effect transportation possible. The perceived successful aspects of the coordinated planning process were gathered from state DOTs as part of the Internet survey and from local Coordination Plan participants during the telephone surveys.
|
From page 57... ...
While most of the respondents indicated that the level of coordination has improved after the federal requirement for the Coordination Plans, 62 percent of the responding DOTs believed that the same objectives could be met without the plans because several states already had coordinated planning requirements in place. However, two respondents indicated that the federal requirement sped up the coordinated planning process, and one indicated that coordination requires mandates.
|
From page 58... ...
Findings The Internet survey of state DOTs and the telephone interviews with local Coordination Plan participants conducted as part of this study resulted in the development of several findings in regards to the perceived accomplishment and effectiveness of Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plans, related requirements, and grant programs. The findings from respondents identified in the following section revolve around three central themes: flexibility, administrative responsibility, and transparency.
|
From page 59... ...
• Requests for additional federal guidance that strengthens the link between the planning process and grant funding. There was concern expressed by some planning organizations interviewed that providers do not always see the benefit of coordinated planning efforts, given the distinction between the planning process and the grant approval and disbursement process.
|
From page 60... ...
AARP Insight on the Issues 39: Policy Options to Improve Specialized Transportation, October 2009, p.15. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AAA Area Agency on Aging AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACRTA Allen County Regional Transit Authority ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AVL Automatic Vehicle Location BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality CMCOG Central Midlands Council of Governments COG Council of Government DATA Delaware Area Transit Agency DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise DOT Department of Transportation DRPT Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation DVRPC Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency FTA Federal Transit Administration FY Fiscal Year GAO United States Government Accounting Office GPS Global Positioning System HHS United States Department of Health and Human Services HRPDC Hampton Roads Planning District Commission HRT Hampton Roads Transit HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IRS United States Internal Revenue Service IT Information Technology JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute KCATA Kansas City Area Transportation Authority LACRPC Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission LCATS Licking County Area Transportation Study LCPC Lycoming County Planning Commission LOS Level of Service LSCOG Lower Savannah Council of Governments MARC Mid-America Regional Council of Governments MoDOT Missouri Department of Transportation MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MRPC Meramec Regional Planning Commission MSAA Mobility Services for All Americans NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NF New Freedom 60
|
From page 61... ...
NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRHA Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation PDC Planning District Commission PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council PWD Persons with Disabilities QUADCO Quad-County Regional Transportation Planning Organization RPC Rural Planning Commission RPO Rural Planning Organization RRRC Rappahannock-Rapidan Regional Council RTMA Regional Transit Management Agency RTPO Regional Transportation Planning Organization SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SCDOT South Carolina Department of Transportation Section 5310 Transportation for Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Grant Program Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant Program Section 5317 New Freedom Grant Program SLRCOG Santee-Lynches Regional Council of Governments SMTS Southeast Missouri Transportation Services SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority STEP Success Through Engagement and Partnership STP Surface Transportation Program TACT Town & Country Transit TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TMA Transportation Management Area or Agency TRB Transportation Research Board TRPC Thurston Regional Planning Council USDOT United States Department of Transportation UWR United We Ride UZA Urbanized Areas VRT Virginia Regional Transit WAT Williamsburg Area Transit WIB Workforce Investment Board WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation APPENDICES A, B, AND C Appendices A, B, and C as submitted by the contractor are not published herein. The titles of the appendices are as follows: APPENDIX A: Blank Internet Survey Form APPENDIX B: Telephone Interview Questionnaire APPENDIX C: Detailed Telephone Interview Summaries These three appendices are available online at http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165471.aspx.
|
From page 62... ...
Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 These digests are issued in order to increase awareness of research results emanating from projects in the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP)
|
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.