Rural Transit Achievements: Assessing the Outcomes of Increased Funding for Rural Passenger Services under SAFETEA-LU (2009)

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.

22 EFFECT OF INCREASED FUNDING ON RURAL PUBLIC AND INTERCITY BUS How Increased Funding Has Affected Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation. How Have Services Improved? The increase in funding outlined above has allowed the states and local operators to provide more service. In addition, SAFETEA-LU resulted in changes to state programs. State Programs Changes All states were impacted by the changes in SAFETEA-LU. The role of the states increased as new programs have come on-line. At the same time, SAFETEA-LU increased the administrative functions needed for existing programs. Eighty-six percent of the states indicate that they have made changes to their rural and intercity bus transportation programs since SAFETEA-LU was authorized in August 2005. Almost all of these changes were a result of the increases in funding that came with SAFETEA-LU. State report programmatic changes to revise allocation formulas; increasing the ability to fund new programs and projects. These changes have allowed for: • Increases to service in area that were being served (for example, South Dakota created a new service on The Standing Rock Reservation that reduces the travel from Rapid City to Bismarck from 33 to 8 hours). • Given transit agencies the ability to increase salaries for drivers resulting in lower turnover and more professional staff, • Addition of programs in additional rural areas that they could not afford to fund before SAFETEA-LU (for example, Montana increased the number of rural providers from 9 providers to 33), • Increase coordination with human service programs – having something to offer, such as additional funding and services, • Made facilities, ITS and mobility management expenses eligible for funding It should be noted that some states have had to adjust the programs to cover the losses in funding to their states over the past few years:

23 • Decrease in JARC funding - decrease in funding available to them when JARC was formularized. Some states have used their increase in Section 5311 funding for employment related transportation to make up for lost JARC funding. • Loss of Capital Earmarks - other states have had to make use of increases in Section 5311 funding to cover the absence of Section 5309 capital funding earmarks in FY07. Some states report that the increases in federal funds have been accompanied by increases in state funds for new rural transit programs. For example, Wisconsin received (state) funding for a special pilot project called the Supplemental Transportation Assistance Program (STRAP) which provides approximately $2M a year for 4 years to test the concept of funding rural transportation at 80% of the deficit versus the 50% allowed under Section 5311. Some states are now using more of what they are allowed under Section 5311 for state administrative expenses. This was possible because increases in Section 5311 funding allowed states to use some dollars for administrative functions and still increase operating subsidies to rural operators. Some states report changing or restructuring their Intercity Bus programs. This may be a result of renewed interest in the provision of intercity bus, probably as a result of the increased funding, but may also be due to the reinforcement of the consultation process under SAFETEA-LU. Other states are creating intercity bus programs for the first time. For example, prior to FY 2007, the Governor of Alabama certified that intercity bus needs were being adequately met. But, as a result of termination of intercity bus services to many rural areas in the state, Alabama has begun to program 15% of its rural transit budget for intercity services. FY 2008 was the initial intercity program cycle. Some states are increasing training and improved service planning. Most have been involved in the preparation of locally-developed coordination plans required in the law; by initiating the planning effort, training local entities. and/or merely participating in the local planning process. How Increased Funding is Being Used States are using the increased funding in a variety of ways. Most states are both increasing funding for existing programs and creating new services.

24 Section 5311 All of the states indicate they used increased funding to improve service levels on existing services; yet only one state used 100% of their increase for this purpose. The remaining states used at least some of their increased funding to create new services or projects. This indicates that services have been created to serve people who did not have access to transit prior to SAFETEA-LU. Most states also used some funding to replace existing vehicles, thereby using some of their increased funding to decrease the age of the transit fleet in their State. Most used some portion, albeit a small portion, on improving transit facilities. Finally, a few states used a substantial portion of their increases to maintain existing transit services, covering the increased operating costs for fuel, insurance, etc. (Table 11). Section 5310 While the states used their increases in Section 5310 for a variety of purposes, most replaced existing vehicles. Again, SAFETEA-LU funding increases allowed the states to reduce the age of the Section 5310 fleets (Table 12). Section 5311 1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 60-80% 81-99% 100% Create new transit services 12 1 0 0 0 1 14 93% Improve existing services 7 4 2 1 0 1 15 100% Replace existing vehicles 7 3 1 0 0 0 11 73% Improve transit facilities 9 3 0 0 0 0 12 80% Other* 0 1 3 0 0 0 4 27% How Increased Section 5311 Funding Used Total Percent Percentage of Increased Funding Used Section 5310 1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 60-80% 81-99% 100% Create new transit services 6 2 0 0 0 0 8 62% Improve existing services 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 31% Replace existing vehicles 2 1 0 3 3 2 11 85% Improve transit facilities 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 8% Other 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 15% Table 12 State Survey How Increased Section 5310 Funding Used Total Percent Percentage of Increased Funding Used Table 11 State Survey *Other: generally to maintain existing service levels, especially in light in of increased cost for fuel, insurance, other operating costs.

25 Section 5311(f) As with Section 5311, the states used their increases in Section 5311(f) for a variety of purposes but for the intercity bus program, most of the increases were used to create new programs. This is evidenced by the fact that many states have said that the increase in funding allowed them to create a new intercity bus program or solicit new projects without taking funds from rural public transit (Table 13). JARC and New Freedom The JARC program is new for some states and the New Freedom program was new to all states since SAFETEA-LU. For the ten states with significant implementation to date, the programs have been growing since 2007 (shown in Table 14). Section 5311(f) 1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 60-80% 81-99% 100% Create new transit services 2 4 0 0 0 0 6 67% Improve existing services 4 2 0 1 0 0 7 54% Replace existing vehicles 3 1 0 1 0 1 6 46% Improve transit facilities 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 31% Other 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 15% Total Percent Percentage of Increased Funding Used Table 13: State Survey How Increased Section 5311(f) Funding Used Fiscal Year No. Grantees No. Projects No. Grantees No. Projects SFY 2004 40 41 SFY 2005 37 38 SFY 2006 49 49 SFY 2007 73 74 7 17 SFY 2008 77 86 26 47 SFY 2009 85 103 50 70 Table 14: State Survey Number of Grantees S.5317 (NF) (n=10)S.5316 (JARC) (n=10) Program

26 Impacts of Funding on Service Levels Clearly, with the new SAFETEA-LU funding, additional non-urbanized areas have rural transit services. While data on the number of county services prior to 2006/SAFELEA-LU are not available, the FTA program performance measurement document indicates that the 1994 baseline was 60% of all counties had rural public transit service. As discussed above, NTD indicates that there were 1,326 rural transit operators in 2006 and 1,325 rural operators in 2007 serving 2,233 and 2,275 counties, respectively. This represents about 71-72% of all counties in the US. The research team for this project prepared a list and maps for 2008 showing that 2,421 counties are served with S.5311, S.5316, and S.5317 programs (over 77% of all counties). Counties Served by Rural Transit Service As the project evolved it became clear that a national map of counties with rural transit would be valuable to inform the discussion of the future of transit in these areas. Creation of such a map was a challenge since no national lists of rural transit operators included the counties served. For example, the 2007 NTD only includes the addresses of the rural transit providers, so mapping this data would only capture the agency’s home county (the 2006 NTD data on counties served was a start, but not complete). And, while the 2007 Rural Transit Operators Directory, prepared by RLS & Associates for the Rural Transit Assistance Program and Community Transportation Association of America includes addresses for 1,489 rural transit providers, it does not include service area coverage. To develop the map, we started with the 2006 NTD data in which many of the states listed the counties served. We then followed-up with the states via e-mail and telephone calls as needed. Figure 2 includes a map of counties with rural transit services which includes confirmed data most states. The map includes those counties with rural public transit funded under S.5311, S.5316, S.5317, and state rural transit programs.6 While the map doesn’t show the actual service areas of the rural systems, the approach identifies all the counties with some type of service, even if the entire county is not served. Unfortunately, the map does not indicate any level of service (we 6 The map doesn’t necessarily link directly to NTD for a number of reasons. First, while we attempted to include only those counties with S.5311, S.5316, S.5317, a few States included counties with only S.5310 (some but not all states made the distinction for us). However, looking at the data in more depth, it appears that there are only a few Section 5310-only counties are shaded. Second, the map includes counties with rural transit systems funded through their state-only transit programs (e.g., PA’s rural shared-ride program, the WI STRAP program).

TX CA MT AZ NV ID CO NM OR KS UT WY IL SD NE FL IA MN OK ND AL GA WA WI MO AR LA NC PA NY MS KY IN TN MI VA OH SC ME WV VT NH NJ MD AK MA CT DE RI Legend Urbanized Areas (US Census 2000) 2008 Surveyed Data* US Counties Served by Rural Transit US Counties not Served by Rural Transit AK HI Figure 2:Counties in the United States with Rural Transit (2008) M E X I C O C A N A D A 0 200 400100 Miles T H EB A H A M A S C U B A P A C I F I C O C E A N A T L A N T I C O C E A N G U L F O F M E X I C O 27 *Note: Results for Two States (MA & NJ) are based upon 2006 NTD Data

28 know that some counties are served only once or twice a week). Readers are referred to 2007 Rural Transit Operators Director which can be found at http://www.linkingcommunities.com/user_media/23608/backup%20of%20rural%20s tatus%20report-2007.pdf. Services Increases – Existing Programs As was shown in Table 10, based on the 21 States responding to the survey, service levels have increased along with funding. Section 5311: Section 5311 operators provide about 115M trips to rural residents annually. Along with increases in funding during the period from 2005 – 2008, based on our survey of the states, Section 5311 providers increased the annual number of passenger trips provided by 13% and increased the number of vehicles being operated by 16%. From the NTD data, between 2006 and 2007, there was only a slight increase in the number of trips provided (however, the 2006 data may not be accurate as this was the first year of reporting). States report that a portion of the increases in S.5311 funding was used to offset increases in fuel, insurance, and other operating costs. Section 5310: It is estimated that the Section 5310 program has facilitated the purchase of about 10,000 – 14,000 vehicles currently being used to serve the elderly and persons with disabilities (in both urban and rural areas), as well as purchase of service in selected states. Based on our survey of the states, these vehicles are used to provide about 20M – 28M trips annually. While actual spending increased from 2005-2008, at least for the states responding to the survey, the number of trips provided remained stable and the number of vehicles purchased only increased 10%. This may reflect the need to reduce the age of the fleets (agencies may have been replacing really old equipment that was well past their useful life) as well as increases in the cost of equipment.7 One state reported that the increase in Section 5310 funding has merely allowed them to keep up with the increase in the cost of equipment. Section 5311(f): Spending for intercity service under Section 5311(f) has also grown, although the number of trips provided is known only for 2007 (from the NTD database). In FY07, the reporters under rural NTD provided almost 3M unlinked passenger trips and 20.4M vehicles miles provided. From our survey of the states, dollars spent on Section 5311(f) increased 67% since SAFETEA-LU (2005 – 2008) while trips have increased 28% and vehicles have increased 34%. 7 The unit cost of a vehicle under the Section 5310 program increased about 17% from 2004 to 2006.

29 Section 5316 (JARC): As noted above, the impact of SAFETEA-LU on JARC program has been mixed. While funding for the program increased overall, the impact of state programs has depended on whether the state was receiving more funding while the program was still discretionary. Those states that saw a decrease in funding due to formulization, either decreased funding to local programs or, if possible, used other Section 5311 or state funds to backfill in their efforts to maintain services. Those states that received JARC funding for the first time under SAFETEA-LU increased services, but not until FY 2007. However, unquestionably, the JARC program has benefited its intended users. Based on our survey of the states, there was a 62% increase in JARC ridership from 2005 – 2008. The most recent analysis of FY 2005 grantee data estimates that JARC-funded services provided access to approximately 95,400 employment sites and provided 14.1M one-way trips. Grantees reported a total of 645 active JARC-funded services for FY 2006 (25% in rural areas). For FY 2006, it is estimated that JARC-supported services provided 22.9M one-way trips (Table 15). The DOT Performance and Assessment Report (PAR) Performance Measure shows: Table 15 Number of Employment Sites (in Thousands) That Are Made Accessible by JARC Transportation 2004 2005 2006 2007 Target 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Actual 82.8 95.4 91.2* 95.4* * Preliminary estimate. Associated FY 2007 Funding - $144M. Further, in October 2007, the FTA released Connecting People to Employment8 which found that, overall (usable data from urban and rural services combined) per one-way trip reported, each JARC demand-response service reached 7.23 total jobs and 3.98 low-wage jobs, while each fixed-route service reached 1.21 total jobs and .55 low- wage jobs (page 30). The data used in this study showed that, in rural areas, 55% of trips were provided on fixed-route service, 38% of trips were provided on demand- response service, with flexible routes (6%) and user-side subsidy programs (1%) providing the remainder of trips (page 28). 8 Connecting People to Employment: An Evaluation of Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Services Provided in 2006, prepared by Automated Communication System, Inc. and Transystems, and Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) FY 2006 Service Profiles: Technical Memorandum, prepared by Automated Communication System, Inc. (http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_7175.html).

30 Finally, the Economic Benefits of Employment Transportation, June 2008 (University of Chicago for FTA) showed that: • Average cost per ride = $11.40 • Every dollar of program costs = return of $1.90 in net economic gain to user; return of $3 for society as a whole • Employment transportation programs are likely to jump-start a wage growth trajectory that may persist over the individual’s lifetime. Net return on $1 is $15 in future over work life Service Increases - New Programs It is important to note that, according to the FTA website as of May 2008, there were ten states which had not yet designated the state-level recipient for New Freedom or JARC for nonurbanized areas. Since the designated recipient is responsible for conducting the competitive selection process for New Freedom funds and applying to FTA for funding, these ten states would not yet have benefited from the program. As of March 2009, all states have designated recipients for JARC/New Freedom. (The list of designated recipients is attached as Appendix D. Source: http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_7405.html). Also, FTA published Federal guidance on the Section 5310, JARC, and New Freedom programs on March 29, 2007. These guidance circulars outlined the requirements related to the locally developed, coordinated public transit human services transportation plans from which priorities for selecting local subrecipients are determined. Section 5317 (New Freedom): Because this is a new program, very little data were available from the states since program dollars did not begin to reach local transit agencies until 2007. Table 16 presents a list of local projects funded under New Freedom (FY 2006 and 2007) as of September 2007, based on “FY 2006 and 2007 New Freedom Projects awarded in Nonurbanized Areas” dated 9/30/2007 on the FTA website(http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_7633.html). The website also describes a sample of New Freedom grants that FTA awarded in Fiscal Year 2008 (this document is attached as Appendix E). New Freedom projects in this list include expanded dial-a-ride service, public information and outreach materials and activities, mobility management activities, vehicles purchased, employment transportation, medical transportation, increased accessibility to a community food bank vehicle, accessible taxi vehicles for a voucher

Table 16: FTA-Reported FY 2006 and FY 2007 New Freedom Projects Funded in Rural Areas as of September 2007 State Project Subrecipient Project Description* Funding New or Expanded Services Vehicles Mobility Management Public Awareness Materials and Activities Other AZ Arivaca Coordinating Council Resource Group (Pima County) Operations requested for local disabled, elderly/low income to service appointments not currently being provided. Operations: $18,530 X AZ Cobre Valley Transit (Gila County) Capital (rolling stock) request to transport disabled veterans to/from rural Miami/Globe communities to Phoenix medical/service centers. Capital: $36,000 Operations $22,274 X X AZ Cochise County/City of Sierra Vista Operating funds request to extend disabled service beyond city boundaries of service currently provided by S.5311. Operations: $42,541 X AZ Community Food Bank (rural Pima County) Capital Mobile market vehicle improvements to increase accessibility. Capital: $14,960 Operations: $18,036 X X AZ Maricopa County Human Services Dept Operations requested to provide employment transportation for disabled ADA certified persons in rural and unincorporated Maricopa County. Operations: $30,865 X AZ NAIPTA (Rural Coconino and Yavapai Counties) Rolling stock and operations requested for taxi voucher program in Verde Valley above current ADA requirements. Capital: $40,000 Operations: $106,211 X X CT Northwest CT Transit District Expanded dial-a-ride in Winsted, CT area, transportation public awareness campaign, new Sunday service, expanded dial-a-ride in Canaan, CT area. $34,461 Federal share X X 31

State Project Subrecipient Project Description* Funding New or Expanded Services Vehicles Mobility Management Public Awareness Materials and Activities Other CT Southeast Area Transit District Transportation Options Brochure and Website for Eastern CT. Windham, Tolland, and New London Counties. Car-based solutions for SSBG eligible with Disabilities for Eastern CT. Windham, Tolland, and New London Counties. $10,625 Federal share X X TX Fort Bend County Provision of new transportation services including route expansions, and initiation of new demand-response service where no fixed-route currently exists, which is beyond the ADA requirement. These projects also include travel attendant components and travel training components. The projects are also in conjunction with groups that primarily serve individuals with disabilities. $480,697 Federal share X X TX LULAC Project Amistad Provision of new transportation services including route expansions, and initiation of new demand-response service where no fixed-route currently exists, which is beyond the ADA requirement. These projects also include travel attendant components and travel training components. The projects are also in conjunction with groups that primarily serve individuals with disabilities. $567,690 Federal share X X WA Pierce County Community Services, Tacoma Providing assistance to staff, a mobility mgmt coordinator at the Pierce County Coordinated Transportation Coalition (PCCTC). This function will apply to the Rural areas of Pierce County. $50,000 Federal share X WA Pierce County Community Services, Tacoma Provide mobility mgmt assistance to create a transportation referral system for PCCTC to work with Pierce County United Way and appropriate transportation agencies in Pierce County. $83,750 Federal share X 32

State Project Subrecipient Project Description* Funding New or Expanded Services Vehicles Mobility Management Public Awareness Materials and Activities Other WA WSDOT Trip Planner Develop and implement a web-based public transportation itinerary planning system (Trip Planner) to assist persons in obtaining transportation to work and education facilities. $16,256 Federal share X WA Yakama Nation, Toppenish Provide assistance to hire a mobility management coordinator to educate the public on public, private, and rural transportation services and resources. $126,387 Federal share X X *Source of project descriptions: FY 2006 and 2007 New Freedom Projects Awarded in Nonurbanized Areas (As of 9/30/2007), http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/NF_Rural_projects.doc. 33

34 program, expansion of existing specialized services, and travel attendant and travel training services. Section 5311(c): Tribal Transit Program -The following project selection announcements and other reports released by the FTA on the website indicate program progress. Project selection announcements have been published in the Federal Register for the first three years of this program (Table 17): Table 17 FTA Reported Tribal Transit Projects Types of Project Awarded FY 2006 FY 2007 FY2008 Transit planning studies and/or operational planning $834,965 $399,963 $620,000 Startup projects for new transit service $3,168,681 $904,666 $557,500 Enhancements or expansion of existing transit services $3,916,354 $8,695,371 $10,822,500 Total $7,920,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 Total Number of Awardees 63 65 71 Sources: FY 2006, published April 4, 2007: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-6192.pdf FY 2007, published March 5, 2008: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-967.pdf FY2008, published December 19, 2008: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-30163.pdf Section 5320: Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Funding - Project selection announcements have been published in the Federal Register for the first three years of this program (Table 18): Table 18 FTA Reported Transit in the Parks Projects Types of Project Awarded FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 Boat/Ferry/Dock $120,000 $3,200,000 * Bus Operating and Capital $7,145,050 $9,718,773 * ITS (including bus-related) $665,000 $693,000 * Non-motorized (trail construction) 0 $1,000,000 * Park and Ride $582,579 0 * Planning Study $3,593,902 $3,917,417 * Railroad (including design and maintenance vehicle) $5,963,000 0 * Tram/Trolley $508,639 $1,259,650 * Total Amount Awarded $19,631,170 $19,788,840 $24,470,501 Total Number of Projects 42 46 52 *Project categorization not available.