Estimating the Long-Term Impacts of MAP-21 on the Nation's Local Rural Transit Bus Infrastructure (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 1-47
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... ...
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM June 2015 Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm-Smith ESTIMATING THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF MAP-21 ON THE NATION'S LOCAL RURAL TRANSIT BUS INFRASTRUCTURE This digest presents the results of an analysis of the long-term impacts of MAP-21 on the nation's rural transit infrastructure. This analysis includes a review of historical (since 2006)
|
From page 2... ...
2in particular, of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on its capital portfolio.
|
From page 3... ...
3ber 5, 2013, to gain clarity on the research scope and receive further direction for the overall research approach. The panel reviewed and commented upon the research team's revised work plan and the questions which guided subsequent interviews with select state DOT staff.
|
From page 4... ...
4programs, the one-time impact of funding under ARRA, and limitations in FTA's tracking of Section 5309 earmarked funds in rural areas allow for an examination of trends but limit an "apples-toapples" comparison. Additional information on federal, as well as state and local, investment in rural transit is presented in Chapter 3.
|
From page 5... ...
5annually by FTA to states as a single amount. Annual appropriated levels of Section 5311/5340 funding are provided in Figure 2-2, which also includes funding that states received for rural transit under ARRA.
|
From page 6... ...
6Maine $4.5 $4.8 $5.1 $5.4 $8.1 $5.4 $5.4 $5.4 $7.0 $6.8 Maryland $4.2 $4.4 $4.7 $5.0 $7.4 $5.0 $5.0 $5.0 $5.6 $5.5 Massachusetts $2.9 $3.1 $3.3 $3.5 $5.2 $3.5 $3.5 $3.5 $3.6 $3.6 Michigan $14.5 $15.2 $16.4 $17.2 $25.8 $17.2 $17.3 $17.2 $20.8 $20.6 Minnesota $10.6 $11.2 $12.1 $12.7 $19.0 $12.7 $12.8 $12.8 $15.3 $15.4 Mississippi $9.6 $10.1 $10.9 $11.5 $17.3 $11.5 $11.6 $11.6 $13.9 $14.0 Missouri $11.5 $12.2 $13.1 $13.8 $20.7 $13.8 $13.9 $13.9 $17.3 $17.5 Montana $6.3 $6.6 $7.1 $7.5 $11.3 $7.5 $7.5 $7.6 $9.8 $10.0 N Mariana Islands $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 $0.3 Nebraska $5.5 $5.8 $6.2 $6.5 $9.8 $6.5 $6.6 $6.6 $7.6 $7.6 Nevada $4.1 $4.3 $4.7 $4.9 $7.4 $4.9 $4.9 $4.9 $6.3 $6.4 New Hampshire $2.9 $3.1 $3.3 $3.5 $5.2 $3.5 $3.5 $3.5 $3.9 $3.9 New Jersey $2.7 $2.9 $3.1 $3.2 $4.8 $3.2 $3.2 $3.2 $4.0 $3.8 New Mexico $6.8 $7.2 $7.8 $8.2 $12.3 $8.2 $8.2 $8.2 $10.2 $10.3 New York $14.6 $15.4 $16.6 $17.5 $26.3 $17.5 $17.6 $17.6 $20.0 $20.5 North Carolina $18.3 $19.3 $20.9 $22.1 $33.1 $22.1 $22.2 $22.2 $25.8 $26.5 North Dakota $3.3 $3.5 $3.8 $4.0 $6.0 $4.0 $4.0 $4.0 $5.0 $5.1 Ohio $16.6 $17.5 $18.9 $19.9 $29.8 $19.9 $20.0 $20.0 $22.8 $22.8 Oklahoma $9.4 $9.9 $10.7 $11.3 $16.9 $11.3 $11.4 $11.4 $14.5 $14.7 Oregon $8.1 $8.6 $9.3 $9.8 $14.6 $9.8 $9.8 $9.8 $11.8 $11.9 Pennsylvania $16.8 $17.7 $19.1 $20.2 $30.2 $20.2 $20.3 $20.3 $21.5 $21.5 Puerto Rico $1.2 $1.2 $1.3 $1.4 $2.1 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.9 $1.9 Rhode Island $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.6 $0.9 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.8 South Carolina $9.2 $9.7 $10.5 $11.1 $16.6 $11.1 $11.1 $11.2 $12.4 $12.8 South Dakota $4.1 $4.3 $4.7 $4.9 $7.4 $4.9 $4.9 $4.9 $6.2 $6.4 Tennessee $11.7 $12.4 $13.4 $14.2 $21.2 $14.1 $14.2 $14.2 $18.2 $18.5 Texas $28.1 $29.7 $32.0 $33.8 $50.6 $33.8 $33.9 $34.0 $40.0 $40.9 Utah $4.0 $4.2 $4.6 $4.8 $7.3 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $6.2 $6.2 Vermont $2.2 $2.3 $2.5 $2.6 $3.9 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $3.4 $3.5 Virgin Islands $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Virginia $10.4 $10.9 $11.8 $12.4 $18.6 $12.4 $12.4 $12.5 $14.5 $15.0 Washington $7.9 $8.4 $9.1 $9.6 $14.3 $9.6 $9.6 $9.6 $12.2 $12.4 West Virginia $5.6 $5.9 $6.4 $6.7 $10.1 $6.7 $6.7 $6.8 $7.7 $7.7 Wisconsin $11.2 $11.8 $12.7 $13.5 $20.1 $13.4 $13.5 $13.5 $15.5 $15.5 Wyoming $3.9 $4.1 $4.4 $4.7 $7.0 $4.7 $4.7 $4.7 $6.2 $6.3 Total $426.5 $449.4 $484.8 $511.7 $765.8 $511.3 $513.2 $513.6 $610.4 $618.4 Source: U.S.
|
From page 7... ...
7urbanized land area. The SAFETEA-LU formula is presented in Figure 2-4.
|
From page 8... ...
8Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration Figure 2-5 MAP-21 Section 5311 formula.
|
From page 9... ...
9Indiana 11,524,415 13,566,430 17.7 Iowa 8,788,016 10,561,769 20.2 Kansas 8,264,692 9,722,237 17.6 Kentucky 10,903,956 14,224,214 30.5 Louisiana 8,875,914 9,719,697 9.5 Maine 4,699,899 6,175,510 31.4 Maryland 4,174,800 4,813,885 15.3 Massachusetts 2,962,878 3,064,048 3.4 Michigan 14,834,691 17,951,071 21.0 Minnesota 10,981,282 13,328,726 21.4 Mississippi 9,908,701 12,040,445 21.5 Missouri 11,879,189 15,123,628 27.3 Montana 6,996,474 9,174,154 31.1 N Mariana Islands 35,031 290,368 728.9 Nebraska 5,864,240 6,815,924 16.2 Nevada 4,552,692 5,960,384 30.9 New Hampshire 2,946,439 3,315,370 12.5 New Jersey 2,740,336 3,425,163 25.0 New Mexico 7,396,227 9,310,652 25.9 New York 14,971,595 17,111,463 14.3 North Carolina 18,249,516 22,056,094 20.9 North Dakota 3,687,665 4,633,849 25.7 Ohio 17,028,640 19,416,568 14.0 Oklahoma 9,777,409 12,705,584 29.9 Oregon 8,548,281 10,571,847 23.7 Pennsylvania 17,246,488 18,329,652 6.3 Puerto Rico 1,408,019 1,877,956 33.4 Rhode Island 492,966 476,937 (3.3)
|
From page 10... ...
10 Table 2-3 FY 2012–2013 Section 5311 apportionments by state using 2000 Census data ($)
|
From page 11... ...
11 Vermont 2,255,694 3,001,996 2,941,268 60,729 2.0% Virgin Islands -- -- -- -- 0.0% Virginia 10,430,138 12,430,803 12,375,342 55,461 0.4% Washington 8,199,876 10,725,884 10,394,539 331,345 3.1% West Virginia 5,799,047 6,653,804 6,989,502 (335,698) -5.0% Wisconsin 11,511,284 13,360,059 13,162,742 197,317 1.5% Wyoming 4,362,075 5,775,853 5,536,818 239,034 4.1% Total 440,035,343 533,443,475 533,443,475 Source: U.S.
|
From page 12... ...
12 Figure 2-6 presents authorized funding levels of the Tribal Transit program over the periods of SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21. The Tribal Transit formula within the overall Section 5311 program consists of the following "tiers": • Tier 1: 50% based on vehicle revenue miles • Tier 2: 25% based on Tribes providing at least 200,000 vehicle revenue miles • Tier 3: 25% based on Tribes providing public transportation on land where more than 1,000 low-income individuals reside Tribal Transit program activities remain eligible under the Section 5311 program.
|
From page 13... ...
13 Eligibility MAP-21 expands eligibility of Section 5310 funds to be used for operating transportation services that address the needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities. Reflecting the absorption of the New Freedom program, MAP-21 permits up to 45 percent of a recipients' funding to be used for public transportation projects that exceed the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
|
From page 14... ...
14 include a definition of the "state of good repair" that defines standards and performance measures for adequate maintenance of transit capital assets; provides for decision support tools to assist transit operators in estimating their capital reinvestment needs and prioritizing their investments; and delivers technical assistance to FTA grantees. The national transit asset management system also requires the following: • Recipients and sub-recipients of any federal transit assistance program -- including Sections 5311 and 5339 -- must develop their own asset management plans.
|
From page 15... ...
15 • Strategies to minimize the exposure of the public, personnel, and property to hazards and unsafe conditions; • A process and timeline for conducting an annual review and update of the plan; • Performance targets based on the safety performance criteria and state of good repair standards set out in the National Safety Plan; • Assignment of an adequately trained safety officer who reports directly to the general manager, president, or equivalent officer of the recipient; and • A comprehensive staff training program for the operations personnel and personnel directly responsible for safety. FTA has interpreted the MAP-21 requirement to prepare a Section 5329(d)
|
From page 16... ...
16 required to provide reports on Section 5311 subrecipients that did not receive any Rural Formula funds during the current reporting year so long as they have not disposed of any assets before the end of their useful life. Additionally, states are required to report to the NTD for any prior-year Section 5311 program sub-recipients who are expected to receive Section 5311 grant funds in the future.
|
From page 17... ...
17 must report annually (through the DOT)
|
From page 18... ...
18 In summary, over the 6-year span of the availability of rural data, VRM increased an average of 5.1 percent per year, while VRH increased 7.6 percent annually. Rural Transit Ridership As transit service expanded in rural areas, so, too, did ridership.
|
From page 19... ...
19 this research effort is focused on the funding for maintaining rural transit assets in a state of good repair, the costs to operate transit are greater than the costs to capitalize it. Changes to FTA's capital programs, however, may result in the shifting of federal funds away from operations and toward vehicle and facility replacement, thus potentially reducing the amount available for operating assistance.
|
From page 20... ...
20 has enabled most states to use more of their FTA funding for operations, as shown later in this chapter. Sources and Uses of Funds Table 3-3 summarizes operating expenditures reported to the NTD by source over the period of analysis.
|
From page 21... ...
21 Non-FTA funding represents a very small portion of federal funding for rural transit, and is almost entirely for operating assistance. Although the NTD does not provide specificity to the source of these federal funds, FTA's guidance for reporting revenue and expenditure data to the NTD notes that federal Medicaid payments should be reported as "Other Federal Funds." ARRA expenditures accounted for 8.2 percent of total FTA investment in rural transit in 2009, 36.9 percent in 2010, 23.0 percent in 2011, and 12.3 percent in 2012.
|
From page 22... ...
22 60 percent of program funding was used for operating assistance (the remaining 20 percent of annual obligations were used for a combination of program administration, planning, and RTAP)
|
From page 23... ...
23 to the NTD data reported by state DOTs, as illustrated in Figure 3-10. While in the aggregate annual Bus and Bus Facilities program totals rise modestly, a review of stateby-state NTD-reported expenditures demonstrates the varying amounts that states receive in the formularization of the program, as listed in Table 3-8.
|
From page 24... ...
24 Table 3-8 Section 5309 Bus expenditures in rural areas, by state, 2007–2012. State 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Annual Average Alabama $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Alaska $115,340 $325,312 $1,814,029 $228,210 $65 $278,968 $460,321 Arizona $723,450 $0 $0 $0 $14,586 $28,068 $127,684 Arkansas $414,028 $1,490,488 $1,680,833 $37,282 $0 $0 $603,772 California $3,002,186 $677,314 $552,005 $495,837 $513,110 $6,002,352 $1,873,801 Colorado $8,863,684 $3,351,535 $5,393,902 $1,242,700 $1,265,852 $565,500 $3,447,196 Conn.
|
From page 25... ...
25 able to states. However, the research also showed that other FTA programs are used to support capital needs in rural areas, especially the Section 5311 Rural Formula program.
|
From page 26... ...
26 costs support an aggregated national analysis of rural transit capital reinvestment needs, the research team decided to exclude facilities from the state-bystate analysis presented later in this chapter. Finally, TERM-Lite uses the rating definitions presented in Table 4-3 to estimate the condition of rural transit assets.
|
From page 27... ...
27 nation's current rural transit infrastructure. Using the asset unit cost data listed in Table 4-2 and TERM-Lite, the replacement value of the nation's rural transit bus infrastructure can be estimated, as listed in Table 4-5.
|
From page 28... ...
28 reflects an annual capital investment of $122.1 million comprising the following: a. $56.6 million state and local funding (the average annual level of state and local investment between 2007 and 2013)
|
From page 29... ...
29 As Scenario 1 in Figure 4-2 shows, maintaining the current level of capital investment from capital sources -- e.g., the MAP-21 Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities capital program level matched by historical state and local funding -- is forecast to result in a significant underinvestment of rural transit capital needs, almost tripling the SGR backlog by 2028. Scenario 2, which adds to Scenario 1 the historical level of Section 5311 Rural Area Formula program funding used for capital purposes and thus most closely represents current capital investment levels (at the expenses of operating assistance)
|
From page 30... ...
30 Table 4-6 Rural transit vehicle data by state (2014 $M)
|
From page 31... ...
31 limitations associated with facility data, facilities are excluded from this analysis. The second column presents the total investment needed to reach a state of good repair for this fleet today.
|
From page 32... ...
32 As noted in Chapter 3, before MAP-21 many rural areas received Section 5309 funding under a statewide earmark obligated to their state DOT; however, it is not possible to distinguish how much of such a grant went to urbanized versus rural areas. An alternative to FTA-generated Section 5309 program data would be to collect it from each state DOT.
|
From page 33... ...
33 • Expenditure Constraints: Specify the maximum annual funding available to the simulator • Backlog Target Seek: Optimize funding to achieve a specific reduction in backlog • Inventory Management: Add, delete, or modify the inventory details • Expansion Analysis: Review the impact of adding new capacity on annual expenditure needs and long-term backlog growth/ decline • Life Cycle Cost: Edit assumptions regarding number and cost of interval rehabilitations, unit replacement cost, and useful life by asset type • Inflation Module: Specify how costs should be escalated over time and how results are displayed" For this research, the only "simulation control" applied was the level of annual capital investment. Only model default values for replacement costs and asset useful life were used.
|
From page 34... ...
34 ing directly to urbanized areas -- reduces state DOTs discretion to put resources where they are needed most. According to many of the state DOT officials interviewed for this research, the MAP-21 distribution scheme negatively impacts rural transit providers, because a large portion of Section 5310 funds are typically used in rural areas.
|
From page 35... ...
35 of funding set aside for use by state DOTs in rural areas, and the program remains an overwhelmingly urban program. In addition, the Section 5311 Rural Formula program grows by 10 percent.
|
From page 36... ...
36 Liz Stutts (Florida DOT) ; David Harris (New Mexico DOT)
|
From page 37... ...
37 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database Figure A-2 SGR backlog by type of vehicle: Fixed Investment -- Scenario 1.
|
From page 38... ...
38 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database Figure A-5 SGR backlog by vehicles and facilities: Fixed Investment -- Scenario 2.
|
From page 39... ...
39 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database Figure A-6 SGR backlog by type of vehicle: Fixed Investment -- Scenario 2.
|
From page 40... ...
40 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database Figure A-9 SGR backlog by vehicles and facilities: Fixed Investment -- Scenario 3.
|
From page 41... ...
41 the percentage of assets that exceed their useful life is effectively reduced to zero by the end of the analysis period. See Figures A-13 through A-16.
|
From page 42... ...
42 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database Figure A-13 SGR backlog by vehicles and facilities: Performance Scenario 1 -- Maintain Backlog.
|
From page 43... ...
43 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database Figure A-14 SGR backlog by type of vehicle: Performance Scenario 1 -- Maintain Backlog.
|
From page 44... ...
44 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database Figure A-17 SGR backlog by vehicles and facilities: Performance Scenario 2 -- Eliminate Backlog.
|
From page 45... ...
45 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database Figure A-18 SGR backlog by type of vehicle: Performance Scenario 2 -- Eliminate Backlog.
|
From page 46... ...
46 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database Figure A-20 Percentage of assets in marginal or poor condition: Performance Scenario 2 -- Eliminate Backlog.
|
From page 47... ...
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.