sue knapp frederic fravel kfh group, incorporated bethesda, maryland

TCRP Project J-6, Task 71 Rural Transit Achievements:

Assessing the Outcomes of Increased SAFETEA-LU Funding for Rural Transit

INTERIM FINDINGS

Sue KnappFrederic Fravel

KFH Group, IncorporatedBethesda, Maryland

18th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation

Omaha, Nebraska

October 2008

FTA, Congress and stakeholders are preparing for reauthorization – want to understand what new funding has achieved

Study - provide useful data and information on the changes in rural public and intercity bus that have resulted from the increases in funding available through SAFETEA-LU

Study Purpose

SAFETEA-LU August 2005 authorization Significant Level of New Funding Spending Levels increased in most States in

FY2006 New Federal Guidances – March 2007

New Funding Increases for S.5311 and S.5310 JARC formularized and funding increased New programs created

New Freedom Indian Tribal Transportation Transit in the Park

Study Background

1. How has funding for passenger transportation in rural areas grown with SAFETEA-LU?

What has been authorized? What has been spent?

2. How are the increased funds been spent?3. What has been accomplished? 4. What are the major barriers to development

of new or expanded passenger transportation services in rural areas?

Study Questions

No comprehensive set of service data to describe achievements attributable to SAFETEA-LU - “before” and “after”

NTD data only available for 2006 and 2007 and only cover 5311 and 5311(f)- no comprehensive “before” data

S5310 data is not collected – will be in future JARC data collected and analyzed in some detail

May be too early to have detailed data on service improvements

Funding levels on existing programs increased in FY2006 New programs are started planning and implementation

in FY2007; seeing real achievements in 2008?

Data Challenges

FTA/National data on Apportionments and Obligations (spending)

Limitation on “rural” portion of S.5310 and old JARC

Rural NTD for S.5311/S.5311(f) for 2006 and 2007

State websites (some databases) Survey of States (21 responded) Telephone interviews with local systems

and State program managers (19 communities)

Available Data/Survey

Time Period Data from 2004 (before) through

2008 for apportionments Data from 2004 – 2006 for

obligations

How has Funding Grown?

FTA Funding for Rural and Intercity Bus

Figure 1 - FEDERAL TRANSIT PROGRAMS - RURAL PUBLIC AND INTERCITY TRANSPORTATION

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fu

nd

ing

(in

mil

lion

s of

dol

lars

)

Elderly and Persons with Disabilities - S.5310 Non-Urbanized Formula Program - S.5311 Growing State Apportionment for rural - S.5340

RTAP Job Access and Reverse Commute - S.5316 New Freedom - S.5317

Federal Funding (Total)

MilestonesISTEA TEA 21 SAFETEA-LU

Obligated Funds Authorized Funds

2

Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program (S. 5311)Apportionments

2002 $226M 2003 $239M 746 vehicles 2004 $239M 419 vehicles 2005 $251M 722 vehicles 2006 $367M 1,039 vehicles 2007 $386M 2008 $416M

Funding Increases - Existing Programs

S.5311 increased 74% from 2004-2008Obligations increased significantly in 2006

Significant number of new vehicles are being bought

Non-Urbanized Area (S. 5311)


Number of Operators 1,326 1,325

Number of Counties Served 2,233 71% 2,275 72%of all US Counties of all US Counties

2006 Data 2007 Data

Rural NTD Data - Summary

Note: FTA program performance measurement has a goal of 75% and indicates that the actual at the baseline (1994) was

60%

Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program (from NTD)


Financial Characteristics Operating/ Administrative Expenses $812,489,257 $1,004,246,706

Operating Revenue $238,657,079 29% $270,216,854 27%

Farebox $70,921,336 9% $76,323,782 8%

Contract $167,735,743 21% $193,893,072 19%

Operating Subsidies $618,324,048 $748,428,146

Federal $211,375,410 34% $257,350,509 34%

State $167,924,461 27% $192,751,020 26%

Local $239,024,177 39% $298,326,617 40%

Capital Expenses** $112,286,969 $169,341,238

Federal $81,655,101 73% $107,598,851 64%

State $14,950,077 13% $23,855,637 14%

Local $15,681,791 14% $37,886,750 22%

Rural NTD Data - Summary

Elderly and Disabled (S. 5310)Apportionments

2002 $85M 2003 $90M 1,998 vehicles 2004 $90M 1,837 vehicles 2005 $95M 2,220 vehicles 2006 $110M 2,200 vehicles 2007 $117M 2008 $127M

Funding Increases -Existing Programs

S.5310 funding increased 40% from 2004 -2008

Obligations increased in 2006

Job Access and Reverse Commute (S. 5316)Apportionments Rural portions

2002 $125M2003 $104M 108 vehicles2004 $104M 23 vehicles $17M

obl 2005 $124M 76 vehicles $44M

obl 2006 $137M 49 vehicles $27M;

26M obl 2007 $144M $29M2008 $156M $31M


Overall JARC funding increased 50% from 2004 – 2008Funding for JARC in rural areas is set at 20% (similar to 2004). This

resulted in decrease in obligations for rural areas in 2006 from $44M in 2005 to $26M in 2006.

In 2006, rural portion of obligation was 34% (26M), in 2005 it was 35% ($44M).

Intercity Bus (S.5311(f)) 2004 - $22M obligations 2005 - $21M obligations 2006 - $40M obligations

S.5309 Capital Program (rural areas only)

2004 $94M obl 1,077 vehicles 2005 $209M obl 1,155 vehicles 2006 $245M obl 1,201 vehicles


Tribal Transit Program (S. 5311(c))

Takedown from S.5311 Recipients are Federally-recognized Indian tribes Direct from Federal Level Can be used for planning, capital and operating

assistance for rural public transit or rural intercity bus

Apportionment $7.92M in 2006 $10M in 2007 $12M in 2008

Projects 63 projects in 2006; $7.92M 65 projects in 2007: $10M

Funding - New Programs

New Freedom Program (S.5317) Targeted toward services for persons with disabilities Intended for services that go beyond those required in ADA 20% apportioned to states to use in rural areas State-level designated recipients; statewide solicitation for grant

applications Beginning in 2007, New Freedom projects must be included in

locally-developed coordinated plans Can be used for planning, capital and operating assistance for

rural public transit or rural intercity bus Apportionment

$77M in 2006 $15.4M for non-urbanized areas $81M in 2007 $16.2M for non-urbanized areas $87.5M in 2008 $17.5M for non-urbanized areas

Obligations Only $288,226 in 2006 in rural areas; 3 buses FTA reports a total of $1.7M in New Freedom federal funds

awarded in rural areas in 2006 and 2007


Transit in the Parks (S.5320)

Direct grants to Federal land management agencies, states, tribal and local governments; Administered by the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture

Intended for alternative transportation services on public lands and in parks (including bike, pedestrian, transit, non-motorized watercraft)

Can be used for planning, capital in parks and on public lands

Apportionment $22.0M in 2006 $22.9M in 2007 $16.2M for non-urbanized areas $24.9M in 2008 $17.5M for non-urbanized areas

Obligations Only $1.4M in 2006 in rural areas; 5 vehicles (almost all

rural areas)


When Funding Increased

S. 5311 S.5310 S.5311(f) S.5316 (JARC) S.5317 (NF)

68% increased intercity funding

SFY 2005 19% 31% 18%SFY 2006 50% 39% 46%SFY 2007 25% 8% 36%SFY 2008 0% 8% 0%Have Not Yet Increased Funding 6% 15% 0%

Program

37% decreased funding for JARC

no grants until 2006

State Survey Fiscal Year When Began to Increase Funding as result of SAFETEA-LU

States began increasing funding in SFY2006 and SFY2007

States have changed program: Revised allocation formula to bring new

operators into the program Created new programs

New Freedom JARC (for some) Intercity bus (for some) Other new state programs – e.g. Wisconsin’s

STRAP Added the coordinated plan element Began using some federal funds for

administration Improved local planning process

Changes to State Programs

States report that, with the increases, they have:

Increased level of funding for existing programs (e.g. Wisconsin created the STRAP program to fund operating and administrative costs up to 80% until FY09)

Been able to serve new areas, created new projects (e.g., Montana has gone from 9 S.5311 providers to 33)

Given transit agencies ability to pay living wages Improved coordination – by bringing something to the

table Increased training for grantees Expanded the types of capital items will fund including

ITS and mobility management Been able to cover some of the losses to the programs

due to: Decrease in JARC funding (for some) Loss of capital earmarks Loss in state revenues

How Funds Being Spent


Section 53111-20% 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%

State Survey How Increased Funding Used

Other: generally to maintain existing service levels, especially in light in of increased cost for fuel, insurance, other operating costs

Total Percent

Percentage of Increased Funding Used

States have used S.5311 program funds in a variety of ways; S.5311 as the biggest increase in funding


Section 53101-20% 21-40% 41-60% 60-80% 81-99% 100%



Total Percent


States primarily have used S.5310 funds to replace existing vehicles; some new service expansions


Section 5311(f)1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 60-80% 81-99% 100%


Total Percent



States without intercity programs used S.5311(f) to create them; those with programs are adding new projects and improving

existing services

New Program Grantees

Fiscal Year

No Grantees No. Projects No Grantees No. Projects

SFY 2004 40 41SFY 2005 37 38SFY 2006 49 49 SFY 2007 73 74 7 17SFY 2008 77 86 26 47SFY 2009 85 103 50 70

State SurveyNumber of Grantees

S.5317 (NF) (n=10)S.5316 (JARC) (n=10)Program

Significant increase in # grantees/projects in 2007, 2008, 2009

New Program Projects

Tribal Transit Program

Types of Project Awarded FY 2006 FY 2007 Transit planning studies and/or operational planning $834,965 $399,963 Startup projects for new transit service $3,168,681 $904,666 Enhancements or expansion of existing transit services $3,916,354 $8,695,371 Total $7,920,000 $10,000,000 Total Number of Awardees 63 65

Tribal Transit Program was implemented quickly Most funding was for enhancements to existing

services

New Program Projects

Transit in the Park Program*

Types of Project Awarded FY 2006 FY 2007 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 Total Number of Projects 42 46

*Note only $1.4M was obligated as of 2006

Section 5311 Section 5311 grantees provide

about 115M trips annually (based on 2006 and 2007 NTD)

Based on survey of states, from 2005-2008, passenger trips increased 13% and the number of vehicles increased 16%

Service Level Improvements

States reports that a portion of the increases in S.5311 funding was used to offset increases in fuel, insurance and other

operating costs

Section 5310 Estimate that S.5310 program has facilitated the purchase

of about 10-14,000 vehicles currently in operation (the program buys about 2,000 – 2,200 per year); not possible to determine how many are in rural areas.

Extrapolating state survey data, the Section 5310 grantees provide about 20-28M trips annually (based on 2,000 trips per vehicle); again, not clear what portion is in rural areas

S.5310 also funds purchase of service and operations in some states.

State survey data shows that from 2005-2008, the number of trips remained constant but the number of vehicles bought increased 10%; probably to replace aging vehicles.

Unit cost of buses under the program increase about 18% from 2004-2006

Service Levels

It appears that much of the increase in funding was used to decrease age of fleet and to absorb increases in cost of

equipment

Section 5311(f) – from state survey


2007 NTD Data

Intercity BusOperating GrantsCapital GrantsVehicle MilesUnlinked Trips

$3,739,246$14,999,38520,408,2952,986,037

Dollars Spent One-Way Trips Vehicles

Section 5311(f) n=9SFY 2004 13%SFY 2005 65%SFY 2006 21% 10% 18%SFY 2007 -26% 5% 4%SFY 2008 113% 10% 9%SFY 2009 (est)

2004-2008 67%2005-2008 66% 28% 34%

Percent Increase

Table : Summary of State Program Changes -- from Survey

JARC In the most recent analysis of FY 2005 grantee data, the

contractor estimated that JARC-funded services provided access to approximately 95,400 employment sites and provided 14.1 million 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 22.9 million one-way trips (62% increase)

State survey data indicate a 62% increase in JARC ridership from 2005-2008


Table 5-1 Distribution of JARC-Funded Services by Service Type

Service Type Services Trip-based Fixed route 44% Flexible route 6% Shuttle 5% Demand response 28% User-side subsidy 2% Trip-based 85% Information-based 8% Capital investment 7% All programs 100%

JARC DOT Performance and Assessment Report (PAR) Performance

Measure

Number of employment sites (in thousands) that are made accessible by Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) transportation

2004 2005 20062007

Target 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Actual 82.8 95.4 91.2* 95.4* * Preliminary estimate; Associated FY 2007 Funding - $ 144

million

Economic Benefits of Employment Transportation, June 2008 (University of Chicago for FTA)

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


Acquired new vehicles and drivers; improved accessibility; reduce fleet age

Increased in number of trips they can provide

create new routes increase frequency extend hours/days of service

Serving new communities, more people have service

Serving new employment-related destinations; allow people to reaching higher-paying jobs

Providing service to communities that Greyhound no longer serves

Accomplishments in Local Communities

Improved customer services add new dispatchers to reduce wait time and

telephone hours shorten travel times

Allowed systems to keep up with rising cost of fuel and insurance; kept them out of debt

Provide competitive salaries and better training for drivers

Taking cars off the road; improving safety, saving users money, and helping to reduce carbon-based emissions

Increased coordination; mobility managers Expand volunteer driver program

Accomplishments in Local Communities

Barriers to New/Expanded Services

Response Percent

Response Count

84.2% 1642.1% 826.3% 589.5% 1742.1% 821.1% 4

What were the major barriers to the development of new or expanded rural or intercity transportation in your state?

Answer Optionslack of state and local matching fundsshortage of state staff to manage the programneed for coordinated planincreased cost of fuelincreased cost of insurancedecrease in revenue from state fuel tax

How funding has grown? Funding increases for existing programs were significant –

2004 - 2008 Section 5311 – 74% increase Section 5310 – 40% increase Section 5316 (JARC) – 50% increase

New programs added $280M; about $60M for services to residents of rural communities

There was a significant lag time for implementation of State-administered programs; May be early for details on service improvements

Funding levels increased for existing programs in SFY2006 and SFY2007

Many new programs getting off the ground in 2007; some not yet Funding for JARC in rural areas is set at 20% (similar to 2004).

This resulted in a decrease in obligations for rural areas in 2006. In 2006, rural portion of obligation for under 50,000 was 34% (26M), in 2005 it was 35% ($44M).

Summary Answers

How funds are being spend? Funds used for service enhancements as well as new

projects, serving new people and new areas Significant number of new vehicles are being bought in

rural areas from S.5311 and S.5309 A portion of the increases in existing programs have been

offset by increases in fuel, insurance and other operating costs (fuel alone increased 2-3 fold in the past four years); decreases in JARC funding; loss of capital earmarks; and lower than anticipated revenues in many areas due to the weak economy.

Section 5310 funding has allowed the program to keep up with inflation. While the program increased 22% from 2004 - 2006, the average cost of a new vehicle under the program increased about 18%.

Tribal Transit program has gotten off the ground quickly – streamlines procedures, direct from federal level

Summary Answers

What has been accomplished? Section 5311 grantees provide about 115M trips annually (based

on 2006 and 2007 NTD); estimate from 2005-2008, passenger trips increased 13% and the number of vehicles increased 16%

Estimate S.5310 program has facilitated the purchase of about 10-14,000 vehicles currently in operation (urban and rural); 5310 grantees may provide 20-28M trips annually; S.5310 also funds purchase of service and operations in some states; from 2005-2008, estimate the number of trips remained constant but the number of vehicles bought increased 10%; probably to replace aging vehicles.

Section 5311(f) grantees provided about 3M trips annually (based on 2007 NTD); estimate from 2005-2008, passenger trips increased 28% and the number of vehicles increased 34%

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 22.9 million one-way trips (62% increase)

Ridership Data on New Freedom, Tribal Transit and Transit in the Park still being sought

Summary Answers

Barriers? Need for additional non-federal

share; coupled with decreased revenues and weak economy

Increases in cost of fuel, insurance, other operating costs

Increases in the cost of vehicles Increased work loads and staff

shortages at State DOTs

Summary Answers

Town Hall MeetingPurpose – to provide input on how you have

benefited from the increased funding associated with SAFETEA-LU

Questions:1. How has your state or community benefited from the

increased funding? (can you give specific examples?)

2. What are our priorities for the future? Given these economic times, which services are essential?

3. How would you make the case to federal, state and local policy makers that rural transit is a good investment?

4. What changes could be made during re-authorization that would improve the programs for you?

sue knapp frederic fravel kfh group, incorporated bethesda, maryland

Documents