Sue Knapp Frederic Fravel KFH Group, Incorporated Bethesda, Maryland

1. TCRP Project J-6, Task 71 Rural Transit Achievements:Assessing the Outcomes of Increased SAFETEA-LU Funding for Rural TransitINTERIM FINDINGS 18th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation Omaha, Nebraska October 2008 Sue Knapp Frederic Fravel KFH Group, Incorporated Bethesda, Maryland

2. Study Purpose • 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

3. Study Background 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

4. Study Questions • How has funding for passenger transportation in rural areas grown with SAFETEA-LU? • What has been authorized? • What has been spent? • How are the increased funds been spent? • What has been accomplished? • What are the major barriers to development of new or expanded passenger transportation services in rural areas?

5. Data Challenges • 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?

6. Available Data/Survey • 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)

7. How has Funding Grown? Time Period • Data from 2004 (before) through 2008 for apportionments • Data from 2004 – 2006 for obligations

8. FTA Funding for Rural and Intercity Bus

9. Funding Increases - Existing Programs 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 S.5311 increased 74% from 2004-2008 Obligations increased significantly in 2006 Significant number of new vehicles are being bought

10. Funding Increases - Existing Programs Non-Urbanized Area (S. 5311) Note: FTA program performance measurement has a goal of 75% and indicates that the actual at the baseline (1994) was 60%

11. Funding Increases - Existing Programs Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program (from NTD)

12. Funding Increases -Existing Programs 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 S.5310 funding increased 40% from 2004 -2008 Obligations increased in 2006

13. Funding Increases - Existing Programs Job Access and Reverse Commute (S. 5316) Apportionments Rural portions 2002 $125M 2003 $104M 108 vehicles 2004 $104M 23 vehicles $17M obl 2005 $124M 76 vehicles $44M obl 2006 $137M 49 vehicles $27M; 26M obl 2007 $144M $29M 2008 $156M $31M Overall JARC funding increased 50% from 2004 – 2008 Funding 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).

14. Funding Increases - Existing Programs 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

15. Funding - New Programs 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

16. 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

17. Funding - New Programs 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)

18. When Funding Increased States began increasing funding in SFY2006 and SFY2007

19. Changes to State Programs 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

20. How Funds Being Spent 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

21. How Funds Being Spent States have used S.5311 program funds in a variety of ways; S.5311 as the biggest increase in funding

22. How Funds Being Spent States primarily have used S.5310 funds to replace existing vehicles; some new service expansions

23. How Funds Being Spent States without intercity programs used S.5311(f) to create them; those with programs are adding new projects and improving existing services

24. New Program Grantees Significant increase in # grantees/projects in 2007, 2008, 2009

25. New Program Projects Tribal Transit Program Tribal Transit Program was implemented quickly Most funding was for enhancements to existing services

26. New Program Projects Transit in the Park Program* *Note only $1.4M was obligated as of 2006

27. Service Level Improvements 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% States reports that a portion of the increases in S.5311 funding was used to offset increases in fuel, insurance and other operating costs

28. Service Levels 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 It appears that much of the increase in funding was used to decrease age of fleet and to absorb increases in cost of equipment

29. Service Level Improvements Section 5311(f) – from state survey

30. Service Level Improvements 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

31. Service Level Improvements 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 • 2004200520062007 • 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

32. Accomplishments in Local Communities • 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

33. 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

34. Barriers to New/Expanded Services

35. Summary Answers 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).

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. Town Hall Meeting Purpose – to provide input on how you have benefitedfrom the increased funding associated with SAFETEA-LU Questions: • How has your state or community benefited from the increased funding? (can you give specific examples?) • What are our priorities for the future? Given these economic times, which services are essential? • How would you make the case to federal, state and local policy makers that rural transit is a good investment? • What changes could be made during re-authorization that would improve the programs for you?