1 / 12

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 – TOWN HALL. 18 th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation Omaha, Nebraska

cwen
Télécharger la présentation

Sue Knapp Frederic Fravel KFH Group, Incorporated Bethesda, Maryland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TCRP Project J-6, Task 71 Rural Transit Achievements:Assessing the Outcomes of Increased SAFETEA-LU Funding for Rural TransitINTERIM FINDINGS – TOWN HALL 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 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?

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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).

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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 • Increases in work loads; staff shortages at State DOTs

  12. 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? (please hold specific programmatic issues until the state program manager meeting this afternoon)?

More Related