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.
43 ⢠UTA wanted the LCCs to provide a more locally oriented focus on needs and goals, and create a sense of ownership in the LCCs. Challenges ⢠Section 5310 projects have not moved the needle for transpor- tation. The program replaces vehicles and augments operational funds, but it doesnât move more people the way the region needs. Lessons Learned ⢠UTA uses a 2-year grant cycle, which allows more time to manage the program and more time for local agencies to prepare strong applications. The program can also offer a larger pot of money to leverage better projects during each application cycle. The gap year also gives LCCs time to develop collaborative projects. ⢠Staff feel the UTA Coordinated Mobility program is innovative, independent of Section 5310. ⢠UTA suggests FTA regulations could be updated to address TNCs and encourage or even require private carriers to provide accessible rides. ⢠The FTA Section 5310 program could address accessible vehicle requirements across the country to make standards and service levels consistent, and create a process for private companies to procure transit vans and minivans. Contact: www.rideuta.com www.utahridelink.org CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS Section 5310 program funding is a flexible pot available to public, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations. The ability to use other fed- eral and non-USDOT dollars for the local matching requirements adds to its functionality. However, Section 5310 funding is a rela- tively small resource compared to other potential transportation pro- gram funding sources, such as the Section 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas or the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Grants. In the process of adapting the program administration to local needs in a financially constrained environment, many states and UZA des- ignated recipients have developed criteria to maximize funding for priority projects that support short- and long-term goals identified in their coordinated plans. Input from the survey and case studies pro- vides evidence that the 5310 program serves an essential function, despite its limitations, and the coordinated plan supports grant- making decisions. Funds Are Oversubscribed One of the main purposes of this research was to determine how Section 5310 program managers address oversolicitation; many of the designated recipients report having more grant applications than funding available. In the surveys, 70%, or 35 of 50 respondents, were oversubscribed. Of the 50 respondents, 11 have intentionally implemented program requirements to control or limit applicants. Some states added state funding to the Section 5310 pot in an effort to grow the program. States also sometimes choose not to take the administrative funds out of their total Section 5310 allocation so more funding is available for subrecipients. Still other recipients actively seek to reduce the number of applicants through a variety of coordinated solutions such as regional administrators/mobility man- agers or purchase-of-service contracts. Coordination Is Working Coordinated planning is generally seen in a positive light by Sec- tion 5310 program administrators, as the plans promote continuity of transportation service priorities over time. Coordination means demonstrably different things across the agencies, with some focusing on consolidated services to reduce duplication, some working to build efficient regional structures within the existing administrative framework, and others facilitating the harmonious addition of subrecipient programs to expand access. Research indicates consolidation can improve efficiency across local programs. According to this research, consolidation usually involves participation from an existing regional agency such as a COG or MPO that has established a compatible and stable culture. Regionaliza- tion is becoming increasingly common as well and its impacts are not yet fully measured or addressed in terms of the Section 5310 program. Coordination, consolidation and regionalization are likely, but not guaranteed, to lead to applicants working together to address their shared unmet needs and gaps in transportation services. Consolida- tion also is likely to lead to a reduced administrative burden when multiple agencies share administrative duties. But not all forms of coordination lead to fewer applicants addressing the temporal or spatial gaps in service. To fill the gaps and find rides for people when they need them, many states and regions must continue to search for or recruit additional applicants to bring into the fold. This push and pull is one of the central themes of the survey responses. According to many interviewees, Section 5310 funding regulations are flexible enough to be used both in a centralized or decentralized manner. Champions Push the Program Agencies reported that having a local champion to lead the com- munity through the coordinated process of building necessary trans- portation networks is what makes a difference in expanding access to transportation. Public Transit Funding and Local Match Affects Program Administration There is an issue of the relationship between Section 5310 special- ized funding and general public Section 5307 (Urbanized Area For- mula Funding) and Section 5311 (Formula Grants for Rural Areas) programs. In many areas the general public transit funding, even though it is allocated based in part on population, is used for a very specific geographic service area because of the way those funds have been matched (by a tax levy in a single city, for example). As a result, the more rural corners of the UZA or county the transit system operates in are underserved. In other words, the way public transit grant funds have been matched creates geographic barriers to service based on jurisdictional and political boundaries. Where general public transit funding leaves geographic gaps in service, Section 5310 funding is sometimes used as a supplement that allows transportation resources to stretch further to cover the geographic area. Section 5310, while its primary purpose is for the transport of older adults and people with disabilities, may act as a general public supplement if the initial general public needs are met. This has led to its use in rural areas in a way that supports service
