Rural Transit Achievements: Assessing the Outcomes of Increased Funding for Rural Passenger Services under SAFETEA-LU (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 25-37
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 25... ...
22 EFFECT OF INCREASED FUNDING ON RURAL PUBLIC AND INTERCITY BUS How Increased Funding Has Affected Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation. How Have Services Improved?
|
From page 26... ...
23 • Decrease in JARC funding - decrease in funding available to them when JARC was formularized. Some states have used their increase in Section 5311 funding for employment related transportation to make up for lost JARC funding.
|
From page 27... ...
24 Section 5311 All of the states indicate they used increased funding to improve service levels on existing services; yet only one state used 100% of their increase for this purpose. The remaining states used at least some of their increased funding to create new services or projects.
|
From page 28... ...
25 Section 5311(f) As with Section 5311, the states used their increases in Section 5311(f)
|
From page 29... ...
26 Impacts of Funding on Service Levels Clearly, with the new SAFETEA-LU funding, additional non-urbanized areas have rural transit services. While data on the number of county services prior to 2006/SAFELEA-LU are not available, the FTA program performance measurement document indicates that the 1994 baseline was 60% of all counties had rural public transit service.
|
From page 30... ...
TX CA MT AZ NV ID CO NM OR KS UT WY IL SD NE FL IA MN OK ND AL GA WA WI MO AR LA NC PA NY MS KY IN TN MI VA OH SC ME WV VT NH NJ MD AK MA CT DE RI Legend Urbanized Areas (US Census 2000) 2008 Surveyed Data*
|
From page 31... ...
28 know that some counties are served only once or twice a week)
|
From page 32... ...
29 Section 5316 (JARC) : As noted above, the impact of SAFETEA-LU on JARC program has been mixed.
|
From page 33... ...
30 Finally, the Economic Benefits of Employment Transportation, June 2008 (University of Chicago for FTA) showed that: • 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.
|
From page 34... ...
Table 16: FTA-Reported FY 2006 and FY 2007 New Freedom Projects Funded in Rural Areas as of September 2007 State Project Subrecipient Project Description* Funding New or Expanded Services Vehicles Mobility Management Public Awareness Materials and Activities Other AZ Arivaca Coordinating Council Resource Group (Pima County)
|
From page 35... ...
State Project Subrecipient Project Description* Funding New or Expanded Services Vehicles Mobility Management Public Awareness Materials and Activities Other CT Southeast Area Transit District Transportation Options Brochure and Website for Eastern CT.
|
From page 36... ...
State Project Subrecipient Project Description* Funding New or Expanded Services Vehicles Mobility Management Public Awareness Materials and Activities Other WA WSDOT Trip Planner Develop and implement a web-based public transportation itinerary planning system (Trip Planner)
|
From page 37... ...
34 program, expansion of existing specialized services, and travel attendant and travel training services. Section 5311(c)
|
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.