Program Management Insights for the Section 5310 Program, Including Subrecipient Consolidation and Urban 5310 (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 6-16
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 6... ...
6 In a 2019 summary, the FTA published data showing 183 state and large UZA grants awarded across the country (some award every other year) and five grants awarded from FHWA funds that were transferred to Section 5310 program projects.
|
From page 7... ...
7 2.2 Section 5310 State Management Plans The SMP review was approached from the perspective that something of significance should be drawn from each review even if the SMP does not directly address the primary objective of the research, such as notable coordination/regionalization efforts, project selection criteria, funding limited to certain types of projects, and funding equity efforts from a population perspective. Research team members focused their review on the SMP sections below because they were deemed most likely to address the task objectives.
|
From page 8... ...
8 TABLE 3 SMP Overview STATE SECTION 5310 PROGRAM FOCUS COORDINATION VS. REGIONALIZATION ELIGIBLE SUBRECIPIENTS PRIORITIZED PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA STRATEGY TO REDUCE APPLICANTS APPLICATION CYCLE/FUNDING DISTRIBUTION SMALL URBAN OR RURAL SERVICE Alabama Continue, expand, and coordinate transit Both FTA definition Yes Yes Annual with 1-year sit-out for successful applicants Both Alaska Areas of no public transit Coordination FTA definition Yes No Annual Both Arizona Vehicles Coordination FTA definition Yes Yes Annual Neither Arkansas Capital purchases Coordination FTA, but no private for-profit operators Yes No Annual Neither California No emphasis Coordination FTA definition Yes Yes Annual Neither Colorado Preservation and growth, broad participation Both FTA, with local lead organization Yes Yes Annual Neither Connecticut No emphasis Both FTA definition Yes Yes Annual Both Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Both FTA, with designated transportation coordinators Yes No Annual Neither Georgia Human services needs Both Purchase of services -- DHS providers Yes Yes Annual Neither Idaho Transit-dependent populations beyond traditional public transportation services and paratransit Coordination FTA definition Yes Funding duration Year of apportionment plus 2 years Neither Illinois Rolling stock Both FTA definition Yes No Annual Neither Indiana No emphasis Coordination FTA definition Yes No Annual Neither Iowa No emphasis; earmark 10% for admin costs Both Other, Chapter 324A Code of Iowa Yes Yes Annual Neither Kansas Replacement vehicles Coordination Other Yes Yes Annual Rural Kentucky No emphasis; replacement vehicles Regionalization FTA definition with regional lead agency Yes Yes Annual Neither Louisiana No emphasis Coordination Other Yes Yes Annual Both
|
From page 9... ...
9 Maine Transit disadvantaged Regionalization FTA definition Yes Yes Annual Rural Maryland No emphasis Coordination Nonprofits only Yes Yes Annual Neither Massachusetts No emphasis Regionalization FTA definition Yes Yes Annual Rural Michigan No emphasis Coordination FTA definition Yes No Annual Neither Minnesota No emphasis Coordination FTA definition Yes No Annual Neither Mississippi No emphasis Both FTA definition Yes No Annual Neither Missouri No public transportation Coordination FTA definition Yes Yes Year of apportionment plus 2 years Both Montana No emphasis Both FTA definition Yes No Annual Neither Nebraska No emphasis. Do not use 10% for admin.
|
From page 10... ...
10 Tennessee No emphasis Both Public transportation agencies, with nonprofits as subrecipients Yes No Annual or amend previous award Neither Texas No emphasis Regionalization FTA definition Yes No Annual Both Utah No emphasis Regionalization FTA definition Yes No Annual Neither Vermont Transit-dependent and access to employment Regionalization FTA definition Yes Yes Annual Rural Virginia No emphasis Both FTA definition Yes No Annual Neither Washington No emphasis Regionalization FTA definition Yes 2-year grant process Biennial Rural West Virginia Purchase equipment and services Both FTA definition, one lead agency per county Yes Yes Annual Rural Wisconsin No emphasis Coordination FTA definition Yes No Annual None Wyoming No emphasis Coordination FTA definition Yes No Annual Rural Note: The SMPs for Delaware and Hawaii were not available and are not included in the analysis. TABLE 3 (Continued )
|
From page 11... ...
11 or suballocate funding; describe efforts to address policy and procurement barriers through state department-level committees or develop statewide multiagency standards for transportation service; and/or maintain regional or state-level brokerage of services. Using a slightly different lens to look at how coordination work is managed through the SMPs, half of the states encourage, support, or require locally led coordination; a bottom-up approach.
|
From page 12... ...
12 • Prior funding awards • Past reporting and compliance performance • Legal notice or public/private agency notice • Contracting or purchasing service in a coordinated manner Performance-related criteria • Ridership • Population(s) served • Customer satisfaction • Increased mobility for target populations • Increased access to services • Limited English proficiency • Vehicle use • Expansion vehicles demonstrate that current vehicles are at maximum use • Vehicle replacement value • Age of vehicles/useful life • Vehicles in poor or marginal condition • Vehicle maintenance reports • ADA compliance • Regional, state, or National Transit Database (NTD)
|
From page 13... ...
13 urban and rural areas, New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) reserves the right to transfer funds between the two geographic areas based on funding demand and needs.
|
From page 14... ...
14 performance metrics that evaluate the projects or services resulting from these programs based on available data and reasonable opportunities for additional data to be reported or collected. The report acknowledged that traditional transit service standards and performance metrics often cannot be readily applied to specialized transportation programs.
|
From page 15... ...
15 Approximately half of state DOT FTA program administration staff are funded through a combination of FTA and state funding sources. Another third of the states fund FTA program administration entirely with FTA funds, and the remaining states indicated they fund program administration staff time entirely through state funding sources.
|
From page 16... ...
16 • Most state DOTs that participated in a 2016 survey said MAP-21's statutory changes had a particularly devastating impact in rural areas. Generally, those state DOTs that expended a large amount of their apportionment in rural areas under SAFETEA-LU found that those areas have to do more with less.
|
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.