USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Public transit systems study : allocation of state financial assistance : draft report


Material Information

Public transit systems study : allocation of state financial assistance : draft report
Physical Description:
University of South Florida. Center of Urban Transportation Research
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit--Florida--Statistics   ( lcsh )
Transportation and state--Florida   ( lcsh )
Local transit--Florida--Cost of operation   ( lcsh )
letter   ( marcgt )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - C01-00072
usfldc handle - c1.72
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSP O RTATION RESEARCH PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS ST UDY Allocation of State Financial Assistance DRAFf REPORT Prepared for the Florida Transport ation Commissio n by the Center for Urban Transportation Research Oct obe r 1988


List of Figures and Tables Introduction History of Public Involvement TABLE OF CONTENTS Types and Extent of Public Involvement General Allocation Approach Allocation Variables Allocation Examples Florida Options General Considerations Appendix A Legislation Relating to the Allocation of State Aid to Transit Systems in Selected States II Ill I I 3 6 7 13 20 2 4


LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Figure 1 Sources of Transit Revenues for Operations Figure 2 Total State and Federal Transit Aid . Figure 3 Sources of Transit Capital Subsidies and Revenues for Operations in 1986 . . . . . . Figure 4 State Participation in Total Operating Costs in 1986 Tables Table I Sources of Revenue in Percentages for Each State's Urbanized Areas, 1986 . . . . . Table 2 Percentage of State's Share of Capital and Operating C'..osts for 2 2 3 6 . 5 Selected States, 1988 . . . . . . . . 9 Table 3 Percentage Distribution of State Aid Among Florida Transit Systems for Selected Allocation Variables . . . . . 22 iii


lliTRQDUCDON PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEMS STUDY Allocation of State Financial Assistance This is the second in a series of reports that the Center for Urban Transportation Research is preparing for the Florida Transportation Commission as part of the overall Public Transit Systems Study. This report describes methods of allocating state financial a ssistanc e among transi t systems. It presents a brief history of governmental involvement in transit financing and descrihes the types and amounts of financial assistance currently provided. It then discusses different approaches to allocating state aid and describes variables that can be used in allocation for mulas. The spe cific allocation methods used in several st ate s are outlined and the legislation authorizing the allocation of aid in each of those s tate s is included as an appendix. Also presented are various possible distributions of state aid among Florida's transit systems and some issues to be considered in the development of an allocation method. Unless otherwise noted, the data in this report are for u rban transit systems and do not include rural t ransit services, transportation disadvantaged services, or ridesharing programs except to the extent that those services are provided by urban transit systems. (In rural areas the provision of transit service and transportation disadvantaged (T.D.) service is often combined. In urban areas there tend to be a variety of agencies and organizations providing T.D. services.) The seventeen Florida transit systems listed in the Flo rida Options section are all classified as urban transit systems by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA). f:.{ISTORY OF GOVERNMENTAl. ASSISTANCE State participation in transit funding is relatively new. Until the 1960s, transit was largely an unsubsidized, private-sector industry. During the 1960s, the transit industry was shifted, in lar ge part, from the private sector to the public sector. To enable local governments to buy and improve the private systems, t he federal government began providing capital assistance in 1964--and it continues today to provide the bulk of capital assistance. Around this same time, state and local governments began to subsidize the o perating costs of the se systems and, in 1975, the federal government also began to provide operating assistance. The sources of transit revenues for operations for 1970 through 1985 are sh v wn in Figure 1. In 1970, fare revenue covered almost all operating costs; it now covers less than half. The federal share of operating costs (i.e., federal operating assistance) peaked in 1980-81 and bas been declining ever since. 1


S ource : Pe1tcut. o f O p e Cost. FIGURE 1 Sources of Transit Revenue s for Operations APT A Fact Book and UMTA Section 15 data, as quoted in The Status of the Nation's Local Mass Transportation: Performance and Conditions, Repo rt to 1988. Figure 2 shows the decline in t o tal f ederal aid (capital and operaling) an d t he increase in tota l s t a te aid between 1983 and 1987 During this period federal aid decreased a liu l e over $1 billion and state aid increased almost $1 billion. I n 1987, state aid exceeded federal ai d for t he first time. OIIHons o f Do1hws F1GURE2 Total State and Federal Transit Aid Source: Survey of State Involvement in Pu blic T ransportation, 1987. 2


TYPES ANO EXTENT OF GOVERNMENTAL ASSISTANCE The sources of urban transit capita l subsidies and revenues for operations for Florida and the nation in 1986 are shown in Fi gure 3 In Florida, the state provides operating assistance only for special projects, and in 1986 that aid amounted to less than one percent of total operating c osts, compared to state aid of eighteen percent for the nation as a whole The difference has been made up by greater reliance on federal and local operating subsidies in Florida. Although Florida has not placed the burden of costs on users to th e extent other states have total local support of transit (loca l taxes and subsidies plus user fees) was 80 percent of operating costs in Florida compared to 75 percent for the nation in 1986. The 1986 distribution of capital subsidies in Florida was not repres entative because an unusually large amount of local funds was used for capital expenditures In 1985, the distribution of capital in Florida was 77 percent federal, 12 percent sta t e, and 1 1 percent local, and in 1984 it was 73 percent federal, 16 percent of state, and 11 percent l ocal, which compare closely with the national averages FIGURE 3 Sources of Tran sit Capital Sub sid ie s and Revenues for Operations i n 1986 '"' '""'' .. Tnmsit '""" Revenues USFIS Florldo NaliOtl H OAfol Copilal ,., Subsidies S TAt 16'4 NaUon FJoride Source: Svrvey of State Involvement in Transportation 1987 UMTA Sec t ion 15 Reports, 1986. Florida Public Transit Profile 1986. Referring t o the national percentages in Figure 3, if a state were to provide 50 percent of the nonfederal operating deficit (operating costs minus operating revenue and federal aid) it would be providing 22.5 percent of total operating costs, on average If a state w ere to provide 50 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs, it would be providing 15 percent of tot al capital costs, on average. 3


Federal Assista nce For urban transit systems, the federal government (UMTA) provides 75 or 80 percent of total capital cos ts depending on the type of project. However, the method of calculating eligible capital costs results in the effective percentage for some projects, especially large rail-transit projects, being considerably less. The operating aid provided to urban transit systems by UMTA is equal to 50 percent of total operating deficit (operating costs minus operating revenues, excluding taxes and subsidies), subject to certain caps. These caps, and the large amount of state and local aid provided in the New York City area, resulted in U MTA' s share of total operating costs being only 7 percent in 1986. Some of UMTA's capital assistance is in the form of categorical grants, which are distributed on a discretionary basis. UMTA also provides bloc k grants, which can be used for both c-dpital and operating assistance. The block grants are distributed on the basis of population, population density, revenue miles (the miles traveled by buses while in service), and historical funding levels. In addition to the capital and operating assistance i t prov ides to urban transit systems, as shown in Figure 3, UMTA pro vides capital and operating aid to rura l systems at the same rate, i.e., 75 or 80 percent of capital costs and 50 percent of operating deficit. UMTA also prov ides up to 95 percent of the capital costs of nonprofit transportation disadvantaged (f.D ) services subject to certain restrictions. Federa l dollars (from both UMTA and the Federal Highway Administration) also can be used to fund 50 percent of the operating costs of ridesharing programs. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the primary source of ridesharing funds. State Assistance There is great diversity among the states in the types and extent of financial aid that the states provide to urban transit systems. ln 1987, 30 states (excluding Florida --except for special projects) provided operating assistance aod 33 states (including F lorida) provided capital assistance. In 26 of the states, both capital and operating assistance were provided. The types and extent of state aid has been increasing over time, particularly since the level of federal aid began declining The sources of reven ues for operations in 1986 are shown for each state in Table 1. State government participation in total operating costs ranges from zero in many states to 39 percent in Connecticut and Massachusetts. The national average is 18 percent. Farebox recovery and other earnings range from a low of 11 percent in Idaho to highs of 67 percent in Nevada and 60 percent in New J ersey. The national average is 48 percent. Local effort (total revenue generated locally, including e arnings--fare box and other --and local taxes and subsidies) ranges from a low of 36 percent in Delaware to highs of 08 percent in Nevada (see table footnote) and 97 percent in Texas. The nationa l average is 75 percent. The extent of state participation in urban transit operating costs for 1986 is summarized in Figure 4. Although most states provide little or no operating aid, the more urbanized states generally cover a substantial portion of operating costs. Several states provide over 30 percent of total operating costs. With some exceptions, the states that provide capital assistance provide 50 percent of 4


TABLE I Sources of Revenues for Operations for Urhan Transit Systems In Percentages for Each State in 1986 l'ed. SUI< l.oool ....... -1 c-. (}orwt, Go.l. a oth<::t llll'on A tuban\11 31 0 38 2S ., s 0 II 9S Arilllt'lll 11 >1 "' u S6 ArtlnloOU I 2S .. Calir..n nill ? 2') "' l2 ., I 0 I I I iCIII 1 YJ 2 0 36 36 I).C. 0 96 l'k>ri..Ja 20 < 1" )2 .. GeOq:ia 7 0 5? ., lfll ..... .._jj I 0 I I I l!J11hU 0 .. II 55 Illinois 5 12 36 41 ., ln! 24 ,. 2S )! 56 fi.'IWII 1 ? s 38 "' 76 t\a.,(l$11$ JO 0 3? JO )6 0 )6 28 .. IA'mUi anll 21 5 )I 43 ?< MO'il'le lO 0 " Mlll)1:ml! 5 IS )0 lO 80 6 3') 2S 30 ss M ichi z;an IS 31 28 26 MlntW$oe.)UII " 35 .,. 38 0 )) 2') ., Mis:wuri 17 0 S1 26 Ill )I) 2 55 68 ,. l 46 ,., NcvuJ" 1 0 67 lOll' 1\'eeia l projc CI'il Onl y "'J'ot:d 100 pntc11 t lr. uw it $)'$te;n' is f'lrivllldy CIWBtd i $ a profit. "Tl\c rriv;,tc $CCIOr rrc.M\Je' Sl pcon'cnt o r SUuth rc .. c:nuc fbllt is in<1!AIJ i n Itllltioon llo;Scilrt h 5


the nonfed e ral share of cap i tal costs, with, in some cases, a cap on the percentage of total cost tha t will be provided. For examp l e, Florida provi d es 50 perc e n t of the nonfederal share up to 12.5 percent of total capi t a l costs FIGURE4 State Parti ci p ati o n in Total Oper a ting Costs in 1986 0 e .. to P et'cent of ll-te. St&te 1e-..20 Subsidy 2 1 .. 26 2e .. so 3 1-3$ 0 10 Number of Status .. Source: Survey of State I n v olvement in fltblis; Transportation 1987. Center for Urban Transportation Res e arch. Several of the states (e. g. Arizona Indiana, Montana, South Car olina, and Washington) that provide both capital and operating aid do so in the form of block gran t s, which allows the transit systems to use t h e funds for e it he r capital o r ope rating co s ts at their discre t ion Most of the states, however use categorical grants which stipulate whether the aid i s for operating cos t s or for capital costs The use o f ca t egorical grants gives the state more con t rol over loca l transit operations and, i t is argued, prevents systems from de f erring needed capital improv e ments in order to meet operating costs and, consequently to keep from rai si n g fares and t axes i n the sho r t term Bl ock grants, on the other hand, give the local transit systems more control over their operations and, it is argued place the decision-making authority in the hands o f those most familiar with the needs of the system and the l ocal comm u nity. GENERAL A l LOCA TIO N APPROACH The method o f allocating tota l state aid among transit systems va r ies g r eatly among the states. The distribution of capita l aid i s generally discretionary, with the state evaluating need on a system bysystem and project-by-project ba sis, but the p e rcentage of the capital costs that the state will provide for any individual proj e ct usually remains the same, e g 50 percent of the nonfederal sha r e. The d i scretion is whethe r to fund o r n o t to fund, n ot what 6


fund, not what percentage of funding to provide. There are two basic approaches used to determine the amount and allocation of operating aid among systems. One is to first determine the total funds available and then distribute the funds among the systems using an allocation formula (called the "ability-to pay" approach). Stat e s using the ability-to-pay approach generally include a funding cap based on need (e.g., "allocation is limited to 50 percent of nonfederal deficit") so that the aid to any one system does not exceed its need. The other approach (called the "needs" approach) is to first determine each system's needs and the n prov i de each system with all or some portion of its needs, subject to the availability of funds. (It should be noted, of course, that "need" is a very subjective term and subject to widely differing opinions.) If sufficient funds are not available to meet the state's share of the need, the aid to each system is reduced p ropor tion ately. Because sufficient funds usually are not available to meet all of the need, this prorating or proportional-reduction aspect of the needs approach and the funding cap aspect of the ability-to-pay approach usually result in the distribution of aid being the same under either approach. The different approaches merely reflect differe n t perspectives of the state's role in financing transit: does the state first decide how much it wants to or can spend on transit and t hen distribute it among the systems or does it first determine what its share of transit costs should be and then try to raise the money? Either of the approaches can be simply a sharing by the state in the cost of transit or, if the state wishes the allocation of aid can be based on performance variab les and other requirements that provide incentives to increase service, reduce costs, etc. ALLOCATION VARIABLES The distribution of state aid can be either discretionary or based on one or more variables that constitute an allocation formula. Variables u sed in an allocation formula should be designed to encourage the achievement of the state's transit objectives, whether those objectives be imp r oved efficiency in operations expanded service, greater or Jess state control or simply a sharing of the costs. They also should be easily measu red and understood The variables included in allocation formulas can be classified as cost-sharing variables, operations variables, locational variables, and performance variables. Examples of the most commonly used variables are discussed below Cost-Sharing Variables If the state's objective is just to share the operating costs of transit, the funds provided by the state are determined directly by the operating deficit or operating costs of each transit system. That is, the state pays some percentage of the deficit or costs and any increase in costs is shared between the state and the transit system or local government. 7


Although the operating deficit and operating costs variables are similar, they vary in the influence they exert on local actions. Shown in Table 2 are five examples of how the use of the two cost-sharing variables would affect the total local cost of transit (excluding capital costs) Federal aid is not included in order to simplify the table, but the results would be the same if it were included Although the dollar figures and aid percentages used in Table 2 are arbitrary and for iilustrative purposes only, different numbers would give the same relative results. In column 1 under both operating deficit and operating cost, a system's operating cost is assumed to be $100 and operating revenue (fares and other) to be $40, leaving an operating deficit of $60. If the state paid 50 percent of the deficit (column I under operating deficit), the state share would be $30 and local aid would provide the remainder, also $30. The local burden ( or local effort) would then be $70 ($40 in fares plus $30 in local aid). If instead the state paid 30 pe rcent of operating costs (column I under operating cost), the results would be the same: state aid $30, local aid $30, and local burden $70 However, if the transit system increased it s fares so tha t its operating revenue went up to $50 (column 2 under both variables), the local burden would increase to $75 if the operating deficit variable were used, while the local burden would not change if the operat ing cost variable were used. Likewise, if revenue were increased to $60 (column 3 under both variables), t he local burden would again increase if operating deficit were used and woul d remain the same if operating cost were used. If fares were lowered from their original amount (column 4 under both variables), the local burden would decrease using operating defici t and remain constant using operating cost. If fares were not changed but operating costs were reduced (column 5 under both variables), the local burden would decrease regardless of the variable used. With the operating deficit variable, there is clearly a disincentive to increase fares because higher fares increase the total local burden (see columns 1-3 under operating deficit). In fact, there is an incentive to decrease fares, thereby reducing the local burden and increasing the state's burden (see column 4 under operating deficit). The operating cost variable, on the other hand, is neutral in its influence on fare changes (see co lumns 1-4 under operating costs). Both variables provide some incentive to reduce total costs (see column 5 under operating deficit and operating costs) hecause the local area shares the cost reduction with the state--assuming the state's share of the cost or operating deficit is less than 100 percent. Cost-sharing variables are easily measured and audited, but a flat cost-sharing percentage provides limited incentive for cost control, po ssible disincentives for revenue increases, and no way for the state to control the growth in its transit subsidy program. State control of the program and stronger incentive fo r reductions in cost and increases in revenue can be built in, however, by varying the perce ntage of costs the state will pay as the costs increase or decrease and by including in the allocation formula one of the performance variables described later. 8


TABLE 2 of Fare Chang es and Cost Reduct ions On Local Cost of Transit Based on Cost-Sharing Allocation of State Aid CO.'>T.SIIARING VAIUAMU: O pc,.ti-.c, 'Odi('iC <>,.ur\1: c." (I) (1) (l) 14) (S) (I) (2) (l) ( < ) (S) Opcr.111ing Coe>l $100 SIOO $100 SIOO S80 SIOO SIOO $100 $100 SAO ()pcr .. ling Rev.tnue ID 410 J() 4 0 40 60 30 40 l)cfacit 60 .10 4 0 10 <0 60 .10 40 10 40 S1a1c Aid lO 2.l 20 3S 20 ---JO% ol COSt ---. lO lO lO lO 24 l.ut'all J\id lO lS 20 3S 20 lO 20 10 40 OunkQ m fJS S80 S6S uo flO flO flO m S$6 Source: Center for Urban Transportation Research Operation s Variables 1l1ese va riables measu re operational characterist ics of transit system s. 1l1ey are not measures of performance and they a re not directly related to costs, although they are sugges tive of operating or cap ital needs. Passeng e r Trips. 1l1is variable measur es s y s t e m effectiveness in meeting one basic objectiv e, i.e., moving people, hut it doe s not consider syst em efficiency (cost) in meeting that objective. The available data for pa ssenger trips (or passen gers) is "unlinked" passenger trip s, that is, each tran s fer counts as another trip or passenger. Therefor e, this variable favors s y s t ems whose service pattern s result in many transf ers rather than systems that provi de more direct se rvice. Mjles, The major problem with thi s variable is that the data are not r eadi l y avail:'b l e and are very difficult to collect. Special surveys are 9


required to obtain the data. It is a good measure of the amount of service actually being provided, but it favors areas with long commute trips. It is an incentive for transit systems to cater to the long-distance traveler at the expense of the short-distance one, which may tend to encourage urban sprawl. It also encourages higher deficits, since generally the long-distance commuter is more expensive to serve than the short-distance rider. Revenue Miles. This variable measures the total miles that vehicles travel in revenue service, i.e., when providing transit service. The number of revenue miles is an indicator of the relative quantity of service that systems make available to the public. This variable tends to favor suburban systems serving a widely dispersed population over systems operating in compact urban areas where fewer vehicle miles are needed to serve the same number of passengers. Peak Yehjcles. This is the number of vehicles (excluding spares) that a system needs to operate its peak service. The variable is suggestive of both capital costs (e.g., number of buses needed) and operating costs (e.g., number of drivers needed), but is not a direct measure of either. The number of vehicles needed is to some extent a function of speed (the slower the speeds, the more buses needed); therefore, it favors congested areas with low speeds over less congested areas. Locational Variables These variables measure characteristics of a system's operating environment, e.g., population and population density. As with operations variables, they are not measures of performance and they are not directly related to costs. Population, This variable attempts to measure the population of a system's service area, but because of the difficulty of measuring population in service areas that do not conform to political and census boundaries the measure is often simply the population of the political jurisdictions served by the system. That is, a System serving only one-half of a county is credited with the entire county's population. This variab le also does not consider levels of service. If a system operates only one bus in a large city, it is credited with the population of that city. Obviously, this variable has the potential to cause serious distortion in the distribution of aid. It is used by UMTA, however, in its allocation formula --partly to return federal dollars to the areas from which they came --and it does have the benefit of encouraging more transit in high-population areas by making the dollars available. Densit)!. This variable measures the population per unit of area (e.g., per square mile). This is a relatively good indicator of the need for and use of transit. Higher-density areas tend to have greater traffic congestion and to have a higher percentage of the population in easily served transit corridors. The lower speeds in congested areas also mean somewhat higher transit costs. On the other hand, a widely dispersed population is 10


more difficult to serve and produces much lower revenues than does a concentrated population. The primary disadvantage of this variable, however, is the distortion that can result from using population as part of the variable, as discussed under population. Performance Variables The purpose of performance variables is to encourage effectiveness (public utilization of service) and efficiency (system utilization of resources) in transit operations With a performance-based allocation formula the state's funding increases as performance increases. This, of course, can greatly increase a state's influence on local transit operations. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of performance variables has not yet been fully tested because in the states that use them the performance-based subsidies are not a significant portion of the systems' total revenue. Performance variables generally are used as weighting factors rather than being included in the mathematical expression of an allocation formula When used as weighting factors, there is a rwo-step allocation process: first the initial allocation is determined by a formula or some other means; second, the initial allocation for each system is multiplied by the weighting factor or is increased or decreased depending on the value of the weighting factor for each system. Commonly used performance variables are: Farehox Recover:y. Farebox recovery is the percentage that revenue from passenger fares is of total operating costs. As mentioned above, this and other weighting factors can be used in one of two ways. First, the recovery percentage can be multiplied times the potential state allocation to a system (as determined in step one of the two-step process described above) to get the actual state allocation. As farebox recovery increases, the system's state allocation increases. The second method is to decrease state aid if the recovery r ate falls below a set percentage and to increase state aid if the recovery rate exceeds that percentage. Either method provides an incentive for transit systems to increase their farehox recovery. This variable has a distinct drawback, however. It looks at only one part of the total local effort to support transit; it does not consider local tax effort. Although the state quite rightly can demand a certain level of local participation in transit cost in exchange for state aid, it can be argued that the decision on how to raise the local funds should be a local decision, uninfluenced by the allocation of s tate aid. An extreme example of the argument would be that a community that decided to provide free transit service and to tax itself sufficiently to raise all needed local revenue should not then be penalized for having a zero farebox recovery rate. A practical example results from the federal requirement that urban transit systems offer one-half fares to the elderly. Areas that have a high proportion of elderly would be placed at a disadvantage if this variable were used. Another disadvantage of this variable is that it tends to shift the costs of transit to 11


those least able to afford it, and it ignores all the benefits non-riders receive from transit. It also penalizes new and growing systems that have not had time to develop their ridership. Local Effort. This variable considers total local effort and, therefore, avoids the major problem encountered by the farebox recovery variable. It measure s the percentage that all local funds (fares, taxes, etc.) are of total operating costs. It does not exert any influence on how local costs are apportioned among riders and other beneficiaries, but it does create a strong incentive for the local area to incr ease its support of transit. It is applied in the same two ways as the farebox recovery variable, that i s it is either multiplied times the potential state allocation or else a target local-effort percentage is set and systems are rewarded for exceeding the target and penalized for falling short of it. This, however, can result in an inequitable distribution across communities because low-income areas that do not have sufficient resources to meet the localeffort target may not receive as much aid as they need, w hile high-income areas may receive more than they need. This variable also favors mature systems over new and growing systems that have not yet established a ridership base, and it penalizes areas that have a high proportion of elderly. Operatinll Ratio. This variable measures the percentage that operating revenues are of operating expenses. It is applied in the same two ways that farebox recovery and local effort arc. It reflects the combined effects of cost controls and service and fare policies, and provides an incentive to improve efficiency. Efforts to improve the operating ratio, however, may conflict with objectives relating to effectiveness, such as increased service ho urs and expanded service areas. (Althoug h not as obvious, this is also true of the farebox-recovery and local-effort variables.) The use of this variable may also penalize systems for things over which they have no control, such as being in a low-income area or in an area with low population density or in an area with a high proportion of elderly It also penalizes new and growing systems, as do the previous two variables. This variable is similar to the farebox-recovery and local-effort variables but it includes "other revenue" (advertising, investment income, etc.), which farebox recovery does not, and it excludes local taxes and subsidies, which local effort does not Other examples of performance variables are: Administrative employees per operating employee Vehicles per mechanic Revenue miles per employee Accident s per vehicle mile Vehicle miles per road call Passenger trips per capita Passenger trips per revenue mile. 12


Since the primary objective of many states is 10 share in the operating costs of trans it, the use of cost-sharing variables is very common. They are eas ily measured and are dir ectly related to need, but they may provide l ittle incentive to control the need. On the other hand, they do not favor one system or area at the expense of another The impacts of all other va r ia b les a r e less straight forward and unless very carefully chosen, the other variables can result in a distribution of aid that does not effectively promote, or that eve n runs contrary to, the state's objectives. Operations and locational variab les also are freq u ently used in allocat i on formulas. Operations variables tend to measure a system s productivity but they are not directly related to need Most of them are easily calculated, but some are not. Locational variable s are not related to need, perfo r mance, or any other characteristic of a transit system. They are difficult to calculate and can result in undesirable distortions in the distribution of aid. Performance variables promote improved efficiency and effectiveness in trans i t operations much more than do any of the other variables They are not frequently used but are becoming more common. They are easily calculated but they must be used carefully to avoi d unjustly favoring some systems over others. Al ,LOCATION EXAMPLES The examples of allocation m ethods in this sect i on are i n dicative of the diversity among the states. There are almost as many methods for allocating state aid to transit systems as there are states. The methods tend to reflect historical patterns and local political realities in each state. The descriptions in this section cover the major points of each of the selected states' allocation methods. Additional details are contained i n each state's legislation (see Appendix A), e xcept for those cases where the allocation method is determined in regulatory proceedings. Colorado The state provides no financial assistance to urban transit systems. It i s an interesting example, however, because it is the first state to implement state legislation mandating a transit agency to i nvolve the private sector. The legislation requires that by November 1989 at least 20 per cent of the bus service (measured i n veh i cle hours) in the Denver Regional Transit District be p r ovided by the pri v ate sector. (Th e l e gislation is limited to Denver because it is the only state created transit district.) The state also provides n o assistance for rural transit service or ridesharing but it does pass through FHWA funds to local areas for ridesharing. The state provides no assistance for transportation disadvantaged (T.D.) services 13


Florida The state provides only capital assistance for urban and rural transit systems, except for limited amounts of operating assistance for certain corridor and service-development projects. (The legislative prohibition on operating assistance for transit systems ends J uly 1 1989.) The distribution of capital funds for transit is discretionary The state provides 50 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs (the federal share is 75 or 80 percent) up to 12.5 percent of total capital costs. The state provides 50 percent of the operating costs of ridesharing programs and distributes it o n a discretionary basis. FOOT provides no funding for T.D. services, but other state agencies do. Indiana The state provides both capital and operating assistance to u rban and rural transit systems in the form of block grants. The grant to each system cannot exceed 100 percent of local effort (i.e., operating revenue, local subsidy, and local taxes). The method of allocation is outlined below: Step 1. One-half of the available funds is distributed among the state's 32 transit systems in propor tion to population. Step 2. The 32 systems are grouped into four classes, one each for large medium, and small populations, and one for rural systems. Step 3. One-half of the available funds is dis tribute d among the four groups in proportion to each group's share of the total operating deficit in the state. Step 4 The funds allocated by group in S tep 3 are distributed among the syst em s in each group: Step 4a. One-third of each group's allocation is distributed among the systems in the group in proportion to passenger trips per capita and local effort. Step 4b. One-third is distributed in proportion to passenger trips per revenue mile and local effort Step 4c. One-third is distributed on the basis of operating ratio and local effort. The state provides no assistance for ridesharing, and there apparently are no ridesharing programs in the state. The state DOT also provides no assistance for T.D. services but other state agencies do. 14


Maryland The state provides both capital and operating assistance to urban and rural transit systems in the form of categorical grants. The state provides 15 percent of total capital costs for urban and rural systems, 25 percent of total operating costs for urban systems, and 57 percent of the total operating deficit of rural systems. The Baltimore transit system must cover at least 50 percent of its operating costs with operating revenue to be eligible for state aid. A special assistance program provides funds for T.D. services. Sixty percent of this program's funds is divided equally among the state's 24 T.D. systems. The remaining 40 percent is distributed among the systems on the basis of elderly and handicapped population Depending upon the area and the funding subprogram, these funds can he used to cover up to 75 percent of the total operating deficit and up to 95 percent of the total capital costs. In place of funding local ridesharing programs, the state operates a state wide ridesharing program. The state provides driver training for vanpool drivers and conducts computerized commuter matching. Minnesota The state provides only operating assistance for regular transit systems in large urban areas. It provides both capital and operating assistance in the form of grants for transit systems outside large urban areas and for rural services and T.D. services. The state provides the balance of the nonfederal share of operating costs for each large urbanized area system that covers 55 percent of its total operating costs through local effort (i.e., operating revenues, local subsidy, and local taxes) and for other urbanized area systems that cover 40 percent of their total operating costs. For other urbanized area systems it also provides 80 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs. For T.D. services, the state provides 65 percent of total operating costs and 80 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs. For rural services, the state provides 15 percent of total operating costs and 80 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs. The state provides no assistance for ridesharing but passes through FHW A funds for ridesharing. Nebraska The state provides operating assistance only. The funds available for urban transit systems are divided between the state's two urban systems on the basis of population, population density, and revenue miles, with the aid to each system limited to 50 percent of its nonfederal operating deficit. 15


For T.D. and rural services the state provides 25 percent of total operating costs and no capital assistance. The state provides no assistance for ridesharing, and there apparently are no ridesharing programs in the state. New York The state provides both operating and capital assistance to utban transit systems in the form of categorical grants. The state provides 50 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs. The distribution of capital assistance among the trans i t systems is discretionary. Operating assistance is allocated among the systems on the basis of passenger trips, revenue miles, and the type of system. The formulas are: Commuter Rail: Subway: Bus Lines: XA = 0.02 P + 0.25 M XA = 0 02 P + 0 08 M XA = 0.02 P + 0.07 M where: XA = dollars available to trans it system A P = number of passenger trips M = number of revenue or rail-car miles. For T.D. services, the state provides 100 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs and approximately 40 percent of total operating costs. The state provides 45 percent of the nonfederal share of operating costs for rural trans it and 50 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs. The state provides no ridesharing assistance, and there apparently are no ridesharing programs in the state. Pennsylvania The state provides both capital and operating assistance for urban transit systems in the form of block grants. The total available funds are divided among classes of transit systems as follows: 70.3% Class 1 (1000 or more vehicles--Philadelphia only) 25.4% Class 2 (300 to 1000 vehicles -Pittsburgh only) 2 .6% Class 3a (20 to 300 vehicles) 1.7% Class 3b (less than 20 vehicles). The funds allocated to Classes 3a and 3b are then distributed among the systems in each class on the basis of historical subsidy level s, revenue miles, and operating revenue I f the operating ratio is less than 50 percent for a Class 1 system, or less than 46 percent for a Class 2 system, the system's grant is reduced one percent for each percentage point the operating ratio is below the standard With certain exceptions, all systems must provide a 33 percent local match of state aid. 16


The actual allocation formulas are: Class 1: The lesser of: X "' 0.703T or X "' 0.703T (0.703Tx (0.50 r/c)) Class 2: The lesser of: X "' 0.254T or X = 0.254T (0.254Tx (0.46 rfc)) Class 3a: X = h + [(0.0 26T H) x ((0.5 x h/H) + (0.25 x m/M) + (0.25 x r /R))] Class 3b: X = h + [(0.017T H) x ((0.5 x h/H) + (0.25 x m/M) + (0.25 xr /R))] Where: X T h H m M r R c = funds available for a particular system = total funds available = constant base grant for a system, based on historical subsidy leve l = to ta l base grant for the class = revenue miles for a system = total revenue miles for the class = operating revenue for a system = total operating revenue for the = operating cost for a system The state also requires that each urban system have an automatic mechanism to review the utilization of routes and that each system compile annual data on: Administrative employees per operating employee Vehicles per mechanic Revenue miles per employee Passenger and employee accidents per revenue mile On-time performance Rev enu e miles per road call Operating cost per passenger Subsidy per passenger. For T D. services, the state provides 90 percent of total operating costs and no capital assistance. For rural services, it provides 67 percent or 75 percent of the nonfederal share of operating costs, depending on the type of program, and no capital assistance. The state provides no ridesharing assistance but passes through FHWA ridesharing funds. Texas The state provides only capital assistance for urban transit systems and ridesharing programs. It provides both capital and operating assistance in the 17


form of block grants for certain nonprofit corporations that provide mral transit serv ice The total available funds are allocated 80 percent to a formula program and 20 percent to a discretionary program. The formula program funds are distributed among the urban areas on the basis of population and population density. The funds may be used to provide up to 65 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs. Only an urbanized area with a population in excess of 200,000 is eligible for participation in the formula program. The formula is: where: = funds available to urban area A = total formula program funds available = population of area A = total population of all eligible urbanized areas = inhabitants per square mile of area A = tot al number of inhabitants per square mile of all eligible urbanized areas Discretionary funds can be provided to any rural or urban area to cover 65 percent of t he nonfederal share of capital costs up to 50 percent of total capital costs. These funds are also used to provide 80 percent of the total capital costs of ridesharing programs (includ ing the purchase of vehicles) and to provide up to 100 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs and up to 100 percent of the nonfederal operating deficit of nonprofit corporations that provide rural service. The state DOT provides no funds for T.D. services but other state agencies do. Virginia The state provides both operating and capital assistance in the form of categorical and block grants. The available funds are divided among three programs as follows: 73.5% Formula allocation block grants 25.0% Capital assistance categorical grants 1.5% Special projects block grants. The formula allocation program funds are allocated among urban and rural transit systems on the basis of each system's share of total operating expenses in the state. Although the allocation is based on total operating costs, the funds ca nnot be used to pay for driver or mechanic labor and can be used only for certain percentages of other costs. The funds can be used for the nonfederal share of costs minus operating revenues up to: 50% of administrative expenses 18


95% of the costs of fuel, tires, parts, and supplies 80% of ridesharing operating costs 95% of transit and ridesharing capital costs. The allocation of capital assistance program funds is discretionary. All approved projects receive the same level of state participation up to a maximum of 95 percent of the nonfederal share. If the cost of eligible projec t s exceeds the funds available, capital assistance is reduced proportionately. The actual level of state participation varies from year to year. It was 82 percent in 1988 and it will be 75 percent in 1989. The allocation of special projects program funds is also discretionary These funds may be used for the nonfederal share of costs up to: 80% of capital and operating costs of ridesharing programs 95% of capital costs of experimental transit and ridesharing projects 95% of operating costs (limited to twelve months) of experimental transit and ridesharing projects. In addition to the above programs, the state has a special program that provides, on a discretionary basis, 95 percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs of T.D. services The state DOT provides no T D. operating assistance but other state agencies do. Washington The state provides both operating and capital assistance for urban transit systems in the form of block grants. The funds are provided to local areas on a dollar-for-dollar match basis for funds raised at the local level exclusively for public transportation. Transit systems that provide service to an area larger than an incorporated area receive the match for funds generated by any local tax that is used exclusively for transit For systems that are city-wide only, there are certain restrictions on the type of tax that can be used for the match. The amount of money generated by passenger fares does not affect the amount of state aid. In 1987, the state had $126,541,000 available to match local efforts. Only $83,673,000 of this was matched The unused portio n went to the state general fund. The state DOT provides no assistance for T D. services, but other state agencies do. For rural services, the state provides 50 percent of the nonfederal share of capital and operating costs It provides no assistance for ridesharing. Wisconsin The state provides only operating assistance for urban transit systems. It 19


provides both operating and capital assistance for transportation disadvantaged (T.D.) services in the form of categorical and block grants. For urban transit systems and urban T.D. services, the state provides 100 percent of each system's nonfederal operating deficit up to 37.5 percent of total operating costs To be eligible for this aid, a system's service area must have a population of at least 2,500 (recently reduced from 5,000) and the system must annually prepare a four-year transit development plan. The funds in a special T .D. assistance program are distributed among the counties on the basis of the county's share of the total elderly and handicapped population of the state. The county must provide a local match of 20 percent of the state aid. The funds can be used by the county to provide T .D service or to subsidize the users of existing T.D. services such as taxicabs. Another special program provides &o percent of the nonfederal share of capital costs to private nonprofit corporations that provide T.D. service. The state also provides 100 percent of the nonfederal operating deficit of rural transit system s up to 37.5 percent of total operating costs. The state provides no ridesharing assistanc e but there are self-sustaining van-pool programs operating in the urban areas Seven of the twelve state s discussed above provide both capital and operating assistance to urban transit systems. Two provide only capital assistance, two provide only operating assistance and one (Colorado) provides no assistance. Four of the seven that provide both capital and operating aid provide at least part of their aid in the form of block grants. Six of the states distribute their aid solely on the basis of cost-sharing variables Five states include other variables, but only two (Indiana and Pennsylvania) use performance variables. All of the states, except Colorado, provide to rural transit systems and transportation disadvantaged (T.O.) services. In four of the states, the state department of transportation does not provide aid to T .D. services but other state agencies do. Only four states provide ridesharing assistance, and three states apparently have no ridesharing programs. FI,QRJDA OPT JONS As suggested by the preceding examples, there are numerous methods of allocating state financial assistance that would be reasonable to use in Florida. There also are a variety of actions on the part of local areas and transit systems that the state could reasonably require in exchange for its participation in transit operating costs. This section discusses the impacts that various allocation variables would have on the distribution of aid in Florida and describes some local actions th at eould be req uired for an area to be eligible for state aid. The distributions of funds that would result from using a variety of different 20


variables are shown in Table 3. The distribution that would result from the Florida Transit Association proposal to allocate operating aid on the basis of population, revenue miles and passenger trips is also shown. The advantages and disadvantages of each variable are discussed in a previous section Also shown in Table 3 are the actual distributions of state funds for operating costs (special projects only) and capital costs during the past five years and actual performance results, or weighting-factor values, for a recent year. Although the transit systems are grouped according to a measure of size, there is no attempt to differentiate among the groups in t h e allocation process, as is done in Pennsylvania and Indiana. The data in T able 3 are for urban transit systems only ; therefore rural transit services are not included and transportation disadvantaged (T.D.) services and ridesharing programs are included only to the extent that they are provided by the urban transit systems. Most T.D. service and ridesharing programs in the state are provided by public or private agencies other than urban transit systems. A five year average is used for the actual distribution of capital and operating aid so that the distribution is not distorted by the major year to year fluctuations that are common (Major fluctuations do not commonly occur in the other variables shown in the table ) The dis t ribution of operating aid is included for informational purposes, bu t it should be remembered that the operating aid i s only for special projects, otherwise the percentage distribution may be misleading. Weiehtine FaClQts. The performance variables or weighting factors, in Table 3 clearly show that the medium and large systems out perform the small systems, which may be an argument for differentiating among groups if performance variables are used. The passenger trips per capita and the operating ratio and farebox recovery rates are similar for the medium and large systems but local support (local effort) for transit is much greater for the large systems. Operating ratios range from a low of 12 percent in Brevard to a high of 42 percent in Lakeland, with a total for all systems of 24 percent. Fare box recovery ranges from a low of 10 percent in Manatee to a high of 35 percent in Jacksonville, with a state total of 22 percent. Local effort ranges from a low of 43 percent in Alachua to a high of 92 percent in Dade, with a total for the state of 83 percent. There also is substantial variation in the weighting factors within each group of systems. The different effects of using farebox recovery versus local e f fort as a weighting factor can be understood by comparing them for Broward. Broward has the lowest recovery rate of large systems but the second highest local effort. The same is true for East Volusia among medium systems. (Although the available data are for different years, the comparison is probably still valid and, in any event, is ill u strative of the potential results of using the two variables.) As a rule, a system's operating ratio is only slightly higher than its farebox recovery because revenue other than passenger fares is not significant. Escambia and East Volusia however, do have a significant amount of other revenue, and Lakeland s other revenue (advertising and investment income) is over twice its fare revenue. Allocation Variables. As shown in Table 3, the decision on which allocation variable(s) to use can have a substantial impact on the distribution of aid and on the amount of aid that any particular system would receive. Thi s is especially true for the small systems. For 21


N N SYSTEM L!rge Sv:stemsd Bfowa.rd Hillsborough Jack sooviUe Dade Otangt Pine llas Medi u m Svstemse Eseambi a Palm Beaoh Alach u a Tarlahassee EutVolusia Smal l Svst ems Lee Man a t .. Sat&$018 Btevard Smyrna Totol TABLE 3 Actual OisUibution ot Capital and Operating AuiS1ance for 1983-1987 and Weighting Factor Values and Percentage Distribution of State Aid Among Flolida Transit Systems For Alternative Allocation Var iables Weighting ,.._. I AlloCation Variables' ,--::-...... ,_ ...... Capl1aJ ()per. b Local Efloo1 1987 F.,_x """'-Y 1986 ()per. Ratio 1 986 OperrtJ;ng Oporating7""""'" "'Pool< -...;fP,... \ OOficit COSt Rewnue} Pop. \'thidee Mi* / Trips 1 Miles 4.28 12.44 2.85 71.16 2 29 2 .85 .30 .47 .05 1.19 .66 .40 02 28 1 7 .78 03 100% 5 .36 15.88 8.42 36.45 7.46 1 .20 .75 1.67 13.85 1.16 1.39 2 14 .06 3.83 0 .38 0 100 % $4.90 18.1117 78.66 28.27 82.06 35.25 9 1.91 20. 15 74.54 31 18 73.73 2 4.62 64.53 31.71 65.07 21.04 43.15 23.03 77.64 32.27 68. 70 19.59 7 0 24 1 9.72 57.71 17 .25 63.62 1 0 .42 62.93 18.90 51.17 11.20 56.79 83. 19% 2 1 .82% 19.29 31.02 36.80 21.64 33 22 28.66 37.09 22 .40 2 5.07 34.56 26.35 42.23 18.48 12. 4 9 1 9.95 11.97 12.52 23 5 1 10.49 4 .3 7 4.18 .1 62.9 1 2.97 -1.52 i I 9.95 4.86 5.07 61.53 3.41 4.73 1 .73 .86 t 2.33 \ 1 .14 2 36 1.1 1 1.00 1.16 \ .22 8 1 .92 .89 1.29 .07 100% \..29 ;, .7$ \so .70 \ 1 2 :()Sf ., toO%-I i s 1980, other values ar t 986. SJ>eei al projects or.l y. c T he Florida Transit Auociation has proposed t hat the state s allocation of opertting usista.noe be based 1 j 3 o n population d 1/3 on revenue m i les and 1/3 on pass.enget ttip$ More th&.rl five million pass e oger trips pe f year. j OM to milli on trips y e ar. less that one m illio n passe n ger trips: per year. Sources : Ao(lda Pv blie Transi t PJOtlle 1986. UMTA Section 15 Aeoorn;, 1983-87. of P opulatio n, 1980 =nter tor urbAn Transportation Research 8.17 j 6.41 I 7 .93 \ 56.64 4 .8.2 $.42 l I 1.36 2.22 i 1.21 1.72 1.36 1 1 1 5 .53 8.02 8.85 24.77 6 .41 11.17 3 .17 7.50 1.60 1 .28 .83 .53 .59 .43 .5 9 .57 03 \ .73 100% t 2.17 2.03 i 2.fS7 j3.28 .21 \100% ' I / . ... .61 0.72 .00 15.47 [ 7.91 l j 2.00 i 3.40 2.73 i 2.81 : 2.14 .74 1.18 1.77 1.11 3 .25 .30 100% 13 .32 a a t 33.01 8 71 8.79 1 .69 3.62 2 .29 2.45 2.15 .71 1 42 1.30 l 1.24 1.86 .13 i 12.90 r 8.66 5.84 5 .2 1 6.98 .83 1.76 1 .69 1.89 1.62 .27 .51 .54 .6 1 .3 7 I 03 ; 100% IOO%i i ...... 14.45 9 .71 8.90 41.80 5.84 1 .51 I.OS 2.92 8 1 1.56 1.36 .41 .78 .65 .57 1.56 .03 100% 13.11 9.34 6.83 44.09 5.71 7.66 1.16 2 51 1.87 2-04 1 .76 .42 .84 .82 .87 .lll .06 100%


instance, if aid were distributed in propo r tion to population, Brevard would receive nine times as much aid as it would if passenger trips were used as the allocation variable. The differences are l ess dramatic for the medium and large systems but there are cases where the choice of one allocation variable over another would result in the aid to a system being higher or lower by a factor of three or four I f population were used as the var i able, Dade's aid would be a little more than a third of what it would be if operating deficit were used as the variable. T he differences that would result from using in effect, a sing l e-variable allocation formula do not in themselves make one variable better than another, nor do they justify combining two or more variables in an aUocation formula simply to average out th e differences. Any variable used in an allocation formu l a should be carefully chosen for its ability to contribute to the achievemen t of the state's objectives. In addition to the differing impacts that variables have on individual systems, there also are differing impacts among t he groups of systems. The population variable strongly favors t he small systems and tends to favor the medium and, except for Dade, the large syst ems, all at the expense of Dade. Dade, in fact, generally, runs counter to the other large systems t hat is, variables that tend to favor it tend to penalize the other large systems, and vice versa. That fact, and Dade's large size (over 50 percent of total passenger trips in the state), may be sufficient justification to treat Dade a separate group of one if the allocation of aid is to i nclude some differentiation among groups of systems. The revenue miles and peak-vehicle variables also tend to favor small, medium, and large systems at the expense of Dade. The ope r ating-deficit, operating costs, and operating revenue variables favor Dade at the expense primarily of the other large systems. The passenger trips variable tends to favor Dade at the expense of the small systems. Passenger miles t ends to favo r the la r ge systems generally, at the expense of the small and medium systems. Peer R e view. In addition to basing the allocation of aid on transit performance, Flor i da could require that transit systems maintain cer t ain records or take certain actions in order to be eligible for state aid. As Pennsylvania has done, for example, Florida co uld require that each system collect system performance data and submit it annually tO FOOT. The state could go a step further and require that each system conduct an annual "peer review" of its syst em. A peer r eview is essentially a compa r ison of a system's performance with the performance of similar systems around the country. The compilation of performance data and ac t ual peer reviews both provide information that transit management and transit boa rds C'

commiSSIOn, is not supportive of transit the state aid could be more effectively used elsewhere. If the state decided to tie transit aid to growth-management policies, the approach should be one that rewards areas that adopt transit-oriented policies rather than penalizes the areas that do not. The approach should be transit-specific and should not be overly intrusive in local decision making. There are other, more appropriate mechanisms for mak ing general changes in local planning practices, if such changes are needed. Tax Effort. The state could require that all local tax options be fully exercised before state aid will be given. For example, if the local transit system has a dedicated ad valorem tax, it could be required to increase the tax to the allowed millage limit before receiving state funds. Local areas could also be required to adopt a local option sales tax with some portion dedicated to transit. There is merit in encouraging maximum local participation, but such encouragement should be tempered by the political reality of raising loca l taxes and by other valid objectives, such as ensuring that adequate services are provided in low income areas. There also are differences among political jurisdictions (e.g., charter versus non-charter governments) in their legal ability to do certain things. There are certa i n equity issues to consider too. Those who have voted to pay an ad valorem tax, for example, to support transit but are not yet being assessed the full millage, should not be penalized in favor of those who have not voted to tax themselves. The reverse, in fact, should be the case. If the state's objective is to ensure a certain level of local participation in transit costs, "local effort" is perhaps the best measure of that. If the objective is simply to reduce the cost to the state, there are more e"

operating environments, an allocation method that takes this diversity into account is likely to result in a more equitable distribution of aid. As seen in Table 3, small systems generally do not perform as well as large systems, usually for reasons beyond their control. It therefore may be unfair to penalize them for this. On the other hand, the state may wish to use its limited resources where they will be most effec tive. Should different modes be treated differently? Because some modes can so overwhelm others in terms of passengers, cost, and other variables, it may make sense to differentiate among rail trans i t, bus transi t T.D. services, ridesharing, urba n services, rural services, etc. There also are some significantly different operating characteristics among the various services. Bus systems are very labor intense; rail systems are very capital intensive. Obviously, in a r elative sense, bus systems need more operating aid than rail systems, and rail systems need more capital aid than bus systems. This suggests that the distribution of capital and operating aid should differentiate between bus and rail systems, or that aid should be given in the form of block grants, allowing each system to determine the most efficient ratio of capital costs to ope r ating costs. If the state has different objectives for rail systems than it does for bus systems, those objectives may suggest other reasons for differentiating between the systems. One such objective might r elate to the fact that rail systems promote high-density development more than do bus systems. Is the state's objective simply to share the costs? This is commonly the case and it is a relatively easy matter to determine what percentage of the operating costs or deficit the state wishes to cover. Incentives to improve performance can be built in by varying the percentage as the deficit increases or decreases. However, if the state wishes to more directly encourage operating efficiency and effectivene ss, the allocation formula can explicitly include one or more performance variables. Should performance variables be used? As noted previously, the use of performance variables in an allocation formula may not be effective unless a significant ponion of the aid is based on performance. If used properly, performance variables should contribute to efficient and effective transit. However, if the formula is not carefully designed, it is possible that a transit system focusing on improving the variables affecting its allocation of aid would neglect other aspects of its ope ration, with the result being a general deterioration in service It is important that each variable to be used measures different things and that 25


together the variables in a formula comprehensively measure the quality and quantity of service and any other objectives the state has. It also is important that annual aid be reasonably stabl e and predictable. Ir a system cannot predict b eyond the current year the impact of its performance on its level of funding, the e f fectiveness of perforrnance variables is lessened. Predictability is decreased when total state funding is not stable and when allocat i on formulas make each system's allocation dependent on the performance of other systems (e.g., when a given pot of money is distributed on the basis of passenger miles). Some objectives, of course, need to be balanced against others. Good performance by som e systems should not be rewarded to the extent that needed transit services in other parts of the state are adversely affected, and funding sho uld not be so stable and predictable that no incentive for improved performance remains. 26


APPENDIX A Legislation Relating to the Allocation of Stale Aid to Transit Systems In Selected States Colorado Indiana Maryland Minnesota Nebraska New York Pennsylvania Texas Virginia Washington W i sconsin A I A-3 A-5 A -15 A-21 A-31 A -37 A-45 A-49 A-51 A-55


COLORADO {IX} A prov i s ion that the prov ider, a t Its sol e r isk and In ca-pllance with applicab l e laws and regulations, shall have the right to sell addition a l services, Including food and other services to Its passengers, and to sell advertising exc ept as prohibited by existing contracts, freight, charter, &nd other services using the prov ider's veh i c l es; (X) An Initial term of one year, with options for the pro vi d e r to extend the contract for four years, unless t he district and the provider shall mutually agree to a lesser Initial term or extens ion; and (XI} No provision specifying wages, benefits, w ork ru l e s w o rk cond i t ions or union organization of the employees of the provider beyond compliance with applic.&bl e regu l ation and law, including compli&nce with the fede r a l "Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964", 49 u.s. c sec. 1609 sec. 13(c). (3) ( a ) Subject to the requirements of the federal "Urba n Mass Transportation Act of 1 964", as amended, by March 31, 1 989, the d istrict shall request proposa l s from private providers to provide a t least twenty percent of the bus service of the district as measured by vehicle hours. The district's decision as to whlc h ; bus service routes shall be subject to requests for proposals Shall be representative of the district's total bus service operations; except that each Indi vidual request for prop os als1114J designate one type of bus service provided by the district. Service provided by private businesses purs uant to this section shall be accomplished through attrition of the district's full-time employees. N o l a yoff s shall occur solely as a result of the implementation of this section. (b) Each request for proposals shall s pec i fy t h e route, service frequency, and the entire structure of maximum fares dete rmin e d by the d istrict. Such r equest for propos a l s shall Include the district's estiaate of passenge r revenue E ach request for proposals shall a l so s pecify any federal funds a v ailable for veh i c l e capital assistanc e w h ether through rei.OurseMent of eligible depreciation expenses or through l ease of vehicles owned by the district. (c) Each Individual reques t for proposals shal l reflect the district s determination as to the appropriate size for eac h such request in order to maximi ze the number of qualified bidders without causing undue operating inefficiencies. (d) Any qualified provider may respond to an y request f o r proposals. 1he d istrict shall ensure that disadvantaged business enterprises. as defined 1n p art 23 of title 49 of the code of federa l regu lations, as a-ended, have the greatest possib l e opportun ity to r e spond. Any respons e shall be t imely PAGE 3-SENATE BILL N O 164 A 1


If received by the district within ninety days of its request for proposals. Each response shall specify the least subsidy required by the bidder to provide the services described in the request for proposals. If it determines the public interest requires such. the district retains the right to enter Into noncompetitively awarded contracts on an interim basis for the time needed to implement the request for proposal process. (e) With respect to each request for proposals, the district shall award the contract to the qualified provider whose responsive bid offers the lowest cost to the district; except that no one provider shall receive contracts covering more than fifty percent of the vehicle hours subject to such requests, and, with respect to awards made after January 1, 1994, the district shall accept no bid from a bidder providing fifty percent or more of the vehicle hours contracted by the district. Each contract shall be effective not later than ninety days after its award. If the district determines that no responsive bids are received for a request for proposals or that the bids submitted would not be in the best interest of the district to accept, the district may solicit new bids for such request for proposals in accordance with the provisions of this section. (4) By December 31; 1988, the district 'shall submit to the general assembly a plan to provide assurance that the district's responsibilities with respect to bus service are accomplished at the lowest practicable cost. (5) Any person qualified to provide bus services pursuant to subsection (2) of this section who does not require a district subsidy shall, as of January 1, 1989, be able to provide bus services within the district. Such person shall execute the district's standard form of agreement to provide bus services; except that such person shall be free to determine and retain passenger fares. Vehicles operated pursuant to this subsection (5) shall be identified to the public as charging fares not established by the district. (6) Fares for bus services provided pursuant to this section shall be exempt from sales or use taxes imposed pursuant to article 26 of title 39, C.R.S. Providers shall not otherwise be exempt from property, sales, income, excise, and other taxes. (7) The provision of bus passenger accordance with this section shall not be regulation by the public utilities commission of Colorado. services in subject to the state of (8) (a) For purposes of providing legislative oversight PAGE 4-SEHATE BILL HO. 164 A-2


INDIANA ATT ACIIXEIIT A PUBLIC MASS TRANSPORTATION PUND APPROPRIATION STATE FISCAL TEAR 1988 AND 1989a PUBLIC MASS TRANSPORTATION Matching Funds 15,3 79,887 The above appropriation& Cor matching fund are appropriaud from tho public man tranaportation fund. T he appropriatioll6 for public mus tr&DSportation funds are &o be ILNd aolely for the promotion and de..,lopment of public CrADaportation Tbe departmentllf tnnaportation aha II allocate funds baaed on a formula approved by tbe tranoportation coordinating board. The allocation made by the depart81eDt of transportation muotiDclude municipal corporations that received publie aaa1 tl"aaaport.atioD fuad1 ia taW fiscal Je&r 1986. The department of traoaportatioo may not alloule fundo lo &.DY mllJUclpal corporatloD that did DOt receive public mua CraJuponatioD funds ID alate liscal :rear 1986. Tho olate funds can be used &o match fund available under the Urban Mas s Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. <49 U.S.C. 1601 et oeq.l, or local funds from a requeting municipal corporation Cas defined in IC 36 Before funds cnay be disbur&ed to a municipal cnrporatio:'l, the corporation must submi t its request for financial as&i&t.ance to the department of transportation for approval. Allocations must be approved by the governor and the state budge t agency after review by the olate budget committee and shall be made on a reimburaement ba&i&. Only applications for capital and operati ng assistance may be approved. Only tho corporations which have met the reporting requirements under IC 8 9.5 art eligible for assistance under this appropriation. Should tht balance in the public mass transportation fund esceeci the above appropriaLions, aaid excess amount is hereby appropriated l.o be ueed by the department or transportation. with the approval or the governor and the stale budget agency. a Excerpts from House Enrolled Act 1700, pages 39-40 A 3


IITII.ITII :S ANU TIC,\ .'ISi'Oiri'ATI0:-1 \:.ll r .... ,lt.r;\ 1 a ''""''''1';.11 grant. othc:r than :'l ft.odcr:LI ..rr:mt whidt h; :s : lr:tll:t()('rtaliun t'(lmpclncnl \ b ) .\n agency mu:\L : ( \) $ul>m ilto the hoard fHr il...;. apt,ruval fttlcrU'amopor tatil\n g-ranL application$: :tncl (2) report to the planning orrioo al t i m.,. prcscribed by lh<: planning office, all other applications. (c) The huo.rd hall : (II review a. soon l1S pososiblc f,,lertransport..1.ticm !!Y'ant:oi :ont,miltt."tl hy (2) "'Pflrovc or tli!-i:tppnw4.: Lhusc applieatiun:\. (rtation o n ly f o r the set nul i\ntl appnwcJ hy lhc b)ard in the !(!"ant application; (2) u:;c any ntloc r only f<>r the purposes S4:l oul in lhc j..'T':t.nt avltlicalic m :&.'\ r planning ofricy Mt.< l!k/IJ, P l . U, Sf:('. I. S-9.$-<>--2 Filing o( aptlli t i uRA; neC'tt' S it.y O( (frmpliance S te:. 2 (a) Em:h pu1ititn\ file with the planning off ice, at times pr<,.,rihc,l by the ;.>Ianning ()(fie:c. co11ics of '-IPn vctl ft.:r o( slate cnm('l y with tlu: un(t.:r. (t') Wh vn tmplianc,:c i: Hht aincd the ;,1dilor o f !'Lat.c R:h:tll a ll ftw d s wiLhhdd pmvidctl hy (I,J upcm ,\f m'llt:r from the h.a.:u'fl. A ..; b y t' l ;., .w:r. S-9.5-6-:l J,!'rant_,;: t)( ,hash r S."l. :\. 1'h;!-> r.tJl apply h (..,.,:,r al tr:ul:4pnrt:Hion J:t';ants ur uiJH:r f c d r:tl ) :an!-. fur l)f.ftlfC l. Jl , ,lt(rf, ./ t y Acts 1!1/11, f'.I.AI, S/.'!'.:!1. l'uhlic m:ts s ru:ut ; use .s. (;t) There is : 1 rna:" fund", '.\'hi('h is a ;(k"('i:!! fund lo he aclmini:stcn.-d by tlu: mcnl u( lral\." crlift:lnt .. :,:: tr: ll'ulutt tun .,( llff l'"*'' rlnfl: .. r wolim&.;wo.; effn"t.t c ...,It: Atld1tM,n:al po"JI'\TS o\l"t11tfi:S l1) the n.nun&-lowt, .. ltl ty \ll:r.tlo n.' t:uu!'knt n:.u\


MARYLAND 7-101 TRANSI'OHATION TITLE 7. MAS$ TRANSIT. Sublit/d 1. Definitions; General Provision1. Sec. 7. Dellnit ione.. (e) Licht rail (I) Pnva&. carrier. hibited ..... 8 Public StrvJ'ces. 7.-801. Ann e Arundel. Howard and Montgomery counties.. Subtitle I. Definitions; G.lneral Provisions 7-101. Definitions. (el Light r.til transit. -"Light rail transit" means rail transit is elecUically powered and can operate in mixed traffic with automobiles. (fl Private carrier. -"Private carrier" means any person that renders transit service within the District under an operating permit or license issued by an afency of this State exercising regulatory jurisdiction over transportation of passengen within this State and over per>ons engaged in that business. (g) Transit tiJcility.-"Transit facility" includes any one or more or combi nation of tracks. rights-of-way, bridges tunnels, subways, rolling stock, sta tions, terminals, ports parking areas, equipment, fiXtures, buildinga, structure.. other real or pemnal property, and ser

MAss TRANSIT 7-102 !Mt subttdiona (e), (0. a.n.d (g) at pre.ent subsection& (0, (gJ. and th). AI the othtr wef9 not &O"ecud by lM amendmcnt4 they an. not set forth above. EdltoJ"s DO&e. Section 3. c:h. lOS, Act.t 1988. provides that .. t.he Depa.rtme.nt of Tn.n&portation ah.all submit to the J..e.gialative Policy Committee by Oct. 1, 1988, report which in7-102. Legislative policy. eludes a d.tailed plan for the Hsht rail syttem southern northern ltp) includina the mwol"''DDdaJ ben\t to Camden. St..tion, Ba.rtlm.ort-Wuhington [nttm&t.ional Air""pOR, and Penn St.ation. and potent ial alto:mative routea in lieu of the use oi the Howard Street com. dor." (a) Development of e:rpanded tran3it facilities. -The development of imp.,ved and e:rpanded transit facilities, con.sistins of rapid transit and bu.s service operating a.s a unified and coordinated regional transit system, is essential for the satisfactory of people and goods, the alleviation of present and future traffic congestion, the economic welfare and vitality, and the development of the metropolitan area of Baltimore, consisting of Balti more City, Baltimore County, and Anne Arundel County. (b) Compatibility of transportation systerrl3.It is the policy of this title to create a regional transit system in the District that will p"'vide compatibility with other contiguous or neighborins systems. (c) Need for State action. -The desired regional transit system cannot be achieved by the unilateral action of any one of Baltimore City, Baltimore County, or Anne Arunde l County, but requires action by this State through a State agency that is politically responsive to local needs and will assure that the development of the regional transit system fosters seneral development plans for this State, the region, and the local development plans of the partici pating political subdivisions. (d) Coststo IHo covered by fares IUJd federal /P'Sllts. -(1) In this subsection, "net p"'ject costs" means that part of the capital costs that is incurred in constructing and acquiring transit facilities eJjgible for assistance under the federal Urban Mass Trans portation Act of 1964 and that cannot be reasonably financed from revenues. (2) It is the policy of this title that: (i) Conaistent with the alleviation of traffic congestion in the District and the attainment of a balanced transportation system using each mode of transportation to its best advantage, all costs incurred to construct, acquire, operate, and maintain transit facilities for the regional transit system shall be covered, aa far a.s practicable, by fares charged for the services performed by the transit facilities owned or controlled by the Administration; (ii) For light rail projects, at least 10 percent of the net project costs shall be paid by srants contributed by the federal government; and (iii) At least of the net project coats for all other transit facilities shall be paid by sranta contributed by the federal government. (e) Unified and coordinated system; utilization of private carriers. (1) The public interest in efficient and economical transit service requires that the transit facilities operated by private carriers be operated to P"'vide with the transit facilities owned or con trolled bv the Administration, a unified A-6


7 TRANSPORTATION and coordinated regional transit system without unnecessary duplicating or competing service. (2) Subject to this standard, it is the policy of this title to utilize private carriers to the fullest extent practicable in providing transit service. (f) Parity with Wasbington Suburban Transit District. -Adequate prov;. sions showd be made for assuring that, if allocation of State financial !!OUllleS for the benefit of this regional system is made, it will be accompanied by a parity allocation for the benefit of taxpayers supporting transit facilities in the political subdivisions of the Washington Suburban Transit District. (g) Protection of transit labor. -Adequate provisions should be made for the protection of transit labor in the development and operation of the re gional system. (h) Needs of elderly and handicapped peTS()nS. -The public interest requires the development of an effective and efficient transit service to meet the special needs of elderly and handicapped persons. (An. Code 195 7 art. 648, 1, 2, 12, 28; 1977, ch. 13, 2; 1978, ch. 533; 1988, ch. 105, 2.) E:ffect of a.menchDute. The 1978 amendment. effective July 1, 1978. added s.ubaection Ch}. 11.e 1988 amendment. effective July 1, 1988, inaected pre.aent s.ubaection (d) (2l (ii), redesi& nat.ed former a ubeection (d) (2) fii) u a.ubeectiOQ (d) (2) (iii), and aubstltuted "oil otb.H'" for "'th.eee .. in Pfteent subeection (d) (2) (Iii). Editor' aote. 3. ch. 105. Act.l 1988 providee that .. th.e l>t'partment of Tranaportation aha II submit to the Legislativ e Policy Com.mittte by Oct. 1, 1988. a report wbicl\ in dud.t. a detailed plan for the light rail $Yatem (both sout.h.em. and northern lep) indudina the ti.,.iM to Ca..mden Station, Bl timore-Wuhingten International Airport, and Penn Station, and potential aJtemative 1"0\l\t:$ itt lieu or the uae of the Howard Street corridor. Quot.ed in Office lc Profeetiona.l Employee. lnt1 Union, 2 v MaN 'TnuWt. Admin,, 2" Md. 88, 463 A.2d 1191 119821. Subtitle 2. Mass Transit Administration. 7-201. Administration established. Cil4d ln Ma&t Tranait Admin. v. Hou.sehold Fin. Corp. 292 Md. 313, 439 A 2d 1U)4 (19821: Amalgamated Union, Div. 1300 v. Mue Transit. Admin., 30$ Md. 380, 504 A.2d 1132 (1986); Brady v. Ralph Panons Co., 308 Md. 486, 520 A.2d 717 (1987). 7-202. Mass Transit Administrator. Cited in Weide v. Mus Transit Ad.mjn., 628 F. SuPII. 247 (D. Md. 19&51. 7-204. General powers of Administration. M .. 'TnD.eit AclmiDiatntion i.e not tub-Cited in Weide v. Tr-ansit Admin., 62 8 jed to lny of attacb.a:teD .. oa. of ita F Supp. 2 (0. Md. 1 985 ) employeet.. Trusit Admin v House-bold Fin. Corp 292 Md. 313. 439 A.2d 1104 11M2\. A 7


7-208. Jurisdiction of Administration over transit facili ties. (a) Jurisdiction generally -(l) Subject to the authority of the Secretary and, where applicable, the Maryland Transportation Authority, the Adminis tration has jurisdiction: (i) Consistent with the provisions of Division ll of the State Finance and Procurement Article, for planning, developing, constructing, acquiring, financing, and operating the transit facilities authorized by this title; and (ii) Over the services perfonned by and the rentala, rates, fees, fares, and other charges imposed for the services performed by transit facilities owned or controlled by the Administration. (2) (i) For fi.ocal yean 1988 through 1992 and each 6sc.a.l year thereafter, the Administration shall from fares and other operatiDg revenues at least 50 percent of the total operatlng costs for the mass transit bus and rail services under its juriediction. It ia the intent of the General Asaembly that the proviaiona of this paragraph shall apply on a system-wide basis and not on ati: individual transit line basia. l{owever given the antici!fated efficiency of light rail technology the Department is encouraged, after 2 years oflight rail operation, to recover from fares and other operating revenues ai least 60 perc:ent of t he total operating costs for light rail sen-ice-s. (ii) The Administration shall obtain the fare recovery ratio through the establishment of reasonable fares iD the Baltimore region and the implemen tation of cost containment measures as deemed necessary to meet the stan dard required under this paragraph. !1980, ch. 775, 21; 1982, ch. 238, 1; 1986, ch. 396. 1; ch. 397; 1988. ch 105, 2.) A R


MASS TRANSIT 7.1 EJTect ot amendment& The 1980 amendmtnt.. elfeetlve July I, l981. eliminateub section fa). Chapter 397, Acta 1936, ciTKtive July 1, 1986. in (2) of subaectioa (a), in sui> paragraph (i), subetituted "'yean 1988 through 1992 for "yur 1983", d eleted "establish in the Baltimore bQ tnlnRt faree at rates jeeted to'' followins "shall", "such'" following "from", and inM'.rted ''and rail" in the first sen tenet, andy Ralph ParsoM C o . 308 Md. 486, 520 A2d 717 U987l.


REVISOR'S NOTE This se<:tion formerly ppeared N A rtic:l:e 41, 20'10 (<) nd (d). In the (rrst sentence of SKtion, the former to .. Ju.M 30, t971'' is as unnecMU.ry: and. i n tbe second .Stfltene"t". the word ''order'' is a.ddtd to confo"" to similar provisions appearing in 2 or the Article as wt'lt a.. the t.o an "ordfr'' i n the fir1t of this seetion. 'The former refertOCH to tht: Maryland Tranaport.a.tion Authority and "matters within {i1.3} an as A\\ s ... tut.or.f retatinll to re venuf! hond financing of former TranJOil Autt!Orii.Y have repealtd: i n lhi!t l(ll!tltnl r-evisor's nou 1n Tide :l of thit. The onl)' other in stylt. Althou)'Ch the revi$ton of ttl is article otll references to aboli.11hed units. ohrolete tQ tM Me\ropo\l\an Authority and the PublkTAnsit Adminitttration may remain in other a.rticlt1' of the CocM well a.s in various ruin. rtXulac i oM. and tht' t\kct. for \tl\! nwon. \his u)on l." rtt.aintd 3. ThaiiSiC Plans and Financing. '1. Preparation and contents of transit plans (a) Admillistration w prepare plans. -The Administration shall prepare plans to meet the transit" needs of the District and from time to time may review and "'vise these plana. (b) Required conU!nt.s of plans. -The plal\8 shall (1) The traMit facilities to be COMtructed or acquired. including the location of tenninals, stations, and parking f....:ilities ; (2) The charaeter, nature, des ign, aod location of the transit facilities; A-10


7 ANNO'I'ATED'CODE OF MARYLAND (3) Whether the transit facilities are to be constructed or acquired by lease, purchase, or condemnation; (4) A timetable for providing the traMit faciUties; (5) Anticipated capital costs; (6) Estimated operating expenses and revenues; (7) The type of equipment to be used; (8) The areas to be served and the routes and schedules of service expected to be provided; (9) The expected fares and charges for service ; (10) The plan of fmancing the capital costs and operation of the transit facilities; and (11) Any other information that the Administration considers relevant. (c) Plan may include facilities for research and development -A plan may provide for demonstration or testing facilities and for the use of the facilities for research a nd development. (An. Code 1957, art. 648, 9; 1977, ch. 13, 2.) REVISOR-s NOTE Thi> U

7-504 ANKOT'ATED CODE OF MARYLAND REVISOR'S NOTE 'Thil MCtion fonntriy as Article &48, t 30 (b). The only are in sty le 7-504. Administration may perform transit se"ice and subsidize private carrier. If the Public Service Commiuion fails refuses, or is unable to direct a privat

7-506 ('I) P'rovide for any purpose that the Administration considel"9 necessary and desirable to carry out th e provi3ions of this title. (c) Charges subjt only to authority of Secretary and Maryland '!'nJDSportation Authority. -Except for the authority of the Secretary and, where applicable, the Maryland Transportation Authority, the rentals, rates, Cares, fees, and other charges imposed by the Administration are not subject to supervision or regulation by any instrumentality, agency, or unit of this State or any of its political subdivi3ions (d) F'rfle or reduced fares. -(1) The Administration may contract with the federal government, this State, or any of their agencies or political subdivi3ions for payments to the Adminiatration (or fffi! or reduced fare transportation of employees or other persons. (2) The Administration shall allow handicapped persons who are employed by sheltered workshops and who eam less than the current minimum wage, as detennined by the Federal Wage and Hours Board, to travel free to and from those workshops. (An. Code 1957, art. 64B, 8, 18, 31, 31B; 1977, ch. 13, 2.) A-13


This is a blank page A -14




" -"" 2 -- t -"' -;: - - .... ;:. !=


l A-17 0 .. '" .,< ... .. -: ; i I J 1 l'.


- i .. -:; - l t : xli -.! -.. 0 I vi i f ;;: = .: l < -5 -"' - <; ] 0 - .. I .., z < ; > .. i s -t ;;: : l i:l .. : < 0 :r ; i - .. l ;; :. - -l !,( 1: i = ;; "' 7 -2"' 0 -. -.. ; .. A-18


A -19




NEBRASKA Tlcfe 412 NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ROAOS PLANNING DIVISION Q!!! 19-3901 cltfQU911 19-31111 Neb A ... Sift., referr.d to ,. cite N-a Public Tran-rtatlon Act of 1975, a amtndld. is bV this ref erence. rnlde al)llt of d'lit RuJe. Q02 OEFINITIONSj At UJOd hwom: 002.01 RECIPIENT: An oligible ol)lllicont wn-apollcation hal boon opprovod and has entered into an iQI-.Mftt with the Sum under thit PfotfMt. 00j!.02 PROJECT: A ..Cpient't Public T ra.._...,;on Syltlm. 002.03 ELIGIBLE OPERATING COSTS: 002,Q3A F-.o affKtlftg olltlbalty COltS: To be olitlbl ..-cite IUblidy "'-com mutt "'"' cite followint 9'11 critllrla: t. Be '*"MPY and rNtonabM for proPif Jnd riflci.m admii1ist11tlon of the transportation program. be atloci&M theretO und these principiiS and, except u SlMclflc:allv provided ncn be a 91ritftl ....,. requ ired to t2lfY out 1M ovwall respons ibilities o f local p--un._ to1111Y opeotlctble to IN project. 2. Be -illld or not prohibited under Stote or local I or regulations. 3. Be comiotlnt with polici.,, reguletiom, ond pfocodlll'" tllat apeoly uniformity to federally aailtld. Sate Ulin.d.tnd oU't activitiH of tnt unit of gowerrwnent of which the contractor ill PIFt. 4, Be ---llwllt-llwou9t al)llllcotion of _.ny acmllllne& 5. Not be alia--to, or inclucl< a a coo< of, any other f-ly or S.... finanad program in ehtW ttte c:umnt or pri period. 8. Not include dopoociatlon or capiUI cotto. 7. Be of llll!llliictble crodla. A -21


Title 412 NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ROADS-PLANNING OIVIS I ON Cho-I Nobtub Public Tro,_rutian Aaisunce (Caminuel CJOa.038 ALLOCABLE COSIS; A = it allocable to 1>1rtlculat cast otljoctivo to the extent at llenlfits .-ivocl by such objecttvt. Any con allocabf co 1 perticur. cast obi.-cti.,. may not shifted to othll' sub1idy "'091'ams to o,...come fut\d avoid restriction. impowd Dy taw 01 JgtMmtnn, or for otntt" rtasont. WheN ., aiiOCition of joint CDR will in dtltget co 1 tri,1PQttltion program an aUocation plan win be requilad at p,..,.ibed i n tM "M.anuet of Accountil"'g InstrUctions for the Notnlb Pub4ic T r omoortation Aaittance l'rogrom" heni,.ftot reto u tho "Accounti"'l Monuol." Q02,Q3C APPLICABLE CREDITS; APC>IicoOfO cnclltt .,. lho r-1111 at redUct ion o f oxpeflditur tYpe tnn-nt whiCh ottooc at r odUcl .,._ -to tltit subsidy program u dlroct or indirect COlli. exam.,.,. of tuc:ft nniiCtions : PUrcna. dltmUntt. ,...,... 01 recovlfies or indemnid on lo.-: 'of P\lbllelliont, and tcraP; i ncome from penonal ot i neidenUI services ; Jnd odjwaNntsof_.,_at..,.._ch-. .. AoPUCibte cnitl atlo -' wh_. ,...._. or Stltlt furtda ,. rec:eitd or .,. available from soarces otlt tlton tllo tubMv cw-i-to ft-oooroliom of !lie-. Q02.Q4 OPEf!ATING REVENUE; Rgonorotlld from lllo Opontion of tllo SVst'"" ond indud"' w<:h u farea or subtcrivtio" c::n.oM. frOfft rent or lttM of vehictH. from nnt or t ease of veh ide f Mtwerti..,., gifts, ot contrl bUtiont but shill not inch.lde ru: or COlt reimbursements such as insuronco---002 .011 FEDERA L OPERATING SUBSIDIE_; Fodetol tundlovoilablo to oHSft openti"'J lou: such tunds are to bO conoid-10 ,_, fundi odminittOtld by lllo Unlnd $10101 D_,ont of tho TrfaNrY ,,..,.,........,;ng mo,..,l whicn moy bO locol _,,.. .._... Tho Doof Roods will advise rocilllonts of oollllc:oblo lodonl funding ..,.OQIMII ond willdotormino tho ttM to whiCh rocipienu antmPtod to ,_,. tudl fundltll to offllc OPiildnt COiiL 002.011 ELI G IBLE OPERATING DEFICIT : Tho 1moum of tligib4o cotts i ncurred in tho o-on of a I>Ublic !no-tation SV""" whiCh, .,... mo totllof opora(icontl .n.&l t>o _..,... "' \nato U>w public '""-""'"'" pleM witlloll privttt and .. I)Ubiic CIITiers ocw-tino within CCM!'Itnon boUnd8ri to IYOid dvpHCition of servK:e. Utllizttiotl of existing gtivaa C*'Tiers should bl g;v.n contidention when .nabfllhi ng a public: tramPGration symm. Applicants ertablithint a n public 1nnaoonadon rvswm lha" compty wtm the policin sated i n me brochure tnti11ed of AQOfiC*ftl Enabfitl\int PubUc T r altiPOfUitfon ProfiCtl. H A 22


Title 412 DEPARTMENT OF ROADS-PLANNING DIVISION Chapter 1 Nebraska Public Trantoonation Auil1ltnee Program !Continuodl 004 REDUCED FARES 004.01 but svntms. QI*'Jting ov routes and receiving Stat.e funds under thi s program, murt otter a reduCIId fare not to exCHd one haft of the ratts generally apglic:able to ott1e r PSOns at peek houn per on.-wev triP for Pti"'Int who are _.derty or h encUcaDC)ed. This crovision dOfl nat apotv to IQICial tnnsponation IY1totnl. .,., 11 potUI-I'tll. acortod sorviC8 dosignod to servo me elderly or handiCIPPid. or to but svnwms not over rflgUiarty-schtdulecl routes. Nor dOQ this provision cwohibit a city bulsvmm from offoting a r.ducocl faro to lrOUl'l in addition to tho oldony and handicapped or from offering this reduced fare It 1 .. than 'th rtlted reduced rau. The mey desj.gnate OHUin Pllk periods during wllicft rtduC8d tam .n111 not aPC>IY. 004.02 Tho rodpient lhlll bo ,_ftliblo tor dftormining tho dlsobi llty critwia by whicft a handicaol>ld penon will bl l'lioible for the rtducad tara. In dtterminino this recipients mv exl)lnd upon m. deflnitiofts of .r fonh in dM letillation but may not mak e thetr d:iubility c:riterie more strict. For tho of proyiding o mo..,,. at uniform i tY to 1M progrom. tho dilabilitV crltotia proby t11o rtciC)Wm sh.a.U be aQOIIOwed by 1M O*i* Uhtnt of Roeds' ,:irior to ldootion. Q94.03 CttfiCIItlon of .,....,s 11 being oldotlv or hand!c:c-Ood and oliG\blo for tho rodUC8d faro .non bo tho .._,.;billty at tho rodpiont. Tho rodp;.m may port or oil of this riiPOntibilltY to nathor JOIIftCY4iftJ. profftlional(a). edocn: any combinetiOn of m .. Of od'Mf rMd'\odt of certification that bnt mHU d'le indlvidulll of tt11 recipient end still fuJfiHs the requirements of law, ttle cri1:i a and U'lit RuJ and RtgU fation. 00!1 APPORTIONMENT MATCH REQUIREMENTS OQ6.01 Tho Stata .,blldy to a rodp;.m lhlll not oxQid t1ttv PlfC8nl af tho ollglblo aponting deficit. OQ6.D2 Should funds bo inoufflcitnt to tully fund all pnlCIC)IId projoca at t110 fifty PIIC8M funding level. dotonnlnation will bo ,_ u tD whicft projocU, and to what utont, lhlll bo tundoct. Apportianmont will bo rnlde on 1 priotfty bllia Miect to 1M rwquirwnenu and rertrictiont 1ft fonh in d'le tegillation. Priority critlria .noll include but not bo llmitad to 1M fallowing: 1 PraiiOiad projiCIO bett tuitod to..,.. tho .-sat .no oldony and handlcal>l*l. 2. PraiiOtocl prajocU with foclonl funding 3. Propooad pro;.ctJ whiclo .,..,..;ell a..,.;.,. to 1M oldot l y and handicapped not acttwi availablo. 4. Commitment of IOCII 091f!Cilo to -tho projoc:t. A 23


Title 412 NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ROADSPLANNING DIVIS ION C"1 -N-1 Public Tra-ion Aaitta-Protram ICominuodl 5 proja wtlic:h moll adtquatety Sine trlnii)Oftation needs in I gi"" retion. 8. PrprojecU wilicll ..,_tho moat coordination of offon wl1h adler ...,;.,... In weft wh'" an IJ)Piicant receiv no funding, or onty pert'-' fwtdlng, and montY later blrcomls l'lailable, appticatiofts will be ....:onsidend fundlnt or inct"Nud fundlnt. . 006.03 N-. Pubjic r.._rtation Aaiata,_ ProtrWI! Project wilicll is ICClOPtod tor subsidy shall be 10Pr0 for a maximum of one y..,.., duration wtlich may be reM'Wtd the first day of each July, i f funds should bo IIIPI"ODI'IIGd to thia -by tho Lotislaturo. 001 !l4 If, ot orrv time, tho tor 1M 11111\liOift .. oOiigoted in tlloir ontlrnv, no acldl-1 projooca will bo --tor t11ot fiscal yat untllodditlonal lunda -available. OO!i.o& TM -lliont -ICY mull ptO'flde the -of the lunda U> ott.t the deficit incurTed in tho DI'OOiition of Thia locol metcll, ot a minimwlt, wiU oquoj the _,m of State funds. LoQI-i"' fundi mey include: forMnl --i"' fUnds, local ,__, lunda ICIIIQI'tionod to local .,bdt.iaiono by the Stno y_,_ ,_ .. by activitill programs othor tnon ...,......,totioo1. It shall not include oporati119 ...-a< ,_1 rnonl01 -than rewnuMharing funds. RICipiena may bt r'IIQUired to pro..ide aaurance of 1t1 IX'Q1Iition of local-matdling fundi. 008 APPI,ICATtON PROCEDURE 0Qt.Q1 E l igible IIICIIICints -mi"' alliatanC. Jhould file an "AIICIIICitlon fat the Nebraska Public Trt-totion-Program". To....,. -tion for alloc:ation of fundl119 undor this program, the Ollmt>lead forms will"-to bo recoiwd in odeQuetll time prior to the SUitt of the fiscal year, (July 11. to .,._ tor pr0CIIIi119 end _..,. aocution. Al>!lllcltion forms vriU bo .......-by the D_..,om of Rooda Planni119 Division. A 24


Title 412 NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ROADS-PLANNING DIVISION 006.02 To c::omgletl thl IGJ)lic:rtion, dM aQQficant will need to .._ tht anticipated tligiblt 0Deutifte] cons and feeler" funding and sourees of funds, 11 dtfiMd in tM .. Accounting Manuol, lnd compiiU me IPPI'OPO'fting deficit. so it is impomm to h---. to offoctiwly oPPfOprn Stau funds. 008.04 Appliatlona murt be filed -flocal year tllot Stoto funds an to bo comidOfod for aflocltion. 008.0S Nothing thoU bo In tot po otod to PRihlblt porticlpedon by pnvm 0< publle tnnsporution componios in thio _..,. t!Wougll-cao..1Ual..._,om with an olitlbloOOPiicant. A-25


Tltlt 412 NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF ROAOS-Pt.ANNING DIVISION 09? REQUIREMENTS OF RECIPIENTS 007.01 AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT'S: Eadl l!>lllic:aM. upon ....,.,..,_ 1 roetD<..., uncltr tht Na-. Public Trwuoon:adon A.aisDnce Program. will be required to tntet into '" agreement with tne Stmo. TIMwill conuin but not bt limicod to lheloUowing i'"'"' ond nipul.uon.: 007. 01 B Atr.,...tJ mutC taCI the mu:imum amount of sublidy Mid the maxin'M.Im percent of tligibilt -odng doflcia wflidl will bt wbsidized. 007.01C Aollliclrtt ,_ to PIO'Iide local-ing fundi and to credlt tilt Stott with iu ah ofrtfunO of _i--,-

F l LE 0 .... .. ,...._, ...... ..... UL' "'O"" : .:. t ,lio--.., ...,,. U'-;, .,..i .. :1 16 8J 0 0 8 5 0 I T l tlo 412 NEBRASKA DEPARTMeNT OF ROADS PLANNING DIVISION Chapter 1 Nebt'alb PtJblic TranspotUtion Assinanc::. Program (Continut) 007.02 REIMBURSEMENT AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 097 Jl2A SubsKSy paymtnu will bl made on 1 reimbursem.nt basis, not more thn once every month. 007.028 Reoatn for subtidy pevment and data reponing will be made bY submitting, month. rht neas:ury r.tmbursemtnt forms, which w ill be completed Yri'Ch sutfici.m detail to usurt the StJtt that dtt requened subsidy it iuttif'.ect. 007.03 ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING REQUIREMENTS 007 .03A Records conc:wning com wtlic::h will be daimed for retmbunement mun be ke'Qt in conformara wil:h tht guidelin cont.intld i n ttl ''Accounting Manual."' 007.038 In order to pr-ly accaunt lot lfigiblo rlimbu,....,onts uncMr tho pr09fam, caJh basis Of ICCNI& basil ICCOUntint It acc:.s:rtabl at lof'l9 u such system i s consirtent throughout each agreement cwiod. Trtlo412 APPROVEO FAUL L. tJO!.iGLAS I. e: ..,... OATa . ---ANNOTATION APPR -hi Gover A 27 Enollll"' l.oviti-39-G88 llftll 19-3911 Noll. Rft.S..._ FILED


district shall be required to modify or alter any school bus because of a contract entered into pursuant to this section . Any municipality or county when using a school bus upon a highway pursuant to this section shall cover or conceal all school bus markings on such bus as required by section 39-660. 19. (1) A public transportation assistance program is hereby established to provide state assistance for the operation of public transportation systems. (2) Any municipality, county, transit authority, or qualified public-purpose organization shall be eligible to receive financial assistance for the eligible operating costs of a public transportation syste, whether the applicant directly operates such systeB or contracts for its operation. A qualified public-purpose organizaUon shall not be eligible for financial assistance under this act if such organization is currently receiving state funds for a program which includes transportation services and sucb. fundina and services would be duplicated by this act. Eligible operating costs shall include those expenses incurred in the operation of a public transportation system which exceed the amount of operating revenue and which are not otherwise eligible for reimbursement from any available federal programs other than those administered by the United States Department of the Treasury. (3) The state grant to an applicant shall not exceed fifty per cent of tb.e eligible oper&tina cosu of tb.e public transportaUon system as provided for in subseetiou (2) of Tb.e amount of funds sbatl be matched by an equal amount of toed funds in support of operating costs. 19 .Ot. State's portion of the Nebraska public transportation assistance program; transfer of funds; limitation. The Department of Roads shall annually the of money is necessary to fully fund the seate's portion of the Nebraska public assistance proaram stablisbed under A-28


section 19-3909. The State Treasurer shall monthly transfer from the Highway Allocation Fund to the Highway Cash Fund one-twelfth of the difference between the amount appropriated for the Nebraska public transportation assistance program and the amount necessary to fully fund the state's portion of the Nebraska public transportation assistance program, except that the annual amount transferred by the State Treasurer pursuant to this section shall not exceed one million dollars. 19. City bus system; recipient of state funds; elderly or handicapped per sons. The fares charged elderly or handicapped persons shall not exceed one-half of the rates generally applicable to other persons at peak hours for each oneway trip for any city bus syste.111 operating over regularly scheduled routes and receiving state funds pursuant to sections 19 to 19-3911. The recipient of state funds under sections 19 to 19 may designate certain peak hours during which this section shall not apply 19. (1) The Department of Roads shall administer sections 19 to 19-3911, and issue such rules and regulations pursuant to Chapter 84, article 9 as are necessary, including but not limited to defining eligible operating establishing contractual and other requirements including standardized accounting and reporting requirements, which shall include the applicant's proposed service area, the type of service proposed, all routes and schedules, and any further information needed for recipients to insU%e. the 111aximum feasible coordination and use of state funds, establishing application procedures, and developing a policy for apportioning funds made available for this program should they be insuffi cient to cover all eligible projects. Priority on the allocation of all funds shall be &iven to those proposed projects best suited to serve the needs of A-29


the elderly and handicapped and to proposed projects with federal funding participation. (2) Any public-purpose organization proposing to provide public transportation denied financial assistance as a result of a determination by the Department of Roads that an area is served by exisein& transportation services may submit a petition to.the department requesting the department to reclassify the proposed service area as not adequately served by existing public transportation services. The petition submitted to the department by the publicpurpoae organization shall bear the signatures of at least fifty registered vours residing in the proposed service area. Upon receipt of the petition the Department shall hold a public hearing in the proposed service area and after such a hearing shall determine whether the proposed service area is already adequately served. In carrying out its duties under this section, the department shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 84, article 9. The department shall not be required to conduct a reevaluation hearing for an area mou frequently than once a year. 39. Kighway Alloeuion Fund; distribution. The State Treasurer shall monthly transfer from the Highway Allocation Fund to . (3) the Highway Cash Fund an amount calculated pursuant to section 19. 01 for financing the operating costs of public transportation syst8111S as provided in section 19 ... PLAN19/C A-30


NEW YORK Nt'W Yurk t:u dt" K Abandonment ur property, aeo 11 NYCRR't of 1ruPf"rl1ur u1tp:1ny In t.iun JltlCLiun 11 or Hanknlfltcy !\ lAw, 11 U.S.C A 20G. rna;y be P!,,.,_ priatl'ft h)' \hot t:nc., rrrt ot aU lit-n'-. JtUnlUlliiL \.11 unlcr of l.hc: Unile.""CI S,L;,t.c_.,; Oiltrirt tUTK. Op.AU,y.Gen. UnrJ Ftb. 7. IIS-L Swtew ide tJ"an.spurtation -.,_,bt..nce proeram S.Ccfon upired May 1, 1 975, pursuant u nnte undtr lltc:tion in ma i n to "lion \(o(c:l or (.1914. c ll8, t\lt\ 'folume" l..ran.:fUt rtntiun 1uvcixtunc:c p r u.:-ran \. Wilhin th"' umounl" 1nadci nvot.ilabl e theretor, by avpro,riation, a Atote wide p rogr a m is hereby (,1; the of m"kin1: j)ayment.s tc,wo.rd the opera tin}.{ mqN.tll tlt.'M c,r 1uhlic;1url::aliun sysl.c'":f. Pur pnrpCI.WN r ) f thix tll."t!Jun, u,,. O...:nn vub iK: any puUiic bentfil n t:raMporWUon uthority which or c:ontr.teL-. ft'Jr the 11nn-isio n o( ( under joint. ur;IJ'fll't llrran..rc.:mcnt-.) ma."iM nr "' .. Mfiary thereof, ur lndiom lril..l' which vrvvi.Jt!ll o r any cuuuly or cily whic h or <.'Ontr.&tUI. ror the provision or (j, l to Jection onto hundred of .rtner.ll municipal law) mAM transportation services or a.ny person, firm or intercity bu.' p:\J&senJ,"tc-r u rlerint.d in subdiision thn:t!' u ( ,.._"\'linn nr thi.-<. arlic&c krvinl' t w n nr mn"' wil.hin &he IIWk w hich i:t under wilh the commi)UI;ioner pursuant to s u ch at<:don fourl\."Cn-g to PTO\'ide tr.tnspottat.ion Mrvicn. 2. a. Tht> shaH pay W public !'l.ystem U1nl mak<.":l :UI :llltdicatinn lhcn:ror. in flUD.ttl:!rly a m:t.-t!-0 H(N.:r.,tiuJ.t :ts ... sc:rvi-.'V JM&ymcnr.. l'or lhu JUrpo:u.-:l of this lhe l'hull tw April throu{Ch June, July ()ctohe r throu"'h December nntl Januory thrOuJ(h Ma rch. L.. For Lhc: uurlcr t.-onunentinJ.t April fir:-t. nineU!cn hundrtd $Cventy r ive the Jaym cnl :-thall bv Uu: umounL eompul<:d by t he furmulu ru t'1.h jn !(Uinu.:d ion O( thi3 a ThP. quarterly rmyment mnrle tl) any public tMU\AportM.ion tlYMlAltn M1mU nl he srrc:ttcr lh;m n urn com(IU\.UIJ in onu of t hv munnN'!I.: (i) I n UK! c:ue ur commuter, by U,e ('trtiried o( eummutat r.1il mullitll":d by Lwn cef\b 11'f'r :Lnd tht: wrUrM.

(iii) In me \1{ !Jus IJy the .:..-. .. i ... -.; :tumll .... r ..,r by two cents per and the certified number o( bu.s miles multiplied by $e, en c-ents ver bus mile. Por the purposes of computing quarterly servfce Jhl)'lllent.s only mileOLJ:tt accumulated in reve_,!lue sfl'\ise :shall be n$&. Whene,er it is dt"ttrmined by the commissioner the 3mount of money apttropriattd f(lr aer,ire is IC!SS tJtan Ue total amount of mouer for whieh aU public: transportation are the commis sioner may est.abli!h on a quarterly or annual basis, a maximum servtce payment limit which is lower than that provided for in this seetion. (1\) In the cue o( commuter fem lines with the authoriu.tion for payment thereof for the fiscal year nintteen hundred seventyfhe-nineteen hundred to be in the discretion or the commt.aioner, by adding the certified number of annual ferry p;1Ssengen multiplied by two cents per passenger, times the cerr i iied number of annual ferry miles, times two-one hundred thousandths. For the purposes of computing quarterly servtee payu\ents only mileage accumulated in revenue seniee ahall be uud. -4. a. All aenice shall be nude upon an appliation of systenL appli<:>tion ahall be filed between the Sioner shaH. t..y the ttnth day of next su.eeding month, pay to the public operator, the quarterly service pa)'nlent. b. The uf!icer o! public: transportation system recehiug a quartt"r!:: M"l .. puyment pursuant lo this section shall Cll!rtify to the commiasior.-el'. d1ys after the end of the quarter Cor which :1 servtre "-'a.:) the actual tot.:ll nu1nber of paastn gers e<1rried by the :ystem during su..:h quarter :.tnd tM actual total vehicle or car miles the traveled in revenue seni during such quat'ter, and totals, tJ;e Cl)mmiss.ioner shall make such adjustmfnu as :na.f t;e in the 3mount oi the paynlfnt for such $)'item tor ti'le quarter. 5. a For each quar:er, eath county, municipality or Indian tribe sened a public t ransporta t ion system wh ieh receives a senice payment pursuant to subst<"cion '""" secti or. shall, not later than the twenty flfth of the steond month o! each quarter fo.r payment is made, pay to the public transportation $)'Stem a sum equal to such service payment or il$ share of sucn excei)t that in the case of a sef\i> payme-nt to a !)Ubtic transportation system account of mass tra.nsportation ser"ices pn:widetJ to more than one (considering the city of New York to be cGunty), county receiving such services from ; uch system ;hall pay to the sys._m a sum equal lo its share of the senice payment, which sunl shall be in accordance with the ptrcentage or dollar amountS for such county by the legisla ture. such caur.ty. mur.kip:dity or !nd:au tribe is the publiC' transporta tion ::.y!ttm, SU it'..! to :ter\'l<:t-payme-nt shall be eommintd to the ust t)f the public :f)'Sl.em. n.:,t later than the twencyfi fth day O( t h-t)f { J

used ror oth.:-1 cb:-.11 the f ... ... ... in;.: the publ)(-ll'::m.sporUtivn SlSt.em b. The or commitment o such sums by the muuici or Jnctian tribes pro, idtur Of the Slate fana.nce law subject to the following limitations: to \\ithholding amounts aJ&oc3ttd to (atry such county or municip.ali ly, the comptroller tbaU pay in full any amount due the state of New York municipal bond bank agency,"" d for the speci(ic purpose of paying the optrating expeoses o an)' county. municipality. benefit corporation or Ind i an tribe, eligible to r e ceive set\i J)llp;lents as a public transportation system pursoant to thL$ se-etion, received by the state or any municipality ot Indta.n tribe: after the tfetti\" t date of th\s stt.tkm, and made to any such tOunty, municipality public be.."tfit corporation or tribe for appli-cation in accordance wlth tM terms of the grant. shall be combined with any similar fede-raJ grant made djncdy to the county, municipality, public benefic corporation or Indian to http meet operating expenses of any mass transportation pro,ided for any such county, munic-ipality, publtc benefit corporation or Indian whethe-r diretLfy or b)' c:onuacL In the event chat the total revenues of auy public transportation systtm. including subsidies from federal, state or klcal governments. and where applicable, including funds required to be c-ommitted b\ the county, municipality or Indian tribe, e);c-eed the total operating eXpenses for any such system, excluding deprec-i ation suc-h shall be utiliz.ed by tM system to reduee tares or tu extend or increase mass transportation services. A plan to dteetuate any suc.h tare t'tduction or estension or increase in senices shall be submitted to the t 9mmissioner by a pub lic transportation within days of n."C'ehing noLtce from the commissioner to and submtt such a plan A-33


t'..,o: l .: ..: .. .. u:ut:i:.:.i;.l:o:t l>\h:h 11l:1n-;. made by the COimuissiQner sh:J.Il bt implcmcntL" make m3tclting to the sysum, or in the event that nu futuN l'ayments are nuute to such public transportation !>ludl proportM>na.te!y refund such surplus to the state and the eom1ty, muntcipQiity or lnrlian tribe involved. 7. The m3)' prescribe 1udt regulations as he may deem api)ropri:t.te to efftctutite the putpose:s of this ation, including but not limited to, a uniform s>atem of pursuant to the provisions of this section. The tommissivne.r &hall also define by tules and regulations, the "passenger", or rar mile ... urbanized area", .. chief exec;u.. tjve officer", .. mus services" .. service payment'", "commut er rail system' .. ''sut,wa) transit system", $y$tem". "pta!c. hours", ''elderl:;", "1\a.ndicapped", and such other terms u he deems neces..qry for the puf'!)OUS of this :ioecliou4 n .. eommis$ioner. in with the auditing procedures of Lhe cumptrolWr, shaU have power to audit and examine tht accounts, books, conlract:s, NC:ords. doc:Umt!nts aud Oiibn tran$portation studies and other app 1-.:opriate state and local offi<"ials shall prepare a.nd submit to the gowrnor and the legislature on or before October first of each as o: ;.he s.nnu::l.i statewit!e mass t1;msportation operating burlget a lJI'Ort, whid: $h31l m01ke (Jpdings and re.:om wilh n:sl.ect to the ioliowing: tat the impad and effectheneM or the $t:aewidt-t,togram 01ud the \'alid ity of the criteria upon whic:h tr.e distriLutior. formni:l is (b) the de,elopment of J,:"uiidine.s and sumd.ll'l.lS ur that m.ay be a!>tlie

servi<'es :md the de elopmcnt "( n ('w public sys tems. (AdOO:f 1..1975 c. 36. 1; L..l91'5, c. S7 1; L.l915, e. 791, 1 1; 1..1916, c. 430. tl I t.o 4; 1.1982, <. 626, 2; l.li183, <. 921, 2.) 1983 Amendmn.t.. Subd 1. 1-1983 921, 4 2. err. Aug. 8, 1983. in s entence boctuninc "For tM purposes'' aubslituttd "L\\'0 or more'' for "more than &eY en", J'SZ AmendnwnL Subd. 1 L.l982, c:. 626, 2. eft. OcL 1, 1982.. in sentence beglnninr "For the inserted "' any person. firm o:r corporation peP fonninc intercity bus passenger servic:e u defined iD tubdivisioa thre e ot section fourt.Hn-g of UUs artide .serving more than HVen cou.ntits within the ttate whkh it uncHt-C' with the commie--1-ioM.r pUJ"aU.Ut &o such atttion Courtc.n-e to provide mua llanaportatioo sti'Vicet" att6 Ataeodmtnl. L19;s, c:. 430. U 1 to 4, eff. on the 30th after June 21. 1976, included. Indian Uibe in a.ubds. 1, 5, 6ad 7. lt1S Subd. 3(iv). L19'7S, e. 191, f 1. added iwn (i,). Subd. 9. L.19lo, c. 6'1, t 1 .ct. Apr. 25, 19iS, rdJooacUve to Apr. 1. 1970, insentd "producth ity"' io cla\l$e (d). Elfenlve Date ot 197$ Ammdment; ReU'

This is a blank page A-36


PENNSYLVANIA 1 applicable by law. fal4ia9 aadec aot 2 ac_. tlln.-toutlos of Ue --reanl abaca of pco)ac:t coats l a.n-llr tlla wllicll c&aaOt, aa dat.Ue llf tbe 4e .. zotaeat,. c .. aoaAlt.lf be fiaace4 fC"oa ceYeaLocal oc S pciwata f .. d ia9 84 at l .. at oae-foactll of tba aoa6 fedecal abaca Of pco]act deficit. aa 4afiaed bf tbe 1. 4aJPUtaeat. ne Mtllodolotr fOt: cucalatie9 tbe Uti lila detici t a of applicaeta aadec tllia paca,rapb aball be .. 4 ia 9 accox4aaoc:a witb aectioa 204. lacb pacclla-of cwice pco]ect 10 91:aet a ... U be apoa a pcOfCaa 01: plaa appc01rN bJ tbe 11 lapartaeat ... letecaiaa4 11J tba 4a,act-t to be ia tlla pablic 12 iatec .. t. to lloa ia factllacaace of a eootliaatal .... 13 tra .. portatioa plaa foe tbe ac aot to iawolwe aaaecassacy 1a aa4 aafaic coapetitioa. ao State 9caat lloa .... foe a 15 pactic.lae paccba&e of secwic e pco).ct ... tile lapactaeat 11 letal.- fiala. f o e uil peo)ect tbat: ' 19 UU tba .... tcaaapoctaUoa cacciac .i t.totia9 011 "ill tale 2 coatiaab9 acU .. to iapcotbe aecrice 111011 loaa .. to a 21 J la;lp: pr& \Q s t ... 1 &ri& aati&x, sg slaaa 2 e 22 &rtlli& \itt pt sg a clee 3 $'''''\ eati\J 11 awcaaapt . -.. 26 to clya 1 &ri\ eat,it;i ur ,taa aa&c:llM by J OJP& ggt less 21 1'15=1111 Clasel yeer iC t .. aEtaS .... 1 at1 cpstiro4 a Jq ,, lgctl QC l'ipt c ...... ie *'-' 'A ,,., s. A-37


1 itaas. 2 (j) Local transportation organizatioas an4 transportation 3 coapanias shall be prepared to appear indiwidnally before the co .. itteas of the Senate aed loase of 5 Representatiwes to jastify badget reqaests. ) 6 (bt the GQQOCal lSSQiblz shall IQQIAllJ 1Ak8 AA 7 appropriatioa tg tba daaa(taeot fp( distrihutio& as grants to 8 lpcal tC1Q3pOrtatiQD QCQIQizatiQDI lAd t(AA3QOCtatiQQ COaQAAies, 9 Jbe tQSal awoqgt; pC woggys aDp(gpciatBd shtll bg distribqte4 by 10 the 4epa(twaot, aa qraats to local t(AASRQctatiop O(ganizations 11 agd t(agsggrtatiQD cowgaoigs in accordagce witb the proyisioos 12 oC tbia sectioa. 13 (c) the dapactaant shall istcibgta the total &IQttnt 14 app(gpciata4 qodar sabsactioo (bl ia the tgllgwioq aannec: 1\ Dtitx 3hare. thg class 2 trapsit aatitx share tp4 tba class 3 .< 17 ,..trayit; gt;it,y share Cgc tho fisgl yaac. tr011 t;ho slay 3 18 .t(auit gotit;y sht(01 the 4apartDt sball c:alcglat.a t,ba class 19 JA t;rayit; ept;it.r sbj.:,a ag,4 t,he class lB trapsit eotit.x sbtce, 20 (21 tba 4epart.aot shall than calculate tbe aagqgt of grant 21 4pg CO oac:b lgcal tragspoct,at,iga O(qtoizatigg &A4 t;rapspo,tation 22 c:gpaoy as CgllQMS! 23 (il lack claaa 1 \(agsit got;itx sball cecaiya a p,ocat& 24 share oC t'e elass 1 t(&Dait eatity s'''' IC thg(a is oolx one 25 clast 1 traasit eptit;y, iC aball (&coiyo the ept;irg class 1 26 t;(apsit; ept;itt sbt(&e 27 fji) ItCh c:ltSI 2 trtpsit; gptit;y shall receiyo I QCO(ttl 28 sbt(& gC t;ba class 2 trtpsit; ept;it;y sharg. IC tba,o is only goe 29 Clt&a 2 t;C&ASi\ 00\it;y. it, lhtll ro,aiyp thO Gpti(t SltSS 2 30 tragsit; eotit;r sbara. A-38


1 Ciii) laeb class ll transit emtity shall rece1ye a portio.Q l gf the cl&&J ll t'ADit sha,e calcalated as fgllow> 3 (A) Prpe the class l& entity shore. each class 31 4 trasit. shal1 (irst recaiya aA aagugt eqgal tg one 6 Cll Mitb raspect so anx pqrtion gf the class 31 transit 7 BQtitx share roaaipipg after each class ll traosi\ emtity 8 racaiygs aa aagwnt eqaal to OQ9 bgndrad pgrcept of its adjusted 9 base qrAot; 10 (I) Piftt percaat of sqch excess shAll be distributed to 11 class ll trapsit omtities basad gpo; the perceataga of all 12 a4jqste4 baa qrapts titeD to >ltss 31 t'Ansit entities Which a 13 aacticqlar ClASS 3& trapsit @Q\iSy ceceiyed. 1 (III %yenty=Cira parcBDt gC sgsh excess shall be distribgted 15 to cltss lA trapsit gotitias basad gpon etch trapsit entity's 16 Cl&gs 3& J&bicla Milo RQCCOQt198e &Ctptl IWQQA\ receiyed by 11 sash cltss 3& transit 'Atity pg4er this sqbclaust shall be t8 4aterwjpod by wqltiAlrinq A Racticqlar Glass 3& tCtQSiS entity's 19 cltas 3& ygbiclo aile aarcaptaqo tiaas percent of 20 agch ft4CISS gf $h8 class ]A tcaasit aatity share. 21 lXXI) tweatr-fiya pg''9\ gf sash excess shtll be 23 ll srapsit aatitys clasa J& gpecatipg rayagag oercepttqe. tbe 24 ac$qtl aeggot cecaiyad by each class l\ transit egtitx gnder 25 tbia bclttsa sbtll be datarwinad by aqltiRlxing a particulAr 26 staaa l& traa3it aatitya class ll gperatipq ceregug percentage 27 tiea twaasr-Ciya percept of sgsh excess of the cltss J& transit 28 optity ahara. 29 (itL hell c:lass lB _s;.caosit apt.itx shall recRiya a. Poet ion a[ lO tho clasa 31 trauit, aQ:t,iU. shacg calc:qlatad as follows:


1 (l) Prow class ]I trapsit eatitx sbacg. eacD class 38 z uayit; apt;itr shAll Cira& rgsoiya 11 &aOAt aqqal tO one 3 "'""""' pt(CQD\ gf it;a a4jgsted bls q,apt;. 4 !at With reapacl; sg aay portioo qf the sl&SJ 31 t;raosit 5 eSit;y ahara caa&iaipq after each class 31 t;caoait entity 6 C@COiJOS ap IIQIAI; aqpal \0 OAO hppdrad pOCG@At Qf its adjustet 1 u.a gcaot,; 8 [It Pift,r Rft'''l& gf aqch axcasa shAll ba 4istribqted tg 9 Claa ]8 trapsit, aatit;ios based tpgp t,ba peccoataq& of tll 10 a4jl'la4 bt qragt,a qiyaA I;Q class 38 tragait eot,il;ies yhisb a 11 Dlt\iCJltr sl 38 trtpsit opt,itJ recnired, 12 (III twta&y=fiy parcagt ot sack aacass shall be distribgted 13 SA class 31 t,caiS aotitiBS bfsod PO oaeh t;rtpsit; eotitys 14 GlIW 31 yaaLcla eila RQrcopt,aqo. tho ast,wtl woaS receiyed bx 15 tee slaas ll trapoit egtitt pgtoc Chis bsltiSB shall be 16 tecipe4 by aplCiplyigq Rarticatar claaa 3& trosi\ eptitxs 1 7..: dap 31 yallisle ilo aoregptaqo tiaga tweot,y=fiya gerc;ant; gf ... IICh 91QI-M Of tlae ClASI 31 tcagit BAtity ShACQe 194 (lUI bepCy=fiy8. aorcoat of sp,cll excess sllall btl 20 titrihated tO claoa lB traaait agtities baftd apgp tach cltss 21 ]I tJ&Aiit, Op\itt' class ]B OQO,Atiaq ,ay&Age gerc&Dt&ge. %be 22 tctptl 18QIAC, C&C8if04 bt Q4Ch ClaSS ]8 t'AQSit 9AtitY ppde 23 "ia bGlapse abtll be tcwiaod by ltiplyiaq a gtrticulac 2 cla1a ll ttPit tptitys sltsa lB gpocatiaq rayanga aa,centaga 25 tie .. tMItt=fiyo perceat 0( sac' 11casa gf tba elas 38 t'apsit 27 (]) OD qr abgt 94ch Jqly 1. Qctpbar 1. JAQS&CJ 1 and lp,il 21 1 pC 91C) t@lr cgwaaacigg JRlJ 1. 1787. tbo 4gDtrtaont skall 29 4iablra garnrt,eu gf ttae COtl &QDtal taoppt, ao tg aasb. 30 los:al tCIMDQC\t\iQI ocqi.:. .. i:igp QC \CAASROC\ttioa COQID.Y A-40


1 '0 aqcb local &ragsportatigg grqagizatiog gr trtnsRQrtatipn 2 cowoapt cogcerg&pq the porcg,apcg lazals &scwallJ tcbioyed. 3 Sgcb repgrt sball be released to \b pablic at tba \iae gf 5 (ql With respect tg q'agta to class 1 trapsit eotities tpd class 2 srap;ic Oltitias ia AOI fiscal roar. tho doparsaont 7 &ball ,e4qcg tho qrtpt aouat 4ta to sash local srapspgrtatio; 8 a,qgizatioa or trapspgrtatiop cgapapx bt aa AIQIAt agual tg oge 9 parspp\ oC sgc' graat wgaaya gsbocwiao daa tO sacb lpsal 10 troaROrtatioo ocgaaizatigo or trapspgctatiog SQMQIQ! fg( each 11 porcoataqo RQiA\ amsb local tragsportation orqagizttions a, 13 RICCIO\ iD \bO CliO Of I clasa J tCtQ8i\ aptity. QC 1031 thAD 1' (QE\X=fil pers&p\ jp tho ca;a Qf A Cl&SI 2 \CAQSit OQtitY. 15 ''' t- dapartnt is s,orjzgd to pgrfgra igdapeodeDt 16 Cipapcial ag4its pf tha fiPAQGil &&at qC ftACh lgcal 11 trapspgrtatiqp grqtaiztio or trapsRQtt&Ciog copany ropeiyigq 11 wogays pustaot t,Q .&bls sect,ioo. s.,, at4it,s :aball be c;oodgct;ad 19 ig acwr4tps it;h qft:j.arallt ac;c;aDtod itipq stap4f(d3. lpz 20 fiaaacial atateaota Slbject to sgck aa4it a, raport,s resmltiAq 21 froa SICh &14it Sb&ll be p,eptro4 104 p,QSBQ\84 ip IGGQtdapGB 22 wit,' qogerally GCOP\od tCCQIAtiAq priQCiploa. cgpsist,ent.lJ 25 awdit, ip sgpiapst,ioa wit,b jt,s wgdert,atop bf t,laa lg4itgc 26 c;o,., 27 Cil Ip &44it,jop SO ,,. 4jstribtt,ioa prgyi4e4 fgr jp 28 atbsoctiga lcl. each slaas ll t,ragait, aot.itr shall ,&caiye ao 29 t44it,iQD11 QCAQt, 11111 .. D tad Qpa=btl( ROCCBQt Of tbe A-1.1.1


1 grants 141 ba gsed bx class 38 trapsi\ entities for actiyities 2 inclgdiDq. bqt pot liaitad tp the folloMinq: 3 Ill RltCbAS8So 121 !ggipaegt S 13) lxRapsiog of serticas. 6 rJ Deaoos\ratioo aro\ects. 7 (5) !dacatigg aad traipigq. 8 rrptessio1al dayelopaoat 9 1\1 As psed ig this sectiog tho fgllowigq words and Phrases 10 shall baye tho avaginqs giyog to thea ip this sqbsQCtigg; 11 &djaste bast qraot s'all a&JA the State sgbsidx a class 3 12 trtQSit ogtitx recoiye4 darigg tho 198,-1986 fiscal xea, 1S A4jaste4 tp teflact the AIPIPt at StAte sqbsidt certain clAss 3 ,, tragsit yoqld haya recaiyed iq tbl$ fiscal year bgt fo, 15 (BCeipt of a oog-tiwa Pg4acal qrant 4qrinq the 198$=1986 f iscal 16 xaar and alsg a4jqstft4 for O\b&r fActors which. ip thg jqdqaegt 17 gC the daptrtaept, catsgd siqoificagt ipcraaaes or decreases ip ,, tb eoat gC the Stl'l SJbsi4y to sgsh clss l tragsit eqtitx 19 dwrjgq tb 1915-1986 or 1916-1987 fiscal Jtrs. 20 -class 1 aorCgotaqa shall bo gqa1l to SftJ&DtJ agd three= 21 tep&bs percaot. 22 Clasa 2 peccaotaqo shall be oqgal to tenty-fiya agd Cgar23 taatbs pareaot 25 aacc:ont,. 26 clsa 1 tcagait ogtity sb&ra shtll ba tko pcgdqct gf the Z1 class 1 aoccogtaga &iwas tho totAl I&QIDt apprgpriatad qode, 28 llbaectio (bl i I pacticaltr Cjscal ret 29 claaa 2 tragait aotitz a,,,,. sball be tbg gcgdtc:t of the .......... 30 ;lass 2 gatcaotaqa tiaas j;),e''tosat aaowgt; approgriate4 ggde' A-42


1 sabaectiga (b) in a parlicqlar fiscal tea,. l Clast 3 tcapsit entity share sball ha tha prgdu;t gf the 3 Cll$3 l Q8CC8D\IQ8 tiaes t-8 \0\41 IIOQA\ IJRE0QCitt9 d lAder 4 sabsectjg o (b) ip pac;t;is;glar fiscal xear::. S class l& traQSit eptity sbarg shall ba sixtY and sixtr-oioa 6 ooe=-qpdredtbs pers;aas gf the total class 3 transit eotitx 7 shaca. I class 31 traosit eotitx share sbtll ba thirty-pine apd 9 thiC\J=QDft QQft=hqgdrejths ptCCQDt of tb& tgtal class 3 transit 10 IAtitJ SbtC8a 11 oparatiag ratio shall A thft ,,opoctjgg of tot&l 12 Ol9tatigq cayanao (w-ish shall lpclqdg all RAS&aaqer. cbatta' 13 ID4 adyectisipq rByapqo. Care r&ilbgrsaltDt racaited ftOI the 14 State totsory P,pd. 11 all other caeoiats assgciated with tke 15 4alitery gC traosit seryices. bat sball exclgdg Ptderal grapts 16 proyided to corer oporatigq losses ap4 State grapt;s ada 17 Rprsgapt to 31bS@Ctign (btl diyidad by total gptratinq 18 ts.sgc;iated wisJ:a 4Ax-t;g=dax oaerat;ioo of t,he syst,M Cbat. 19 excla4ipq 4egcoc;iat,ipo gf c:&pit;al 20 oparatipq roxaoao shall 1ean the total rgyapge aarogd bJ a 21 lgcal transpgctatigp gcgapizat;igp pr transpactatioo cowpagx 22 t;broaqb it;s t;rpai& operations 4griaq t;he 198!-1985 fiscal xear 23 bqt ngt; liwit;ad SO passeogar cayanaa. sopigr citizen z grtftt chtttr CIJOAIQ schggl CQO\CiGS rayenae. t4J8(tising and 25 pt;bor CMfQAft as CBRQCS.ed iA tba 198!-19 Peppsxlytoia ftass 28 copanx is got; cgpgcte ip tbe 1984-1285 PBppsxlyapia nass 30 \Q\&1 EBJIQIB dariAQ thft'1S3':1985 Cisctl xaar iodis;ated ig the A-43


This is a blank page


TEXAS (4) providing public transportution nos become so financially burd,usoae thnt private industry can no longer provide service in many areas in the state that the continuation of this essent1<1l service on a private or proprietary basis Is threatened; and (S) providing public transportation is a public. governMental responsibility and a atter of direct concern to state governaent and to all the citizens of the state. (b) The purposes of this Act provide: (1) Jmproved public transportation for the state through locaJ govern11ents acting as agents and instruaentalities of the state: state assistance to local eovernment$ and their instrumentalities in financing public transportation systems to be operated by local governments as deterlned by local needs: and (3) coordinated direction by a single state agency of both highway deveJop ent and publJc transportation tproveaent. Definitions Section 2. In this Act: ( 1) "Capital aeans the acquisition, construct ion. reconstruction. or 1aproveaent of facilities. equlpaent, or land !or use by operation. lease, or otherwise in public transportation service in urbanized areas, and all expenses incidental to tbe acquisition. construction, reconstruction, or iapro ve.ent including designi_ne. supervisinc. inspecting, surveying, aapping. relocation assistance. acquisition of rights-ot-way, and replaceaent of housing sites. (2) "Coaalssion" aeans tbe State. Highway and Public Transportation Couission. (3) "Departaent" aeans the State of Highways and Public Transportation. (4) "FederallY funded project" aeans a public transportation project pro posed for funding under this Act which is being funded in part under the provi sions of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. as aaended,1 the Federal-Aid Highway Act ot 1973, aa aaended 2 or other federal prograa tor funding public transportation. (5) "Local share requireaent" eans the aaount of funds which are required and are eligible to aatch federally funded projects for the iaproveent of public transportation in this state. (6) "Public tranaportat ion" aeans transportation by bus. raJ I. "atercratt. or other aeans which provides general or specialized service to the public on a regular or continuing basis. (7) "Urbanized area" aeans an area so designated by the United State Bureau ot the Census or by general atate lav. (8) "Ridesharing activities" aeans transportation provided by rubber-tired vehicles that carrY no fewer than 10 nor aore than 15 passengers and that are operated on a nonprofit basis. I 49 U.S.C.A. 1601 et seq. 2 23 U.S.C.A. 101 et seq. Formula Pro;ram Section 3. (a) "JIIa .c t-,-.IIU-intater'1:he to ... alr..pav.rraaIJDd l kteattt .o ... ..,.eeot...,t:Uie 'las a .,..,. ...,.d .,..,.....t,t.t A-45


progra. (b) -'loly an urbanlz&d area with .a poplllat.ion in exc&aa of 200,000 ac cordine to the last preceding federal census is eligible for participation In the formula program A municipality, reeional authority. or other local governmental entity designated as a recipient of federal funds by the governor with the concurrence of the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation is a designated recipient of funds under the formula progra. (c) The fllllda f&1'1111la progru shall be apportioned annuall y on the basis of a foraula under which the deolgnated recipients of an eligible urbanized area are entitled to receive an aount equal to the su of: (t) oae-belf of the total tD tbe foraula prograa for the year aulttplted by the ratio by which the population of the eligible urbanized area bears to total population of all eligible urbanized areaa that are eli .g1ble for the formula prograa: and (2) ODe-half of the total aaouat apportloaed to the foraula prograa for the vaar ault1pl1ad by the ratio by Which the nuaber of 1nhabltants per square aile ot the eligible urbanized area beara the coablft&d aaaber of 1Dhab1tanta.Per aquara aile of all eligible urbaolzed areas. (d) Designated recipients aay only use formula prograa funds to provide 65 percent of the local share requireent of federally funded projects for capital ieprovements. (e) Upon receipt of an application for Cun.ds under the formula program, If tbere are unallocated foraula funds for the applicant, the coamtssion shall cer tify to the federal that the state share of tbe local share require Dent is available. The application auat contain a certification by the desienated recipient that: (1) funds are available to provide 35 percent of the local share requireaent of federally assisted and (2) the proposed public transportation project ts consistent with onroing, continuing. cooperative, and coprebensive transportation planning being carried out In accordance with the provisions of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as aaended, and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, as aaended. (f) It the coaatsslon bas previously certified that there are sufficient funds in the public transportation fund for the state share for a project. the coaatsslon shall direct that payment of the state share be aade to the designated recipient within 30 days after federal approval of a proposed transportation project proposal. (g) Funds allocated by the department for use In the formula prograe which are unencullbered and unexpended at the close of the fiscal year for which the funds were originally allocated shall be transferred at that tlae by the comlllsston for use In the discretionary program Discretionary program Section 4. (a) .. rc""e.of tbe fumls unually c"edited u -tlwt tuacl -tbe dtecretionary roaraa. which shall be adainlstered by the coaelsslon. (b) Except as provided In Subsections (e). (f), (g), (b). (1), and (J) of this section, only rural and urban areas of the state other than urbanized areas eligible for partJctpatton in the formula prograa are eligible for participation In tbe discretionary prograa. Any local government having the power to operate or maintain a public transportation syste v be a designated recipient of funds fro the discretionary prograe. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (g) of this sectlon, designated reelA-46


pients under the discretionary program may usc discretionary program funds on l y to provide 6 5 percent of the local share r cqujre ment of federally funded projects for capital Impr ovements: except that If a designated recipient cert ifies that federal funds are unavailable for a proposed project and the commissi o n finds that the project is vitally Important to the developent of public transportation in thi s state. the coaission ay supply so percent of the total cost of that publi c transportation project to the designated recipient. (d) In considering any project under this section, the comaission'shall take into consideration the need for fast safe, efficient. and econolcal public transportation. Designated recipients In urbanized areas eligible for participati on in the forula progra and any local governent having the power to operate or maintain a public transportation system within an urbanized area are also eligible to apply for and receive funds allocated by the commission for use In t h e d iscretionary prograa which are unexpended and unencumbered at the close of the fiscal year for which the funds were originally allocated and ali unexpended and unencumbered funds transferred fro the formula prograa to the discretionary program. The coaios!on shall ake grants out or the discretionary fund to designated recipients under the provisions of this section. (t) Designated recipients In urbanized areas eligible tor participation In the forula prograa and anY local eovernent havJne the to operate or maintain a public transportation system, directly or by contract. wJthln an urbanized or rural area maY apply tor an receive funds from the discretionary program tor capita! expenditures to carry out rldesharlng activities. If the commission approves an application to fund ridesharing activities. the com m ission shall provide 80 percent of the cost or the capita! expenditures. An applicant for funding for ridesbarlng activities aust certifY that: (1) funds are available to proqJde the realnlng 20 percent of the cost af the expenditures; (2) equlpaent furnished by the applicont In connection with ridesharing activities will be used priaarlly for co .. uting purposes: and (3) rldesharlng activities w ill be operated on a nonprofit basis and without publicly funded operating subsides; and (4) any tundtnc available through the u.s. Departaent of Transportation to participate Jn the capitalized portion of state and locally supported ridesharlng activities aay be applied tor and utilized to supplement the availability ot local resources tor the recapitalization of van pool equtpaent. (g) A nonprofit corporation organized before Septeaber 1. 1985. to coordinate the public transportation services of state agencies in a rural area and to provide public transportation In a countY or multicounty rural area ay apply for and receive funds fro the discretionary program. The departent May grant funds to a corporation described by tbis subsection on l y it the departaent deteralnes that the corporation has set rider fees at an aount that indicates the corporation's intent to eventually become totally self-supporting. Tbe funds aay be used tor applications tor any available federal aatching grants, capital expenditures, operation expenses. and adainlstrative costs. This subsection expires Septeaber 1. 1992. (h) "Nonprofit basis" aeans that all revenues derived In excess of operating expense. related to use or state assisted van equipment. shall be deposited into a designated account (contingency reserve) and earaarked for recapitalization of van equ ipent. Should any funds reatn. unexpended at the cessation of ridesharlng activities using state assisted equlpaent, such funds shall be distributed back to the state and local funding entity on a p r o rata basis. (i) "Recapitalization of van equlpaent" aeans the use of contingency reserve


This is a blank page A-48


VIRGINIA "" w /UNU llha/l t. creditft tu>llh Fun.d tnWW$: ... ,, ,.., .,., of tlw /UNU llha/l t. aJlocaUd ,., -"""' tzirpon6 --tM ol ntp/an......U ftw -tl/rpMt tturl /0rt1 on c baJia c. rw-zy tM fwtU Prall t. a11oca1J by tM AvifUI/.8 to thu ..:ttrlturl

pi"'pon/ofl a iu o,..,.,utn11 --to U.. total #/ and 951/f of U.. total CO$U /OT nontftlrat prof .CU. In u.. ....,, thta total Ccal p4ymIIU of WMATA l'flil btmd.l $/tall I p41d J'(nt and apportumftl to Hell locality 1Uilr11 U.. WMATA capital /Dnrtui

WASffiNGTON Cllap4or 35.95 PUBUC TRANSPORT 4 TION SYSTEMS IN crtlFS AND METROPOlJTAN MUNIOPAL Soc1ion1 ll. P S .OIO Jl. U .O:tO lUS.OlO Jl.9S.D40 ll.9S. Ol0 ll.9S 060 )l.9S. 070 ll.PM90 ll. IS .IOO JUS. 900 CORPORATIONS FINANCING Dedt.ratto11 o( i.ntciU and Jl'lffl'C*: Otfen:itions, Awropriatiofl of fMl for tnNponation t)'ltems au;th-orittd Rdttaldum.'y aDd c:oDoctioft ol c.r.C'kc I,U.Cl .. "-iJwa. a.od ocnpatioA u.--Eada a.u 0111 rcal lld ue ol proc:ads--Vu '"""""' coneaion or t.n-BiUlnJ. dcthod M dwifia tion., cte. Pltrchuc of lcucd publi c tranaportatlon l)'ltcmPittdluc price A.cfeTcltdum rithU 1101 i red Corporate 1wtboritW:I my refer ordinanct lc:vyioatu 10 VOUrt. Public lf"'.N.J'Of\ltiofl 'Y-tcnu $twrability-196S ca.s. c Ill. COf'ttwW bf:rwetl'!l poli tica l mbdi'l'iliom lor Mniccf ot ltU of public lfUJfJitltlt.tioll II'CW Jf. JJ.OJ(J. Lot:tt l ,. .... u.ces f, pflblk tnmpotUrioe R C W 11./ 4 .0uant to chapter 36. 57A RCW. or any metropolitan municil)ll corporation created pur suant to RCW 35 .58. 010. e t seq: Provided. That the term municipality shall mean in respect to any county perform i na the public: transporlation function pursuant t o R C W 36.57.100 and 36 .57. 110 only that portion of the uni ncorporated area lyin& wholly within such unin c:orporated ttansportation benefit area (3) Per.on' shall mean any individual. firm. part neuhip, corporation, compan y, usociation, joint stotk auociation, school distric:t or politieal subdivision of the s tate fr aternal benevoJent re.fi1 ious o r cha.ritabl e i'OCi cty, club or oraaniza tio n and sha ll i nclude any trustee., rc.ceiver. usi ance. or other person acdn g in a similar re presentative capacity The: terrn penon sh.aU not be construed to include the United States nor the state of WaJh in aton [1975 1st ex.s c 270 53: 1969 ex. s c 25S 2; ex.s.c 145 65 : 1 965 ex. s c II I 2 ) S..-:Uilif)'--DI'aoctm .. ...._1915 Itt ...... e 170: See no1cs foUowina RCW )$.$8.272. s...n..Uf)'---c-cr.c-riu 1969 n.a. t Sec nOtes fOIJow i11:1 kCW JS .$1.172. 35.95 .030 Appropriatioa of flUids for lr'UISpOrtllllon syttow uckriwl Rtfor....,_, The corporate authorit ies of any mu.nicipality are authori zcd to ate aencra l funds for the opendon. mai n,tna.nce .. and capital needs of municipa lly ""ned or lused and mu nicipaUy operated public transportation syst ems subject tO the ri3ht or referendum IS provided by Statute Or charter [1965 eu. c II I 3 J Lory and eoU.Cilon of taus oathorbed a .. ia ...... oc:<:upatioa tax-Exdsc tax oa ,....,._ AptiiOPriadoa a ad of pro<_.._ Voter appro,..L The corporate authori t ies o{ a rnu.nici pallt y an: au thorized to adopt onlinanees for lh<: levy and collection of excise and/or for the imposition or an add itional \&1 for the: act Of priviltJC. o{ ensa&ina i n businca activities . Such business and occupation ta.x shan be imposed in such amounts as ru:cd and deter mined by the corporate author i ties o( the municipality ond shall be measured by the appl i eation of rates against value of products, sross proeeccls or sales. or ItO$.$ in come or the business. IS the case may be. The lenns bu.siness\ in business-. tross proceeds of QJes-. and aros.s income. of the business shaJl for the purpose of tbis chapter have the ume meanin,s u de r.ned and set forth in eMpter 8 2 .04 R C W or &S said cbapler may hereafter be amen ded A-5 1


35.9 5.040 Till 35 RCW: Cities and Towns The e xcise other than the business and tion tu above provided for sball be levied and collocted from aU persons within tbe municipality i n such amounLI .. s hall be r ... ed and cktermincd by the avthoritica ol the municipality: Pttwidcd. That such Cllcisc tax s hall not exceed one dollar per month ror each hotJs.. ina unit. For th e purposes of lhis section. the tum "housins unit" shaH mean a buildina or portion thcreo( desi gned f o r or used as the residence or 1ivina quancrs o( one o r more persons livins toscther. o r of one family. All taxes herein authorized shall be taxes other than. a retail sales tax defined in chapter 82 .08 R C W and a use tax defined in chapter 82.12 RCW, and the municipal it y sball apptopfiate and usc the procce

........ ,. """' Ahot April 12. 1983. the referendum procedure pro vided in thls section shall be the exclU$ivc method for subjecting any county or city ordinance imposing a tu or altering the rate under RCW 82.14.030(2) to a refer endum vote. Any councy ciry authorized under RCW 82.t4.0J0(2) that has b

This is a blank page A-54


WISCONSIN WISCONSIN STATUTES GOVERNING THE STATE URBAN MASS TRANSIT OPERATING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AS AMENDED THROUGH JULY 31, 1987 85.20 Urban mass transit operating assistance program. (I) DEFINITIONS. In this section: (a) "Elderly persons" means individuals age 65 or over. (b) "Eligible applicant" means a local public body in an urban area which is served by an urban mass transit system incurring an operating deficit. (c) "Handicapped pe:rsons" means individuals who, by reason of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other temporary or permanent incapacity or disability, are unable without special planning or design to use mass transit facilities and services as effectively as persons who are not so affected. (d) .,Local public body" includes counties, mun1cipalit14!:s or towns, or agencies thereof; transit or transportation or authorities and public corporations established by law or by interstate compact to provide mass transportation services and facilities or 2 or more of any such bodies acting jointly under s.66.30. (e) "Mass transit sys.tem" means transportation by bus, shared-ride taxicab, rail, or other conveyance, either publicly or privately owned, that provides the public with general or special Service on a regular and continuing basis. (f) "Operating deficit" means the am<>unt by which the total operating expenses incurred in the operation of an urban mass transit system exceeds the amount of operating revenue derived therefrom. (g) "Operating expenaes11 m4!!an costs accruing to an urban mass transit system by virtue of its operations, including costs to subsidize fares paid by handicapped persons for transportation within the urban area of the eligible applicant. For a publicly owned system, operating expenses do not include profit, return on investment or depreciation as costs. For a privately owned system, operating expenses may include profit, return on investment or depreciation as costs if the local public body contracts for the services provided by the aystem on the basis of co=petitive bids. In an urban area which is served exclusively by shared-ride taxicab systems, operating expenses may include costs to subsidize reasonable fares paid by all users for transportation within the urban area of the eligible applicant. (h) .. Operating revenues .. mean incoa1e accruing to an urban mass transit system by virtue of its operations. (lui.) "Reasonable fare" means a charge for mass transit service which complies vith rules of the department relating to the fairness of such charges for purposes of this section. Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A-SS


(j) "Revenue passenger trip" means a trip taken on an urban mass transit system by any passenger pays a fare to use an urban mass transit system, or by any passenger for a fare has been paid by another under a contract or other arrangement with an urban mass transit system. (k) "Urban area" means any area that includes a city or village having a population of 5,000 or more that is appropriate, in the judgment of the department, for an urban mass transit system. (L) "Urban mass transit system" means a mass transit system operating within an urban area. (2) PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to promote the general public good by preserving and improving existing urban mass transit systems in this state and encouraging their effective and efficient operation. (3) ADMINISTRATION. The department shall administer the urban mass transit operating assistance program and shall have all the powers necessary and convenient to implement this section, including the following powers: (a) To receive applications for aid unde r this section and to prescribe the form, nature and extent of information which shall be oontained in applications. (b) To make and execute contracts vith any eligible applicant to ensure the continuance and improvement of qualityurban mass transit service at reasonable fares. No such contract may be for a period of more than one year in length and no such contract may be enforced against the state unless the following conditions are met: 1. The eligible applicant pays the operating deficit of the urban mass transit systems involved in accordance with a schedule approved by the department; 2. The participating urban mass transit system provides reduced fare programs for elderly and handicapped persons during nonpeak hours. Such reduced fares may not exceed one-half of the full adult cash fare applicable during peak bours of operation; and 3. The eligible applicant establishes and maintains accounting procedures and documentation requirements aa prescribed or approved by the department. (c) To audit the operating revenues and expenses of all urban mass transit systems participating in the program in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. The audits shall be the basis for computing the maximum share of state and federal aids each eligible applicant oan apply against operating deficits for each state aid contract period. (d) To apply for and receive federal grants for the department or as requested on behalf of eligible recipients. ( 4m) STATE AIDS. shall be in accordance Payments with the of state aids appropriated for this program terms and conditions of contracts executed Wisconsin Departent of TTansportaeion/Bureau of Transit A -56


between the department and eligible applicants. State aid payments shall be subject to the following limitations: (a) From the amounts appropriated under s.20.395 (!) (bg), an amount equal to 37.5% of the projected operating expenses of each eligible applicant's urban mass tranit system shall be allocated to each eligible applicant. (e) If the amounts appropriated under s.20.39S (!) (bg) are less chan the percentages specified in par. (a), the allocations shall be made on a proportional basis. (em) The sum of the state aid allocations made to each applicant under par. (a) may not exceed either: !. Thirty-seven and one-half percent of the audited operating expenses for the project year of the applicant's urban mass transit system; or 2. The nonfederal share of the audited operating deficit for the project year of the applicant's urban mass transit system. (er) Eligible applicants shall repay the department any overpayments in stata aids under this section which are made because of differences between projected financial data and audited financial data. (f) If more than one local public body contributes assistance to the operation of an urban mass transit system, the state aids allocated under this section shall be distributed among the contributors in accordance with any cost-sharing agreement that is filed with the department. If no agreement is filed, the bids shall be distributed among the contributors in proportion to their contributions. (4s) PAYMENT OF AIDS UNDER THE CONTRACT. The contracts executed between the department and eligible applicants under this section shall provide that the state aid payment for the last quarter of the state's fiscal year shall be provided from the following fiscal year's appropriation under s.20.395 (1) (bg). (5) REC11LATION. participates in this ch. 194. For such time as any urban mass program, it shall be exempt from transit system regulation under (6) PLANNING REQUIREMENT. As a condition of eligibility to receive state aids, au applicant is required to annually prepare and submit to the depart ment a 4-year transit development program, in the form and manner prescribed by the department. The rules adopted to implement this subsection shall be compatible with applicable federal regulations. Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A-57


WISCONSIN STATUTES GOVERNING THE STATE SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROCRAH FOR COUNTIES AS AMENDED THROUGH JULY 31, 1987 85.21 Specialized transportation assistance program for counties. (1) PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to promote the general public health and welfare by providing financial assistance to counties providing transportation services for the elderly and handicapped, and to thereby and promote the maintenance of human dignity and self-sufficiency by affording the benefits of transportation services to those people who would not otherwise have an available or accessible method of transportation. (2) DEFINITIONS. In this section: (a} "Copayment" means the fee imposed on a person for the use of the specialized transportation service. (b) "County proportionate share" means the amount allocated to a county under this section which is based on the total amount appropriated for purposes of this section during the current fiscal year multiplied by the ratio of the nuber of elderly and handicapped persons in the county to the total number of elderly and handicapped persons in this state and which provides for a minimum bas amount for each county, as determined by the department. (c) uDesignated service area" means that area to be provided specialized transportation srvica for any fiscal year. (d) "Elderly person" means any individual age 65 or older. (e) "Eligible applicant" means any county or agency thereof. (f) "Handicapped person" means any individual who, because of any temporary or permanent physical or mental condition or institutional residence is unable without special facilities or special planning or design to use available transportation facilities and services as effectively as persons who are not so affected. (g) "Specialized transportation service" means a transportation system, either publicly or privately owned, which provides to elderly or handicapped persons general or special service on a regular and continuing basis in a designated service area. (3} ADMINISTRATION. The department shall administer the specialized transportation service assistance program and shall have all the powers necessary and convenient to implement this section, including the following powers: (a} To receive and review county plans for specialized transportation service assistance under this section and to prescribe the form, nature and extent of the information which shall be contained in the county plans. County plans may also include specialized transportation services to persons age 55 or over. Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A-58


(b) To determine the county proportionate share in accordance with a generall y accepted statistical methodology and practice. (c) to make and execute contracts with counties to ensure the provision of specialized transportation service. Payments under such to eligible shall not exceed the county proport1onate share, except as supplemented under par. (e). A contract under this section shall require the county to make a matching contribution of 20% of the contract and to furnish information determined necessary by the department for periodic program monitoring and year-end auditing and evaluation. A contract may permit a county to hold aids received under this section on or after July 2, 1983, in trust, according to rules promulgated by the for the exclusive purpose of acquiring or maintaining equipment used for services authorized under this section. All aids held in trust. as well as any accumulated interest, not expended for the authorized purposes, shall be returned to the department for deposit in transportation fund. Nothing in this paragraph entitles a county to any investment interest accumulated prior to the time the aid payment is actually received by the county. (d) To encourage the transportation of elderly and handicapped individuals under the specialized transportation assistance program for medical. nutritional and work-related activit1es as the priority in the use of state funds. {e) If any county fails to with the department for its entire county proportionate share by February 1 of any fiscal year, the department may distribute the remaining amount by supplemental contract with other counties that have applied for more than their. cou .nty proportionate share. (4) COUNTY PLAN PROVISIONS; COPAYMENTS. (a) The county may establish the transportation of elderly and handicapped persons to medical, nutritional and work-related activities as the priority for the specialized transportation services4 (b) Specialized transportation services may at the discretion of the county be open to the general public on a space-available basis. (c) 1. The county shall either require a copayment by the user of the specialized transportation service or provide the user with an opportunity to a voluntary contribution to the cost of the service. 2. The county shall establish the amount of copayment if copayment is and shall recommend an amount for a voluntary contribution if an opportunity to make a voluntary contribution is provided. The county shall establish the method by which the copayment or voluntary contribution is collecte d from the user. 3. The county shall collect and incorporate into the county plan data regarding the purposes and activities for which individuals use the specialized transportation services. 4 A county may a user from payment under subd. 1 if an emergency exists, if the user does not have the economic resources to make a payment or if the user is not competent to make a payment. Wisconsin of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A 59


(d) A county may not use aids provided under this section to support the regular route services of an urban mass transit system receiving state aids under s.85.20. A county may use aids provided under this section to support subsystems of urban mass transit systems that provide special services to the elderly or the handicapped. Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A-60


WISCONSIN STATUTES GOVERNING THE STATE SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR PRIVATE NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS AS AHENDED THROUGH JULY 31, 1987 85.22 Speeialited transportation assistance for private nonprofit corporations. (1) PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to promote the general public health and welfare by providing capital assistance to private, nonprofit organizations providing transportation services to elderly and handicapped people. (2) DEFINITIONS. In this section: (a) "Eligible applicant" means any private, nonprofit organization that meets eligibility requirements for federal assistance under 49 USC 1612(b)(2). (b) "Elderly person" means any individual age 55 or older. (c:) nHandic:.apped person" aacans any individual who, because of aay temporary or permanent physical or mental or institutional residence is unable without special facilities or special planning or design to use available transportation facilities and services as effectively as persons who are not so affected. (3) ADMINISTRATION. The depertment shall administer the grant program and shall have all the powers necessary and convenient to implement this section, including the following powers: (a) To receive and review applications for aid under r:his section and to prescribe the form, nature and extent of information shall b contained in applications. Each applicant shall indicate whether the tranpsortation services it provides or to provide conflict with any transportation services being assisted under s.85.21. (b) To establish criteria for evaluating all applications and for placing each application in a statewide priority ranking for distribution of available federal and state montys. (c) To make and execute agreements with eligible applicants to provide for the undertaking of transportation services to the elderly or the handicapped. (d) To audit the records of all private nonprofit organizations receiving aida under this section in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. (e) To require private nonprofit organizations receiving aids under this subsection to furnish information deemed necessary by the department. (f) To apply for aad receive federa l grants on behalf of eligible recipients .. (g) To establish an annual application cycle for the program, Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A-6 1


(4) AMOUNT AND USE OF AID. Commencing with the highest ranked application and to the extent that state moneys are available, the department shall offer to each eligible applicant an amount of state aid such that the sum of federal and state aid received by an applicant does not exceed 80% of the estimated capital project costs. State aids available under this section shall not be available for operating purposes. Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A-62


WISCONSIN STATUTES GOVERNING THE RURAL PUBL IC TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AS AMENDED THROUGR Y 31 198 7 85.23 Rural Public Transportation Assistance Program The department may administer a program for the distribution of rural public transportation aids made available to the state under Section 18 of the urban masa tTansportation aet of 1964 as amended, or under any similar federal act. Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A 6 3


WISCONSIN STATUTES GOVERNING THE STATE RIDE-SHARING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AS AMENDED THROUGH JULY 31, 1987 85.24 Ride-sharing Assistance Program. (1) PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to promote the conservation of energy. reduce traffic congestion, impl'ove 3 .ir qU3lity and enhance the efficient use of existing transportation systems and promoting ride-sharing programs and providing technical and financial assistance to public and private organizations for the development and of ride-sharing programs (2) DEFINITIONS. In this section, "ride sharing" means the use o f a single motor vehicle by two or more persons for the purpose of commuting to and fram their places of employment, and includes: (a) Commuting to and from places of employment by means of a car pool, a van pool or mass transit. (b) Commuting to and from an educational institution other than a high school for the purpose of attending classea. (3) ADMINISTRATION. (a) The department shall be the lead state agency in ride-sharing activities and shall have all necessary to a state ride-sharing assistance program which shall include the coordination of ride-sharing activities in this state, the promotion and marketing of ride-sharing activities, the diasetnation of teehnteal informAtion, the provision of technical and financial assistance to public and private organizations for the planning, development and implementation of ride-sharing programs, and the development and distribution of computer and manua l matching systems. (b) The department may apply for and receive federal grants on its behalf or as requested on behalf of other private and public organizations. (c) The department may administer a program for the distribution of any federal funds for ride sharing that are made available to the state. Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A-64


WISCONSIN STATUTES GOVERNING THE STATE URBAN RAIL PROGRAM AS AMENDED THROUGH JULY 31, 1987 85.063 Urban rail transit systems. (I) DEFINITIONS. !n this section: (b) "Urban area" means any area that includes a city or village having a population of 50,000 or more that is appropriate, in the judgment of the department, for an urban rail transit system. (c) "Urban rail transit system" means a system either publicly or privately owned, which will provide transportation by rail to the public on a regular and continuing basis. (2) ADMINISTRATION. The department shall administer an urban rail transit system program to plan, design and engineer urban rail transit for urban areas in the state. (3) GRANTS. (a) Legislative findings. The legislature finds that development of urban rail transit systems to serve urban areas of this state will enhance the welfare of all of the citizens of this state through conservation of fuel, enhancement of the development of alternative transportation modes and improvement of air quality. The legislature further finds. that is unavailable and local government resources are insufficient for development of urban rail transit systems. The legislature finds that providing grants for the development of urban rail transit systems is consistent with the state's support of other modes of mass transit and that the grant program authorized under the subsection is therefore a valid governmental function serving proper public purposes. (b) Authorized grants. 1. Upon completion of a planning study under sub. (2), any county which includes the urban area may apply to the department for a grant for property acquisition for an urban rail transit system. 2. The department may make such grants from the appropriation under s.20.395(l)(bt) or (2)(bq), 20.395 (l)(br) Milwaukee urban area rail transit system planning study. The amounts in the schedule for the purpose of providing the state share of a federally financially assisted planning study of an urban rail transit system under s.85.063 to serve the Milwaukee urban area. The department shall maximize the use of federal financial aids available for this study wherever feasible and appropriate. (Note: No funds were appropriated for this program for the 1987-89 biennium.) Wisconsin Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A -65


20.395 (l)(bt) Urban rail transit system grants. As a continuing appropriation, the amounts in the schedule for the urban rail transit system grant program under s.85.063(3). The continuing appropriation for this line-item is $0 ) 20.395 (2}(bq} Railroad facilities acqu isition and railroad rehabilitation, state funds. As a continuing appropriation, the amounts in the schedule for abandoned rail property and rail property improvements acquisition under s.85.09, for grants under o.85.063(3) or 85.08(4m)(c) and (d), for capital advances under s.85.08(4m)(e), for railroad planning and technical aosistance under s.85.08(4) and for loans under s.85.08(4m)(f). The amounts expen d ed for loans u nder s.85.08(4m)(f) may not exceed $300,000 annually. (Note: The FY 1987 -88 appropriation for this line-item is $2,970,000 and the FY 1988-89 appropriation is $2 910 000. Both are continuing appropriations.) Department of Transportation/Bureau of Transit A -66

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00072
2 110
University of South Florida. Center of Urban Transportation Research
0 245
Public transit systems study : allocation of state financial assistance : draft report
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1988 October
Local transit--Florida--Statistics
Transportation and state--Florida
Local transit--Florida--Cost of operation
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856