Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation—Ways to Improve It (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation report (State Survey report) is to collect information on all state funding provided to transit agencies. The report offers a unique source of information on state-level public transportation funding, the source of funds, the potential use of funds and method of funds distribution for each transit program. There is no other existing resource available that provides the level of detail contained in this report, and the staff at numerous organizations refer individuals to the report for detailed state funding information. The preparation of this report is based on data provided by representatives within each state Department of Transportation (DOT). 2 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING REPORT The research team’s recommendations are based on a review of the existing State Survey report, a survey to reporters of state funding data, and outreach to staff at state DOTs, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the National Conference of State Legislators. The research team focused on the following key objectives in the development of recommendations: • Ensure that the report contains high quality data; • Emphasize useful and unique funding data not available through other sources; • Maintain a low reporting burden for state DOT respondents; and • Recognize that limited resources are available to prepare the report. 2.1 REVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION METHOD The data collection used to develop the State Survey report is conducted using a minimal level of staff resources and the participation rate is consistently high. All 50 states and the District of Columbia participated for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 State Survey report that was completed in June 2011. The current approach to data collection relies on the completion of a standardized Excel file sent via email communication to representatives of each state DOT. Each respondent receives an Excel file pre- populated with data provided in the state’s most recent submission and is asked to update the file for the fiscal year for the report being prepared. Respondents are not currently provided with written instructions or definitions of key terms. Each respondent must independently interpret the meaning of data items requested. While most of the requested items appear to be self-explanatory and the reporting tool is simple, such an undefined approach has the potential to lead to inconsistencies in reporting across states. While many of the requested data items are clear, for a number of items, it is possible to interpret terms differently. States and transit agencies often express confusion over the exact definitions of “state” and “local” sources of funding. For example, is a local option sales tax collected by the state considered a “local” or a “state” resource? Quality checks of reported data submitted are limited to comparing funding totals to the sum of funding for specific programs. Absent from quality checks is a comparison to previous year submissions or comparisons to the FTA National Transit Database (NTD.) The research team’s evaluation of total dollars reported by individual states from year to year suggests inconsistencies in the quality of data.

2 Data reported to the State Survey report is often inconsistent with the NTD, a source that also provides some level of detail on state funding. FTA collects data on state funding levels only from transit agencies that receive federal funds and attributes funding to each state based on the geographic location of the reporting agency’s headquarters. Given the variation in approach to data collection, it is unlikely that these sources will align precisely, but the divergence in funding levels reported highlights the need to identify strategies to improve the quality of data collected. FTA staff provided the research team with its recent analysis that compared state funding data reported to the NTD against data reported in the State Survey report for FY 2006. The results of this analysis showed wide variation in state funding data provided by these two reports (see examples in Table 1). Of the 51 participants in the State Survey report for FY 2006 (50 states and the District of Columbia), 35 reported more state funding than that reported in the NTD and 15 reported less state funding than that reported in the NTD. Table 1. Comparison of State Funding Reported to the National Transit Database and to the Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (FY 2006) State State Funding as Reported to FTA's NTD (sum of agencies reporting) State Funding as Reported in the Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation Difference CA $1,058,050,336 $2,208,814,477 ($1,150,764,141) NY $1,881,910,459 $2,573,088,000 ($691,177,541) MA $695,720,132 $1,217,790,879 ($522,070,747) MD $453,929,076 $811,485,000 ($357,555,924) VA $54,358,494 $267,556,000 ($213,197,506) HI - - - AL $38,496 - $38,496 UT $91,837,396 - $91,837,396 NV $113,695,653 $92,000 $113,603,653 NJ $980,986,466 $847,052,000 $133,934,466 WA $198,272,302 $39,338,803 $158,933,499 OH $189,608,831 $16,300,000 $173,308,831 TX $370,592,996 $28,741,067 $341,851,929 Source: Unpublished analysis by FTA 2.2 SURVEY OF STATE DOTS ON POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS The research team received input on the current approach to report preparation through a survey sent to individuals at state DOTs responsible for reporting state funding data and through input received from focus groups made up of state DOT representatives and staff of transportation industry trade associations. To support the research team’s survey effort, AASHTO provided the research team with a list of the individuals who provided data for the most recent 2011 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (FY 2009) report. The list contained 69 contacts with at least one for each of the 50 states. A total of 39 individuals, representing 56 percent of those surveyed, responded. Five states had multiple responses and, for the purposes of analysis, the most complete response from each state was included in the analysis. In total, the research team analyzed 32 survey responses, representing 64 percent of state DOTs. The survey provided valuable information on the method of reporting, the availability and confidence of reporters in

3 the quality of data, and how state DOTs are using the current report. In addition to surveying state DOTs, the research team sent a second survey to approximately 35 additional contacts to whom AASHTO has distributed the report in past years to receive input on the use of the report. Responses from these survey efforts suggest the following: Regarding data collection and reporting: • States are generally comfortable with the current reporting approach using an Excel-based format; • The reporting burden is quite low with only a handful of states reporting that it takes more than one day to complete the request; • A small number of states are not reporting all state funding, the absence of which will understate the estimated total state public transportation funding within those states; • States are generally able to report and have confidence in all data items requested; the exception being the source of funds by program; • The absence of data definitions is contributing to data inconsistencies, particularly in how states are reporting “dedicated” and “non-dedicated” sources of funds; and • If the report is expanded to include local funding, states would have a difficult time reporting on local funding and such a change would likely increase the reporting burden for many states. Regarding use of the report: • A number of states use the report; many of which indicate a desire for access via both a PDF and hard copy; • Users of the report infrequently use national summary information on eligible uses of funds (operating and capital), types of state funding (dedicated and non-dedicated) and methods of distribution (discretionary and non-discretionary), which suggests related summary tables and graphics could be removed from the summary portion of the report; and • States infrequently refer to either summary or state specific information on the type of state funding for each program (dedicated, non-dedicated) and states also appear to inconsistently define these terms; the combined challenge of reporting and lack of use suggests that this element should be removed from the report. 2.2.1 Method of Reporting and Reporting Burden Based on survey responses, most state DOTs are comfortable with the current method of data collection and the reporting burden appears to be reasonable. Most respondents are able to complete their state’s data submission in less than 2 hours (see Figure 1). Respondents are generally satisfied with the current Excel-based reporting tool as the method for reporting transit funding information, with two-thirds preferring an Excel-based format or indicating no preference in the method of reporting. One-third of respondents would prefer a web-based reporting tool.

4 Figure 1. Time Needed to Complete Submission of States' Data 2.2.2 Data Availability and Quality Most states report that they have confidence in funding information as requested. Based on the survey results, most states are able to readily generate information on total funding levels by program, the method of distribution for each program (discretionary, non-discretionary), the level of dedicated or non- dedicated funding by program, and the eligible uses for each program (see Figure 2). More than half of states report challenges in providing detail on the source of funding at the program level. States report a high level of confidence in the quality of data submitted (see Figure 3). However, a number of survey respondents note that the survey lacks clear definitions of terms. In particular, respondents note a lack of consistency in definitions for dedicated or non-dedicated funding and 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Less than 2 hours 2-4 hours 4-8 hours 8-16 hours More than 16 hours N um be r o f S ta te s Re po rt in g Total Number of Respondents = 26 36% 78% 78% 82% 61% 9% 17% 17% 18% 26% 55% 4% 4% 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $ amounts for each program by source of state funding (vehicle sales tax, gas tax, etc.) Eligible uses by $ amount for each program (operating, capital) Type of funding by $ amount for each program (dedicated, non-dedicated) Method of distribution by $ amount for each program (discretionary, non-discretionary) Total $ amts for each program Percent of Respondents Reporting Easy Neutral Challenging Figure 2. Level of Difficulty Generating Requested Information

5 discretionary or non-discretionary distribution of funds. Respondents report the lowest level of confidence in data on the source of funds by program. 2.2.3 Potential for State DOTs to Report Local Funding The current State Survey report does not include detail on local funding sources. The absence of this data can skew the perceptions of total funding provided to public transportation, particularly in states that encourage local sources of funds through sources such as local option sales taxes. To explore the potential for including information on local funding, the survey asked state DOTs about their ability to report local funding sources for transit agencies. Of the 25 states that responded, only seven reported that they have full information available on local funding for all transit systems in the state, 17 report that they have some information and one state reports that it has no information available on local funding. Of the 25 states that responded to this question, 10 indicate that that it would be very difficult and time-consuming to obtain the additional data. This conclusion was validated during a presentation and focus group discussion with AASHTO’s Standing Committee on Public Transportation (SCOPT) in November 2011. Expansion of the survey to state DOTs to include local funding data does not appear to be a solution to this weakness in the report given available resources to generate the report. 2.2.4 Desired Report Medium Despite a movement toward electronic availability of reports of this type, surveyed users of the report indicate a strong interest in a hard copy format of the report (see Table 2). A small number of respondents also would like to have the source data available. 17% 8% 12% 8% 12% 8% 13% 8% 75% 88% 83% 88% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $ amounts for each program by source of state funding (vehicle sales tax, gas tax, etc.) Eligible uses by $ amount (operating, capital) Type of funding by $ amount (dedicated, non-dedicated) Method of distribution by $ amount (discretionary, non- discretionary) Total $ amounts for each program Percent of Respondents Reporting Low Neutral High Figure 3. Level of Confidence in Submitted Data

6 Table 2. Report Medium Report Medium Number of Responses Percentage of Responses PDF available on-line via email 13 87% Hard copy report 10 67% Data files with all information as reported 6 40% Total Number of Respondents 15 2.2.5 Use of National Summary Information States most commonly refer to summary information on state sources of funding, comparisons of state and federal funding by state, funding levels per capita and funding trends. Users less frequently refer to summary information on eligible uses, types of state funding and methods of distribution (see Table 3). Table 3. National Summary Data Used Summary Data Available in Report Number of Respondents that Use Data Percentage State sources of funding by state (fuel tax, sales tax, etc.) (Table 1-4) 11 85% Comparison of state and federal funding by state (Figure 1-1, Table 1-3) 9 69% Per capita funding levels by state (Table 1-8, Figure 1-3) 8 62% Ranking of funding levels (total or per capita) (Tables 1-9, 1-10) 8 62% Trends in funding for each state (Tables 1-1, 1-2, 1-8) 8 62% Eligible uses for state transit funding (operating, capital) (Table 1-5, Figure 1-2) 5 38% Types of state funding by state (dedicated, non-dedicated) (Table 1-6) 5 38% Methods of funding distribution (discretionary, formula, pass through) (Table 1-7) 4 31% Total Number of Respondents 13 2.2.6 Use of State Specific Program Information A number of states report that they use information on state specific funding (see Table 4). States are most commonly using information on the sources of state funds, total state funding for each program, the “major features” descriptions of programs for each state, and general information described for each state. Users of the report less frequently refer to detail on the types of funding for each program, the method of distribution and the eligible uses for each program.

7 Table 4. State-Level Data Used State-Level Data Available in Report Number of Respondents that Use Data Percentage Source of state funds for each program (fuel tax, sales tax, etc.) 12 92% Total state funding for each program 10 77% “Major features” descriptions for each state 7 54% General information on “transit programs” as provided by each state 7 54% Types of state funding for each program (dedicated, non- dedicated) 7 54% Methods of funding distribution for each program (discretionary, formula, pass through) 4 31% Eligible uses for each program (operating, capital) 4 31% Total Number of Respondents 13