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.

8 3 RECOMMENDED APPROACH TO DATA COLLECTION This section provides an overview of recommendations related to the approach to data collection as well as specific changes recommended in the content of data collected from each of the state DOTs. A summary of recommended changes is shown in Table 5. Table 5. Summary of Recommended Changes in Data Collection Data Currently Collected Recommended for Collection Funding By Program Funding for All Transit Programs Combined Funding by Program Funding for All Transit Programs Combined Total State Funds X - X X Source of State Funds X - - X Eligible Use (Operating, Capital) X - X - Type of Funding (Dedicated, Non- Dedicated) X - - - Method of Distribution (Discretionary, Formula, Pass Through) X - X - Non-transit related ferry funding X X - - 3.1 CONTINUE CURRENT EXCEL-BASED REPORTING APPROACH The current approach to data collection relies effectively on email communication with respondents and the collection of data using a standardized Excel file. Respondents receive via email an individualized spreadsheet that is pre-populated with data provided in previous submissions and are asked to update the data for the targeted fiscal year. Rather than switch to a web-based data collection process, the Excel- based reporting should be continued based on feedback from data reporters. The data collection and report preparation is conducted using a minimal level of staff resources and the participation rate for the survey is consistently high. This report includes proposed revisions to the Excel file shown as in Appendix A – Recommended Excel Spreadsheets (Example). 3.2 PROVIDE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS THAT DEFINE MAJOR TERMS The current data collection approach lacks a user guide or other tutorial materials to help respondents understand the meaning of various data elements requested. Each respondent must interpret the meaning of each data item, which can 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 the request differently. As an example, is a local option sales tax collected by the state considered a “local” or a “state” resource? Existing documentation from the national transit database can be used as the resource to define terms. A list of suggested definitions is shown in Appendix B – Suggested Guidance to Reporters.

9 3.3 ENHANCE POST-SUBMISSION DATA CHECKS The preparation of the report should include an enhanced quality check of data submitted by states. Quality checks of reported data submitted are currently limited. The variation in total dollars reported by individual states from year to year and differences in funding levels reported as compared to information in the NTD suggest inconsistencies in the quality of data. Data checks should include, at a minimum, comparisons to data reported by the same state in recent years. In addition, a comparison to the NTD may be considered though the difference in reporting approach for the NTD will only for an order of magnitude comparison. The review should evaluate submitted data based on the following: 1) Has the state’s reported data changed substantially from the previous year’s submission? If so, is the reason for this change apparent or explained elsewhere in the submission (e.g., the state eliminated transit funding)? 2) Does financial information reported for each program total match the state’s total transit funding (this check will be possible with changes in reporting recommended)? 3) Does the total state funding compare reasonably to statewide totals reported in the NTD for all systems in that state? (Note: This check will only provide useful information in states where major transit systems do not cross state lines and will require significantly more staff resources to add up state funding levels for all systems within each state as reported to the NTD.) 3.4 STANDARDIZE THE “MAJOR FEATURES” REQUEST There is not a consistent approach to the “Major Features” page for each state. The purpose of this page is to provide a helpful introduction to a state’s program, and the information is collected using a word file that is edited each year. Over time, states have moved in different directions as they complete this summary and there is now no consistency across states. To improve the standardization of reporting, the project team recommends using a format that collects the same information from each state as follows: • Total state transit funding (also enables a check against total reported in the Excel file); • Description of state transit funding sources; • Total number of transit systems in the state and number of systems defined as urban, small urban, rural (some are identified under more than one category); • Total number of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in the state; • Open ended description of “any major changes in state funding within the past year;” and • List of local funding sources used in the state (check boxes). To simplify the data collection effort, the research team recommends including this request as a tab in the Excel file. 3.5 ALLOW STATES TO REVISE PREVIOUS DATA SUBMISSIONS The report currently includes some detail on historical funding. However, states are not given the opportunity to review previously submitted data to correct any inaccuracies. Given that historical data is provided in the report, each state should be provided with previous years’ submissions and given the opportunity to make changes to these previous submissions. The recommendation to move to a reporting

10 of the previous five years of funding in the State Survey report will allow states to readily check previous years’ submissions for any reporting errors prior to publication. 3.6 DROP DEDICATED AND NON-DEDICATED FUNDING DATA REQUEST Data is currently collected on dedicated and non-dedicated funding. States define these terms differently and report some difficulty in reporting this information. NTD staff also report that transit agencies often face challenges in determining whether a funding source is dedicated or non-dedicated. Whether funding is dedicated or non-dedicated is also not widely used data. Given the limited use and the difficulty states face in collecting this reliably, the recommendation is to drop dedicated and non-dedicated funding request. 3.7 DROP “PASS THROUGH” AS A CATEGORY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS Information is currently collected on the method used to distribute funds for each transit program. States are asked to indicate whether funds are distributed on a “formula,” “discretionary,” or “pass through” basis. The term “pass through” as defined in the NTD is intended to capture cases where a transit operator receives federal funds and distributes these funds to another agency. “Pass through” should not be applicable in the case of state funds. The more appropriate distinction for state funding is whether funds are distributed on a “formula” or “discretionary” basis. 3.8 COLLECT DATA ON THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR ALL STATE TRANSIT FUNDING INSTEAD OF BY PROGRAM Although states report difficulty in collecting information on the source of funds by transit program, the source of funds stands as one of the most desired data items included in the State Survey report. Based on outreach to state DOTs, the expectation is that states could collect funding source information more readily if the request is made for the total of state transit funding instead of at the program level. Given that this particular data element is cited as one of the most critical components of this report, the recommendation is to continue to collect this data, but for the total of all state transit funding.