AASHTO SSFP-2018 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (Revision 12).pdf

《AASHTO SSFP-2018 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (Revision 12).pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《AASHTO SSFP-2018 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (Revision 12).pdf（238页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation Final Report 2018FY 2016 Dataii 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and T ransportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law .Characteristics of State Funding for Public TransportationFY 2010 Chara

2、cteristics of State Funding for Public Transportation The following report provides a summary of state transit funding for the 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC). Information includes funding sources, amounts, programs, eligible uses and allocation, and per capita state transit funding. The

3、 report was prepared by East Mesa Research 2) Savannah River Ferry , photo courtesy of T rey Daniell, Geor gia DOT ; and 3) Photo courtesy of Reno County Public T ransit, Hutchinson, Kansas. Middle row from left to right: 4) Concord Coach, photo courtesy of New Hampshire DOT ; and 5) Photo courtesy

4、of Three Rivers Hiawathaland T ransit, Plainview , Minnesota. Bottom from left to right: 6) Frequent rider enjoys using BA T A, Photo courtesy of Jacqueline Southby Photography , Bay Area T ransportation Authority , T raverse City , Michigan; 7) Photo courtesy of Interurban T ransit Authority , Doug

5、las, Michi- gan; and 8) R YDE T ransit Facility , photo courtesy of John Redig, Scenic Aerial. 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation iii May 2

6、018 Dear Reader ,The AASHT O Council on Public T ransportation is pleased to release the 36th compilation of the Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation. The survey results reflect FY 2016 data. This annual report pro- vides a snapshot of state-by-state investments in public transportation

7、. W ith a comparison of state and Federal funding for public transportation, an overview of state transit programs, revenue sources, and eligible uses for state transit funding, as well as the numerous tables and charts, readers can understand how state departments of transportation utilize funding

8、and tax mechanisms to support all transit operations and capital projects in their urban, small urban and rural communities.Through the Council on Public T ransportation, and with its partners, AASHT O advances public trans- portation as a critical component of our nation s multimodal transportation

9、 systems. This Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation is a reflection of the dedication by state departments of transportation from across the country to the financing and administering transit programs with Federal and state funding. State DOT s spent approximately $18.1 billion on trans

10、it in FY 2016, a slight decrease from the previous year but at significantly higher levels compared to five years ago (FY 201 1 $13.9 billion). Federal funds totaled $1 1.5 billion for FY 2016 an increase over FY 2015 levels ($10.6 billion) and a positive trend in increased Federal investment in rur

11、al and small urban transit programs. T wenty-two states increased their public transit funding by a total of $924.8 million over FY 2015, demonstrating that state and Federal investments must continue to grow all of our public transportation systems. Public transportation is a vital public service i

12、n small urban and rural communities served by AASHT O members. For these communities, state departments of transportation work every day with transit agencies to provide essential mobility services for all users, including elderly individuals, individuals with disabilities, and low-income individual

13、s. AASHT O and its members remain committed to the goal of doubling transit ridership to 20 billion trips by 2035. As our nation s population continues to grow , especially among senior citizens, AASHT O members remain committed to providing public transportation servicesfrom commuter and fixed-rout

14、e services to paratransit, on-demand, and other specialized servicesin all communities, urban, small urban, and rural.The Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation is viewed by the public transportation industry , national associations, and Federal and state government agencies as one of the

15、 most comprehensive resources on state involvement in public transportation. On behalf of the Council on Public T ransportation, we would like to thank the AASHT O member departments for completing the survey .W e hope you find this report a useful reference as you continue to support public transpo

16、rtation in your state. Sincerely , Bud Wright Executive Director AASHTO Charles Zelle Chair, AASHT O Council on Public T ransporta Tion Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplicatio

17、n is a violation of applicable law.iv Savannah River Ferry . Photo courtesy of T rey Daniell, Geor gia DOT . 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Survey of State Funding for Public Transporta

18、tion v T able of ContentsPart I: Highlights of State Transit FundingFY 2015 .1-1State Funding of Public Transit 1-1Comparing State and Federal Funding of Public Transit 1-3State Transit Programs across the United States 1-6Sources of State Funds 1-6Eligible Uses for State Transit Funding . 1-6Some S

19、elect Examples of State Transit Funds Usage 1-9 Changes in State Transit Funding 1-10T otal State and Per Capita Funding 1-12T otal Transit Systems, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and Types of Local Funding by State .1-15Inf ormation on Non-T ransit Specific State and F ederal Pr ograms .1-18

20、Part 2: State Transit Programs 2-1Methodology . 2-1Alabama 2-2Alaska 2-5Arizona . 2-8Arkansas .2-11California 2-14Colorado 2-21Connecticut .2-24Delaware 2-28District of Columbia .2-32Florida .2-37Georgia .2-42Hawaii .2-46Idaho .2-49Illinois 2-52Indiana.2-55Iowa .2-58Kansas .2-61Kentucky 2-65Louisian

21、a 2-69Maine 2-72Maryland 2-75 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.viMassachusetts .2-81Michigan .2-85Minnesota 2-89Mississippi 2-95Missouri 2-98Montana .2-101Nebraska 2-104 Nevada 2-110New H

22、ampshire .2-113 New Jersey 2-117 New Mexico 2-120 New Y ork .2-123 North Carolina .2-132 North Dakota .2-140 Ohio 2-143 Oklahoma 2-148 Oregon .2-152 Pennsylvania .2-157Rhode Island 2-163 South Carolina 2-168South Dakota 2-173Tennessee .2-176Texas .2-182Utah 2-185Vermont .2-188Virginia 2-191Washingto

23、n .2-196W est Virginia .2-203 Wisconsin 2-206Wyoming 2-209 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation vii List of T ablesTable 1-1 State Funding of

24、 Public Transit by Select Years 1-2Table 1-2 States with Increased Funding for Public Transportation by Amount of Increase . 1-3Table 1-3 Federal and State Funding for Public Transit by Select Years 1-5Table 1-4 Major Sources for Overall Transit Funding 1-7Table 1-5 Eligible Uses for State Transit F

25、unding 1-9Table 1-6 Changes in State Transit Funding Levels for FY 2016 and FY 2012 1-11Table 1-7 Reported Investment for 51 DOTs by T otal Funding 1-13Table 1-8 Reported Investment for 51 DOTs by Per Capita Funding .1-14Table 1-9 Number of Transit Systems and MPOs .1-16Table 1-10 Sources of Local T

26、ransit Funding 1-17 List of FiguresFigure 1-1 State and Federal Funding for Public Transit 1-4Figure 1-2 Per Capita Funding by Population and Transit Operator Status, 2016 .1-12 BA T A City Loop fixed-route service. Photo courtesy of Jacqueline Southby Photography , Bay Area T ransporta - tion Autho

27、rity , T raverse City , Michigan. 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.viii Allegan County Transportation Services, Allegan, Michigan. Photo courtesy of Square One Design and Allegan County T

28、ransportation Services. 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation 1-1 PART 1 Highlights of State Transit FundingFY 2016Survey of State Funding for

29、 Public Transportation 1-1 1.0 Highlights of State Transit FundingFY 2016 This report, the 36 thcompilation of information on state funding for public transportation, was prepared under the auspices of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). State Funding of

30、Public Transit Table 1-1 (on the next page) shows that state funding for public transit steadily increased for four of the past five years but experienced a slight decrease in FY 2016 from $18.8 billion in FY 2015 to $18.1 billion in FY 2016. Twenty-two states increased their public transit funding

31、by a total of $924.8 million over FY 2015 levels (see Table 1-2) including Maryland up $310 million, New York up $225 million, and Pennsylvania up $115 million. Six DOTs account for 94 percent of all funding increases: Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Florida, and Connecticut. Thirte

32、en states showed a decline in funding and 16 showed no change in funding levels, including five states that do not fund public transit. Rio Metro Regional Transit. Photo courtesy of Jake Schoellkopf, New Mexico Department of Transportation. 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Trans

33、portation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.1-2Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation 1-2 Table 1-1. State Funding of Public Transit by Select Years S t a t e F Y 2012 F Y 2013 F Y 2014 F Y 2015 F Y 2016 Alabama $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Alaska $179,978,475

34、 $181,562,047 $187,652,905 $185,858,364 $173,199,886 Arizona $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arkansas $3,476,547 $3,481,243 $3,550,045 $3,531,248 $3,492,826 California $1,849,193,635 $3,040,697,663 $2,259,430,056 $2,898,424,596 $2,301,559,553 Colorado $12,350,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $15,000,000 Conne

35、cticut $453,476,446 $474,333,253 $465,086,221 $515,278,413 $582,693,314 Delaware $82,731,400 $95,272,500 $100,601,100 $116,794,507 $138,327,530 DC $484,165,796 $454,788,000 $507,890,000 $546,129,790 $531,633,000 Florida $217,309,774 $189,254,448 $229,673,093 $271,179,216 $346,922,736 Georgia $2,920,

36、272 $2,949,962 $3,342,964 $3,047,836 $3,071,913 Hawaii $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Idaho $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 Illinois $814,447,610 $854,683,301 $3,118,234,749 $3,536,569,161 $2,574,752,065 Indiana $56,018,794 $57,909,868 $57,909,867 $59,140,747 $62,437,577 Iowa $12,898,990 $12,898,990 $1

37、2,723,031 $14,274,001 $15,751,761 Kansas $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $11,000,000 $11,000,000 $11,000,000 Kentucky $1,489,991 $1,745,712 $1,867,907 $1,713,412 $1,875,297 Louisiana $4,955,000 $4,955,000 $4,955,000 $4,955,000 $4,955,000 Maine $530,026 $547,845 $1,147,845 $1,147,845 $1,147,845 Maryland $1,086

38、,510,064 $1,522,123,479 $906,699,174 $815,472,457 $1,125,249,671 Massachusetts $1,245,380,962 $1,392,854,042 $1,550,905,555 $1,649,889,696 $1,729,471,556 Michigan $240,436,975 $271,830,940 $245,125,303 $263,768,319 $265,995,916 Minnesota $309,427,000 $307,652,000 $418,061,000 $403,773,000 $416,207,0

39、00 Mississippi $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,613,000 $1,628,000 Missouri $2,993,658 $560,875 $3,417,258 $1,530,875 $1,045,875 Montana $319,142 $546,025 $377,895 $334,820 $675,000 Nebraska $2,900,000 $2,900,000 $4,872,884 $4,872,884 $6,297,705 Nevada $107,115 $37,501 $0 $0 $0 New Hampshire $243

40、,687 $52,597 $679,281 $998,983 $1,265,548 New Jersey $918,027,433 $1,076,490,515 $381,686,937 $357,738,903 $349,353,029 New Mexico $6,665,448 $7,610,500 $6,643,800 $6,643,800 $6,643,800 New York $4,465,883,700 $4,465,883,700 $4,786,084,700 $4,786,084,700 $5,011,381,700 North Carolina $73,574,654 $84

41、,643,069 $79,356,533 $84,843,069 $87,843,069 North Dakota $3,151,595 $5,296,836 $5,216,175 $6,449,468 $5,182,054 Ohio $7,300,000 $7,300,000 $7,300,000 $7,300,000 $7,300,000 Oklahoma $5,750,000 $5,750,000 $5,750,000 $5,750,000 $5,750,000 Oregon $32,669,819 $40,394,560 $32,669,819 $37,439,321 $37,221,

42、670 Pennsylvania $1,091,936,432 $1,161,119,714 $1,237,148,591 $1,532,172,650 $1,647,371,630 Rhode Island $53,072,997 $51,629,898 $55,819,226 $50,612,785 $54,521,504 South Carolina $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 South Dakota $770,000 $770,000 $770,000 $770,000 $1,000,000 Tenne

43、ssee $44,499,000 $40,060,100 $49,889,987 $47,220,000 $45,182,784 Texas $30,341,068 $31,941,067 $30,341,068 $30,341,068 $30,341,068 Utah $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Vermont $6,842,927 $7,482,900 $7,436,700 $8,496,969 $7,616,974 Virginia $239,202,753 $262,284,774 $251,381,851 $298,898,733 $275,122,201 Washington $

44、52,775,879 $59,882,611 $52,956,037 $85,568,222 $85,568,222 West Virginia $2,786,009 $2,786,009 $2,677,058 $2,476,279 $2,347,569 Wisconsin $117,851,500 $106,478,300 $109,228,300 $110,737,500 $110,737,500 Wyoming $2,522,468 $2,696,122 $2,522,468 $2,596,155 $3,025,405 T OT A L S $14,233,797,041 $16, 32

45、2,049,966 $17, 221,994,383 $18,793,749,792 $18,095,478, 753 Table 1-1. State Funding of Public Transit by Select Years 2018 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Survey of State Funding for Public

46、Transportation 1-3Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation 1-3 Table 1-2. States with Increased Funding for Public Transit by Amount of Increase Comparing State and Federal Funding of Public Transit In FY2016, states provided $18.1 billion in transit funding, while Federal funds totaled $11

47、.5 billion. Figure 1-1 shows the total of state and Federal transit funding for each of the 51 DOTs surveyed. The figure shows that there is a strong relationship between state and Federal funding. Specifically, the six states with the largest state funding amountsNew York, Illinois, California, Mas

48、sachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, collectively allotted $14.4 billion in state funding. About $5.7 billion almost half of all Federal funds spent on transitwent to these six states. The remaining 45 states allotted a total of $3.7 billion in state funding and shared about $5.8 billion in Feder

49、al funds. The difference between the relatively low percentage of Federal funding used by the selected larger states, compared to the larger percentage of Federal funding used by the other smaller states, is largely the result of the Federal formula used to annually apportion available Federal funding. The strong relationship between state and Federal funding is, in large part, a function of state population served and for this reason, the relationship is not always apparent. Population is a factor in the allocation of Federal funds, so that, even with