Part 1.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Chapter 31.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The Texas Department of Transportation (department) adopts amendments
to §31.11, concerning state formula program and §31.36, concerning
the Section 5311 grant program for public transportation. Section 31.11 and §31.36
are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the April 15,
2005, issue of the
Texas Register
(30 TexReg
2206).
EXPLANATION OF ADOPTED AMENDMENTS
Transportation Code, §456.022 authorized the Texas Transportation
Commission (commission) to adopt rules to establish a formula that may take
into account a transportation provider's performance, the number of its riders,
the need of residents in its service area for public transportation, population,
population density, land area, and other factors established by the commission.
On June 24, 2004, the commission amended §31.11 and §31.36 to
establish formulas for the distribution of state and federal funds. The commission
now desires to further refine the formulas to better allocate funding resources.
The Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC) met several times to
discuss the changes to the existing formulas and rules. PTAC provides a forum
for the exchange of information between the department, the commission, and
committee members.
Four PTAC committee members represent a diverse cross-section of public
transportation providers; three members represent a diverse cross-section
of public transportation users; and two members represent the general public.
Advice and recommendations expressed by the committee provide the department
and the commission with a broader perspective regarding public transportation
matters that will be considered in formulating department policies.
PTAC's duties include advising the commission on the needs and problems
of the state's public transportation providers, including recommending methods
for allocating state public transportation funds, and commenting on proposed
rules or rule changes involving public transportation matters during their
development and prior to final adoption. PTAC recommended that state funds
be allocated between urban and non-urbanized areas with 35% of the funding
allocated to the urban areas of the state and 65% of the funding allocated
to the non-urbanized areas of the state. PTAC also recommended that any further
distribution of state funds allocated to urban areas be based on population
not to exceed 199,999, in both the 80%, which is allocated based on population,
and the 20%, which is allocated based on system performance. PTAC further
recommended that state funds performance criteria for the urban areas be based
on local funds per operating expense, operating expense per mile (inverted),
as compared to the systems performance from the previous year, and ridership
per capita.
On May 20, 2005, PTAC met and made the following additional recommendations
to the proposed rules. PTAC recommended a change to §31.11 concerning
state funds performance criteria for the urban areas by replacing operating
expense per mile (inverted) with vehicle revenue miles per capita. PTAC also
recommended that the state and federal funds performance criteria in §31.11
and §31.36 for the rural areas be based on local funds per operating
expense, operating expense per mile, and operating expense per passenger.
In addition, PTAC agreed with other proposed changes to the state formula
for urban and rural areas and federal funds for Section 5311, non-urbanized
areas, which include the following.
(1) Provisions of the phase-in process are revised to use fiscal year 2004
as the base year when calculating allocations for the next allocation of funds,
after which, succeeding allocations will be based on previous fiscal years.
(2) The limitation of the growth cap will be removed allowing systems to
grow to their full formula allocation, subject to available funding.
(3) Should available funding exceed the full formula allocations, additional
funding will be awarded by the commission on a pro rata basis, competitively,
or a combination of both. Consideration for the award of these additional
funds may include coordination and technical support activities, compensation
for unforeseen funding anomalies, assistance with eliminating waste and ensuring
efficiency, maximum coverage in the provision of public transportation services,
and reductions in air pollution. These additional awards will allow the commission
to address state priorities. These awards are not subject to the transition
funding allocation process in succeeding fiscal years.
The amendments to §31.11, Formula Program, provide changes to the
current formula. The funds will be allocated between small urban and non-urbanized
areas with 35% of the funding allocated to the urban areas of the state and
65% of the funding allocated to the non-urbanized areas of the state. This
percentage funding split more closely parallels historical distribution between
urban and non-urbanized areas.
Urban areas that have populations of 200,000 or greater will be adjusted
on a pro rata basis to reflect a population level of 199,999 for both the
80%, which is allocated based on population, and the 20%, which is allocated
based on system performance. This adjustment of population more closely aligns
systems with the population levels used at the federal level, which separate
smaller urban systems from larger urban systems, and also more closely aligns
with the population levels used in the definition of urban transit district
defined in Transportation Code, Chapter 458.
Section 31.11(b)(1)(B)(ii) is adopted with changes. Performance criteria
for the urban areas are changed to local funds per operating expense, vehicle
revenue miles per capita, and ridership per capita. Section 31.11(b)(2)(B)(ii)
is adopted with changes. Performance criteria for the rural areas are changed
to local funds per operating expense, operating expense per mile, and cost
per passenger. These revised performance criteria reflect standards that provide
a more meaningful and accurate measurement and comparison.
The five-year phase-in process that went into effect in fiscal year 2005
will continue for the next four fiscal year allocations. However, the provisions
of the phase-in process are revised to use fiscal year 2004 as the base year
when calculating allocations for the next allocation of funds, after which,
succeeding allocations will be based on previous fiscal years. This will allow
an entity time to plan before it will be affected by a significant change
in funding. In addition, the limitation of 20% growth will be removed allowing
systems to grow to their full formula allocation, subject to available funding.
Should available funding exceed the full formula allocations allocated in
fiscal years 2004 and 2005, additional funding will be awarded by the commission
on a pro rata basis, competitively, or a combination of both. Consideration
for the award of these additional funds may include coordination and technical
support activities, compensation for unforeseen funding anomalies, assistance
with eliminating waste and ensuring efficiency, maximum coverage in the provision
of public transportation services, and reductions in air pollution. These
additional awards will allow the commission to address state priorities. These
awards are not subject to the transition funding allocation process in succeeding
fiscal years.
The amendments to §31.36, Section 5311 Grant Program, provide changes
to the current formula. Performance criteria for the rural areas described
in §31.36(g)(2)(B)(ii) are changed to local funds per operating expense,
operating expense per mile, and operating expense per passenger.
The five-year phase-in process that went into effect in fiscal year 2005
will continue for the next four fiscal year allocations. However, the provisions
of the phase-in process are revised to use fiscal year 2004 as the base year
when calculating allocations for the next allocation of funds, after which,
succeeding allocations will be based on previous fiscal years. This will continue
to guarantee that an entity will have time to plan before it will be affected
by a significant reduction. In addition, the limitation of 20% growth will
be removed allowing systems to grow to their full formula allocation, subject
to available funding. Should available funding exceed the full formula allocations
allocated in fiscal year 2004, additional funding will be awarded by the commission
on a pro rata basis, competitively, or a combination of both. Consideration
for the award of these additional funds may include coordination and technical
support activities, compensation for unforeseen funding anomalies, assistance
with eliminating waste and ensuring efficiency, maximum coverage in the provision
of public transportation services, and reductions in air pollution. These
additional awards will allow the commission to address state priorities. These
awards are not subject to the transition funding allocation process in succeeding
fiscal years.
COMMENTS
The department conducted three statewide public hearings to receive comments
concerning the proposed amendments. Various oral and written comments were
received from 316 individuals and entities.
As part of the official rulemaking process, PTAC's duties include advising
the commission on the needs and problems of the state's public transportation
providers, including recommending methods for allocating state public transportation
funds, and commenting on proposed rules or rule changes involving public transportation
matters during their development and prior to final adoption. At their May
20, 2005 meeting, PTAC had the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed
amendments prior to adoption and made the following recommendations.
Comment: For the small urban portion of the state formula, PTAC recommended
replacing the current performance measure "operating expense per mile (inverted)"
with "vehicle revenue miles per capita."
Response: The department concurs with the suggested recommendation and
has incorporated the change in §31.11(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Comment: For the small urban portion of the state formula, PTAC recommended
that the portion of the formula that addresses needs/performance be changed
from 80% needs and 20% performance to 70% needs and 30% performance.
Response: The department does not concur in that a disproportionate impact
could be felt in too short a time by subrecipients negatively affected. Further
revisions to the rules will be considered in the future.
Comment: For the small urban portion of the state formula, PTAC recommended
requiring 20% of the total operating budget (inclusive of capitalized and
preventive maintenance and ADA) to be comprised of non-state and non-federal
revenues including local funds, fare box, and other generated revenues. It
further recommended a requirement of a minimum ratio of 1:1 or "dollar-for-dollar"
local contribution for systems serving populations of less than 200,000. Additionally,
they recommended a requirement of a minimum ratio of 3:1 local contribution
for systems serving populations 200,000 or greater. Additionally, separate
urbanized areas served by the same system should be accounted for separately.
Response: The department does not concur in that a disproportionate impact
could be felt in too short a time by subrecipients negatively affected. Further
revisions to the rules will be considered in the future.
Comment: For the rural portion of the state formula, PTAC recommended replacing
the current performance measure "local funds per capita" with "local funds
per operating expense."
Response: The department concurs with the recommendation and has incorporated
the change in §31.11(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Comment: For the rural portion of the state formula, PTAC recommended replacing
the current performance measure "operating expense per mile (inverted) as
compared to the system's performance from the previous year" with "operating
expense per mile." PTAC further recommended replacing the current performance
measure "ridership per capita as compared to the system's performance from
the previous year" with "operating expense per passenger."
Response: The department concurs with the recommendations and has also
incorporated the changes in §31.11(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Comment: PTAC also recommended, for the rural portion of the state formula,
deleting the current performance measure "vehicle revenue miles."
Response: The department concurs with the recommendation and has incorporated
the change.
Comment: Regarding §31.36(g)(2)(B)(ii), PTAC made various recommendations.
For the rural portion of the federal formula, the suggested revision to the
current performance measures follow. Change "local funds per capita" to "local
funds per operating expense." Change "operating expense per mile (inverted)
as compared to the system's performance from the previous year" to "operating
expense per mile." Change "ridership per capita as compared to the system's
performance from the previous year" to "operating expense per passenger."
And delete the current performance measure "vehicle revenue miles."
Response: The department concurs with all of PTAC's recommendations and
has incorporated these changes in §31.36.
Comment: PTAC made the recommendation to reduce an amount off the top of
the federal appropriations that will be sufficient to provide an increase
to those systems targeted for increases by the state formula. All systems
would be held constant at their fiscal year 2004 level of state funding and
those systems identified for increases would receive additional federal funds
instead of additional state funds.
Response: The department does not concur with this recommendation and believes
that other proposed provisions will allow the commission discretionary funding
which may be used to offset funding anomalies.
Comments: Numerous comments were submitted regarding local transit services
and the importance of these services to the residents who rely on these services.
Comments varied from issues with local bus service routes and fares, to the
impact that would be realized if services were cut due to funding reductions.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress.
Comments: Several commenters expressed disappointment in the locations
of the public hearings since, in their view, the hearings were located in
areas that precluded the negatively affected transit districts, as well as
their elected officials and patrons, from providing comment.
Response: The department values the contributions of all transit providers
throughout the state and encourages public input on all of its rule changes.
Because of the importance of this rulemaking, the department chose to hold
three public hearings, even though none are required. While the department
would like to be able to hear in person from citizens and providers throughout
the state, both time and resources make this impossible. Instead, the department
provided an avenue by which comments could be submitted through the mail.
Comments: Comments were received from 241 individuals from the Colorado
Valley area requesting that funding not be taken from their system. These
individuals rely on Colorado Valley Transit to take them to dialysis treatment,
medical appointments, work, or shopping.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress.
Comments: Fourteen individuals oppose any reductions that would impact
service in The Woodlands. Comments included statements that the service provided
includes commuter service to the Houston metro area.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress.
Comments: Seven individuals submitted written and oral comments suggesting
that additional funds are being obligated at the federal and state levels;
therefore, no system should receive a reduction in funding.
Response: Actual funding levels will not be known until the state appropriations
act and the federal transportation reauthorization act become law. Funding
levels may vary from the scenarios presented. At this time, it appears that
no additional state funding will be available for the fiscal year 2006 - 2007
biennium. If additional state and federal funds do become available, then
the proposed formula would allocate those funds.
Comment: County judges from Floyd, Wharton and Motley counties stated:
no transit system must receive a reduction below their fiscal year 2004 level;
increase funding over the next two years, not five, to those systems proposed
to receive increased funding; and freeze those systems that stand to lose
funding.
Response: Given fixed funding, it is not possible to provide increased
funding to some areas of the state while at the same time freezing allocations
to other areas. If additional funds do become available, then the proposed
formula would allocate those funds.
Comment: The Wharton county judge submitted comments opposing any cuts
in funds that reduce service, reduce the ability to meet the needs of the
public, the loss of jobs, and an infrastructure that has been built with local,
state and federal dollars. He also opposes the current proposed commission
formula which cuts funds for both rural and small urban transit districts
while some systems will gain under the proposed rules.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress.
Comments: County judges from Concho, McCulloch, and Mason and a representative
of Concho Valley Rural Transit District provided written comments encouraging
the department and the commission to accept comprehensive planning documents
from areas of the state wishing to use these funds, to include time, place,
and manner for measuring outcomes, and to provide for transitioning to alternate
funding sources to compensate for unforeseen funding anomalies. They also
support that additional funds be awarded on a competitive basis with consideration
for coordination, and technical support activities that promote efficiency
and effectiveness; and, that these funds not be included in the transition
funding allocation process in succeeding years. Additionally, they recommend
that the department determine performance indicators such as: cost efficiency
(how much does it cost to produce a unit of service?); service effectiveness
(how many passengers ride for each type-demand-response, fixed route, etc.);
cost effectiveness (how much does it cost to provide service to one passenger?);
service quality (are we providing customer service?). And finally, they encourage
the department and the commission to: provide the incentives to ensure that
sustained efforts in planning, cooperation, and coordination are priorities
in every transit operation; and continue holding the transit community accountable
for the efficient and effective delivery of service to the citizens of Texas.
They support the efforts to equitably distribute formula funds and improve
transit services by the department and the commission.
Response: The department strongly encourages public transportation planning
and coordination. The department warmly welcomes local or regional participation
in the process for planning and coordination and has brought together a regional
planning work group to review current public transportation planning and programming
practices within metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas and to enhance service
delivery, customer satisfaction, efficiency, and effectiveness. The department
also agrees that further review is appropriate regarding suggested recommendations
for possible inclusion in future amendments to the rules.
Comment: A representative from Brownsville Urban System (BUS) commented
that their system's budget will be cut 22% over five years, even though the
population and land area are increasing. BUS has 1.5 million passengers per
year with trips to doctors, dialysis, and jobs.
Response: The proposed formula removes consideration of land area in calculating
the initial small urban/rural state funds distribution. This change is forecast
to increase overall allocation to small urban systems. Brownsville is a small
urban system. Brownsville reports high system trips per capita, in comparison
to other small urban systems, and this performance increases its potential
share of the allocation. However, as Texas changes, such as the addition of
the three new small urban systems created in fiscal year 2004, and there are
no additional appropriations, the department must be fair and equitable in
the distribution of funds to all areas of the state.
Comment: A representative from Brownsville Urban System commented that
the proposed rules are similar to tearing up a highway in south Texas in order
to build a new highway in north Texas.
Response: The proposed rules do not cover highways in Texas. The department
notes the analogy presented by the commenter.
Comment: A representative of Brazos Transit District (BTD) stated the proposed
rules are devastating to rural citizens, will accomplish the opposite of the
desired effect, and will reduce service to 44% of state's population.
Response: Of the 38 existing rural systems, 20 systems will increase in
combined state and federal allocation over the period 2004 - 2010, and 18
will decrease, assuming constant funding levels. The 20 systems which increase
represent 55.28% of the rural population served by public transportation.
The department is responsible for a fair and equitable distribution of funds
to all areas of the state.
Comment: A representative of Brazos Transit District stated the proposed
rules are based on false premises and limited information.
Response: The commenter did not specify the false premises and limited
information. Without more details, this comment cannot be addressed.
Comment: A representative of Brazos Transit District stated the citizens
that reside in areas served by metropolitan transit authorities receive public
transportation subsidies in excess of $20 per capita, while citizens in rural
Texas currently receive only $5.45 of the same type subsidy.
Response: The proposed amendments are designed to provide a more fair and
equitable allocation to all systems. This means systems should receive an
allocation more closely related to their actual need and performance. Without
an increase in funds, it is likely that no system will receive funding equal
to their total need.
Comment: A representative of Brazos Transit District commented that there
are federal and state funds available to make all systems whole. Example:
impose a cap on the administrative burden as a proportionate share of the
total public transit subsidy; define local contribution and fare box revenue;
use existing infrastructure; don't use local funds per capita as a measure;
and using cost per mile inverted accomplishes the opposite of what is intended.
The true barometer is cost per mile. Ridership per capita measures nothing;
it does not relate to performance. Revenue vehicle miles is incomplete. The
true measure is cost per trip.
Response: The department welcomes input on potential factors and measures
in calculating funding allocations. Some of these ideas were discussed and
recommended by the Public Transportation Advisory Committee at their May 20,
2005 meeting.
Comment: BTD stated the amended rules would have a negative impact on its
service areas of $11 million and a loss of 44 jobs. It was further stated
that the proposed rules would disenfranchise 200,000 of almost 2 million riders
currently served by the programs scheduled for reductions.
Response: It is not possible to verify these claims. The proposed rules
are designed to provide a more fair and equitable allocation to all systems.
This means systems should receive an allocation more closely related to their
actual need and performance. Without an increase in funds, it is likely that
no system will receive funding equal to their total need.
Comment: BTD stated that it is irresponsible to reduce funding based on
a convoluted, ill conceived formula that has no basis in the reality of valid,
nationally recognized, operational performance measurements. The commenter
strongly supports performance measures, but noted the measures being considered
in no way measure performance.
Response: The department welcomes input on potential factors and measures.
The proposed funding allocation formula was based upon considerable input
from PTAC, as well as input from other knowledgeable parties. PTAC itself
met many times over the several months leading up to the rule proposal. The
proposed measures are identical or very similar to measures discussed in several
national publications, including reports from the Transportation Research
Board's Transit Cooperative Research Program.
Comment: A representative of Golden Crescent Regional Planning Commission
commented that their system will see a gain, but should not wait for five
years for the impact--should use 10% set-aside to bring all systems up to
full allocation.
Response: The department agrees and proposes to remove the limitation on
growth. However, a set aside would reduce overall funding available for formula
distribution and therefore, the department proposes a set aside only after
systems have achieved their full formula allocations.
Comments: Six members of Colorado Valley Transit District's (CVTD) board
provided comments stating CVTD will lose approximately $217,000 under proposed
rules. They further state that CVTD supports the Texas Transit Association's
(TTA) position on the funding formula.
Response: The proposed rules are designed to provide a more fair and equitable
allocation to all systems. This means systems should receive an allocation
more closely related to their actual need and performance. Without an increase
in funds, it is likely that no system will receive funding equal to their
total need. Additionally, elements of TTA's proposal are included in the proposed
rules. However, TTA's proposal depends upon an increased level of funding
at the state and federal levels and these appropriations are uncertain.
Comments: Fifteen individuals submitted comments supporting the proposal
recommended by the Texas Transit Association.
Response: As stated, elements of TTA's proposal are included in the proposed
rules. However, TTA's proposal depends upon an increased level of funding
at the state and federal levels and these appropriations are uncertain.
Comment: East Texas Council of Governments (ETCOG) does not support increasing
the percentage of the funding formula on performance over the next four years.
Response: That element of the formula is not being amended with this ruling.
Comment: ETCOG does not support ridership per capita being compared system
to system.
Response: The commenter did not provide a basis or rationale for this comment.
Therefore, the comment is noted. However, the stated measure for rural systems
is being proposed to change to cost per passenger, per PTAC's recommendation.
Comments: ETCOG submitted a resolution that states no rural operator should
receive a reduction in funds, while at the same time, with the likelihood
of additional federal and state funds over the next few years, the underfunded
rural operators will be at full funding sooner than five years. Additionally,
the following entities submitted written and oral support of ETCOG's resolution:
Goodwill Industries of Tyler; Minibus board of directors; and The United Way
of Tyler.
Response: State and federal levels of appropriations are uncertain. Given
fixed funding, it is not possible to provide increased funding to underserved
areas of the state while at the same time freezing allocations to other areas.
Comment: Five individuals from Brownsville submitted comments stating a
decrease in operating funds by more than 13% would force Brownsville Urban
System to reduce service and eliminate routes and staff.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress.
Comment: Five individuals from Brownsville submitted comments stating that
the Brownsville Urban System is doing exactly what the Texas Transportation
Commission is asking public transit operators to do, work towards achieving
better operational efficiency as well as better coordination of public transportation
services in the region.
Response: The department appreciates the efforts made in this area to enhance
planning and coordination.
Comment: Five individuals from Brownsville submitted comments stating the
City of Brownsville, Brownsville Urban System (BUS), will lose approx 22%
of its state funding by 2010.
Response: Actual funding levels will not be known until the state appropriations
act and the federal transportation reauthorization act become law. Funding
levels may vary from the scenarios presented. At this time, it appears that
no additional state funding will be available for the fiscal year 2006 - 2007
biennium. If additional state and federal funds do become available, then
the proposed formula would allocate those funds.
Comment: Fourteen individuals submitted comments stating that an analysis/inventory
should be conducted on services now available at all 38 rural transit districts
prior to adoption.
Response: The department believes that such a survey would be an important
part of coordination, regional service plans, and allocation formula development.
However, such formula development should not delay the vital task of providing
a fair and equitable allocation of funds, given that future efforts would
further refine and improve the process.
Comment: Thirteen individuals submitted written comments requesting that
the department revise the proposed rules that prevent any reductions in funding
below the already minimal funding now available to Capital Area Rural Transit
System (CARTS).
Response: The proposed rules are designed to provide a more fair and equitable
allocation to all systems. This means systems should receive an allocation
more closely related to their actual need and performance. Without an increase
in funds, it is likely that no system will receive funding equal to their
total need.
Comment: One individual submitted comments stating that the current proposal
calls for CARTS to receive a 30% reduction in funding. Additionally, if CARTS
loses funding from TxDOT, the fares are likely to be increased. The seniors
and disabled persons living in San Marcos cannot afford an increase in fares.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress.
Comment: A representative from Kleburg County Human Services stated that
their "system would lose more than 50% of its funding within five years, so
no way for services to continue, our performance is outstanding, given the
level of funding."
Response: The proposed rules are designed to provide a more fair and equitable
allocation to all systems. This means systems should receive an allocation
more closely related to their actual need and performance. Without an increase
in funds, it is likely that no system will receive funding equal to their
total need. In addition, performance data reported from this system indicates
a decline in three of the four measures.
Comment: A representative from Kleburg County Human Services commented
that the state should be more fair and equitable, should reconsider changing
rules, and help everybody equally.
Response: The proposed rules are designed to provide a more fair and equitable
allocation to all systems. This means systems should receive an allocation
more closely related to their actual need and performance. Without an increase
in funds, it is likely that no system will receive funding equal to their
total need.
Comment: A representative from the American Association of Retired Persons
(AARP) stated that merely counting people may omit recognition of greater
need by certain people, especially the blind.
Response: The proposed rules are designed to provide a more fair and equitable
allocation to all small urban and rural systems. There are additional programs
available to assist those with special needs, such as the Section 5310 Elderly
and Disabled program, and the various client transportation programs.
Comment: A representative from the United Way of Texas suggested the department
take a look at how the United Way allocates funding, and, specific to performance
measures, look at the United Way's experience.
Response: The department welcomes input on potential factors in calculating
funding allocations. PTAC will be closely reviewing the formula in the future
and welcomes input from experienced parties.
Comment: A representative of the Texas Transit Association suggested that
the department is not following the Texas Administrative Code regarding rule
changes. Additional impact analysis should have been performed.
Response: Counsel for the department has reviewed the current process and
determined that the department is in compliance with the Texas Administrative
Code.
Comment: A representative from Texarkana Urban Transit District commented
that the state operating assistance should be awarded to systems for efficient
operation based on nationally recognized performance measures.
Response: The department welcomes input on potential factors and measures.
The proposed funding allocation formula was based upon considerable input
from PTAC, as well as input from other knowledgeable parties. PTAC itself
met many times over the several months leading up to the rule proposal. The
proposed measures are identical or very similar to measures discussed in several
national publications, including reports from the Transportation Research
Board's Transit Cooperative Research Program.
Comment: A representative from Texarkana Urban Transit District stated
that the importance or weight placed on performance measures has to be increased
because population is not an accurate measure of needs.
Response: The department welcomes input on potential factors in calculating
funding allocations. PTAC will be closely reviewing the formula in the future
and welcomes input from experienced parties.
Comment: A representative from Collin County Area Regional Transit commented
that any formula allocation that is based upon census data that is so skewed
for explosive growth counties is going to result in lower per capita funding
throughout the rest of this decade.
Response: The requirement that the department use the U.S. Census Bureau
data is currently in the Texas Administrative Code and is not being amended.
Additionally, PTAC has discussed this issue, contacted the state demographer,
and determined that no reliable data source is available that determines population
at the level of detail required for the current formula.
Comment: A representative of Tyler Transit System (TTS) commented that
under the current funding formula, there's a potential reduction of 49,000
trips to jobs that would be cut for TTS. If the current performance measures
are kept in place, TTS will lose funding and reduce services which will impact
the number of trips performed each year. There will be more costs to the system
but less state funds to help pull down federal funds.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress.
Comment: One individual stated the reduction in funds to Brazos Transit
District will negatively impact the transit program in Lufkin, Nacogdoches,
and other counties in the area.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress.
Comment: State Senator Tommy Williams provided written comments strongly
opposing the funding formula proposed by the commission. He is concerned that
the formula will reduce funding to the Brazos Transit District on average
of $300,000 per year in each of the five years. The proposal also contemplates
a 15% reduction in funds for South East Texas Rural Transit District. He further
stated that rural systems cannot continue to receive cuts in funding and be
expected to continue to deliver the same programs and services for less money.
Additionally, he stated that while the proposal will not result in a decrease
from small urban programs in Beaumont and The Woodlands, it is troubling that
these programs will be funded at levels which do not take into account the
increasing costs of maintenance and operation of services.
Response: The proposed funding allocation formula was based upon considerable
input from PTAC, as well as input from other knowledgeable parties. PTAC itself
met many times over the several months leading up to the rule proposal. Given
fixed funding, it is not possible to provide increased funding to some areas
of the state while at the same time freezing allocations to other areas. Unfortunately,
there is not sufficient funding to provide for all needs at every system.
Comment: State Senator Gonzalo Barrientos submitted comments expressing
concern that CARTS' reduction of 30% over the next three years is unacceptable.
CARTS serves nine counties, which includes four of the fastest growing counties
in the state. He further stated the proposed formula includes performance
measures related to service of diverse populations and such measures are not
recognized by the FTA. He also expressed concern over testimony presented
at a public hearing by a representative of a renal clinic who stated that
people will die if the reductions caused by the proposed formula occur.
Response: The proposed funding allocation formula was based upon considerable
input from PTAC, as well as input from other knowledgeable parties. PTAC itself
met many times over the several months leading up to the rule proposal. The
proposed measures are identical or very similar to measures discussed in several
national publications, including reports from the Transportation Research
Board's Transit Cooperative Research Program. The proposed measures do not
discriminate between service populations, and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) does not use any performance measures in allocating rural and small
urban funding among the states.
Comment: State Senator Craig Estes submitted comments that expressed concern
that the proposed funding formula will have a detrimental impact on many riders
within Senate District 30.
Response: Given fixed funding, it is not possible to provide increased
funding to some areas of the state while at the same time freezing allocations
to other areas. If additional funds do become available, then the proposed
formula would allocate those funds.
Comment: State Senator Troy Fraser commented that he is opposed to the
formula. He agrees with the commission's efforts to increase funding to transit
systems in Texas, but not at the expense of others; 16 rural and 12 small
urbans will see a decrease.
Response: Given fixed funding, it is not possible to provide increased
funding to some areas of the state while at the same time freezing allocations
to other areas. If additional funds do become available, then the proposed
formula would allocate those funds.
Comment: State Senator Todd Staples requested the department look at FTA's
performance measures when considering recommendations made by the PTAC. He
is opposed to any funding formula that would cause a net decrease in rural
transportation services. He further stated that when there are better performance
measures, they should be a larger percentage of the allocation. He thinks
the commission is right on track for keeping some amount of money for discretionary
funding.
Response: The proposed measures are identical or very similar to measures
discussed in several national publications, including reports from the Transportation
Research Board's Transit Cooperative Research Program. The proposed measures
do not discriminate among service populations, and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) does not use any performance measures in allocating rural and small
urban funding among the states. The proposed funding allocation formula does
not decrease the overall funding level across the state.
Comment: State Senator Eddie Lucio commented that he is strongly opposed
to the proposed amendments. He stated that the City of Brownsville, Brownsville
Urban System (BUS), will lose approximately 22% of its state funding by 2010
and a decrease in operating funds by more than 13% would force BUS to reduce
service and eliminate routes and staff. He further stated that BUS is doing
exactly what the commission is asking public transit operators to do, work
towards achieving better operational efficiency as well as better coordination
of public transportation services in the region.
Response: The proposed formula removes consideration of land area in calculating
the initial small urban/rural state funds distribution. This change is forecasted
to increase overall allocation to small urban systems. Brownsville is a small
urban system. Brownsville reports high system trips per capita, in comparison
to other small urban systems, and this performance increases its potential
share of the allocation. However, as Texas changes, such as with the addition
of the three new small urban systems created in fiscal year 2004, and with
no additional appropriations, the department must be fair and equitable in
the distribution of funds to all areas of the state.
Comments: Eight individuals submitted comments agreeing with "Principles
of Moving Forward" proposed by Just Transportation Alliance (JTA). Additionally,
seven of these individuals stated that they support the commission's proposed
funding formula with certain refinements.
Response: The department welcomes input from interested focus groups. The
department will encourage the PTAC to continue to receive input as the formula
is further refined.
Comment: One commenter suggested the definition of "population" used in
the current formula be amended for those systems that provide services only
to persons with disabilities and seniors. The commenter further stated the
definition of "small urban" transportation system eligible for §5307
state dollars should be clarified with those current recipients that fail
to provide general public transportation in a small urban area excluded from
funding. Additionally, the commenter strongly supports the commission's proposal
to allocate "excess" or "additional" funds on a pro rata basis, competitively
or both, and the priorities to which the commission has identified competitive
dollars would be targeted.
Response: The department will consider refinements to the formula as it
is improved.
Comment: One individual commented that the proposal to create discretionary
funds from any transit dollars that come as a windfall to the state as a result
of legislative action or the passage of TEA is a sound idea. Such funds could
be used to help established agencies that lose money under the revised formula
or to help transit providers take advantage of opportunities to leverage federal
and local funds by applying directly to the commission for discretionary funds.
The commenter also stated that the performance measures in the current formula
reflect revenue generation. Additionally, the commenter stated the legislature
mandated increasing accountability, performance, and efficiency among transit
providers. Tying funding to performance rewards districts that do well and
does not reward those that are merely marking time.
Response: The department welcomes continued participation by the public
and interested groups as the formula is improved.
Comment: Comments submitted by JTA suggested the proposed funding formula
needs to be revised. JTA supports revising the population element for systems
that do not offer general public transportation. JTA supports revising the
land area element, using three-year averages for each performance measure,
increasing the value of performance measures in the formula, and revising
the current performance measures to include indicators that measure customer
satisfaction, innovation, coordination, financial stewardship, and efficiency.
JTA stated that transit systems must begin and continue to use the remaining
four years of the transition period to deliberately and strategically prepare
for their projected fiscal year 2010 funding allocation. JTA supports the
10% funding base and the growth cap while increasing its maximum percentage,
however, JTA strongly disagrees with the elimination of the growth cap. JTA
supports a staged approach to funding changes during the transition and a
"balloon" reduction or increase for systems whose projected allocations exceed
the total funding floor reductions or total growth cap increases over the
transition period.
JTA further states that transit systems, the Public Transportation Division
(PTN), the commission, users, their families, and advocates should work together
to ensure that quality transit services are available to as many Texans as
possible throughout the transition period and beyond. JTA strongly supports
the commission's proposal to allocate "excess" or "additional" funds on a
pro rata basis, competitively, or both. JTA strongly supports the considerations
the commission identified in its proposal: coordination and technical support
activities; compensation for unforeseen funding anomalies; assistance with
eliminating waste and ensuring efficiency; maximum coverage in the provision
of public transportation services; and reductions in air pollution. JTA supports
a continuing role for PTAC as the commission responds to the availability
of "excess" funds. JTA noted, to fulfill the legislature's mandates, each
region must begin an inclusive process of planning for the development, coordination,
and deployment of services that tangibly increases the quantity and quality
of public transportation during and after the transition period. JTA urged
the department, particularly PTN and the commission, to commit the resources
communities will need to access planning services and other technical supports.
JTA urged the department and the commission, in future rulemaking associated
with health and human services coordination, to ensure that providers are
fairly compensated relative to their costs for services they provide. JTA
stated the coordination of health and human services transportation should,
as practical and feasible, use the existing network of transportation, particularly
the fixed route component, as specified by the Texas Legislature. JTA urged
PTN to survey providers and others to identify those state policy and federal
regulations that impede cost-effective transportation services or innovation.
JTA urged the department to review and revise evaluation criteria used to
award health and human services transportation contracts to support, not conflict,
the legislature's presumption that "as practical and feasible, the existing
network of transportation, particularly the fixed route component" should
be used.
Response: The department welcomes input from interested focus groups. The
department will encourage PTAC to continue to receive input as the formula
is further refined.
Comment: A commenter representing Citibus, a transit system in Lubbock,
submitted written comments. The commenter stated the current formula still
needs significant modification and recommended the following requirements
as conditions of receiving state funds.
(1) Require 20% of the total operating budget, inclusive of capitalized
preventive maintenance and ADA, to be composed of non-state and non-federal
revenues including local funds, farebox, and other generated revenues.
(2) Require a minimum ratio of 1:1 or dollar-for-dollar local contribution
for systems serving populations of less than 200,000.
(3) Require a minimum ratio of 3:1 local contribution for systems serving
populations of 200,000 or more.
Separate urbanized areas served by the same system should be accounted
for separately. The commenter strongly urged PTAC to consider forwarding the
proposed state small urban formula to the commission with the recommendations
that these additional local match requirements be imposed as a condition of
receiving state assistance and that work begin immediately to develop a revised
formula for the next funding cycle.
The commenter also suggested using annual increases in federal appropriations
to stabilize funding and to mitigate for the losses in state funding that
some systems would experience under the proposed formula. The commenter proposed
using fiscal year 2004 as the benchmark year and that all systems would be
held constant at their fiscal year 2004 level of state funding. The commenter
stated current federal appropriation estimates suggest that Texas' rural systems
will receive substantial increases in federal funding beginning next year.
The commenter suggested that the department could reduce an amount of funds
from the top of the state's federal Section 5311 appropriation prior to running
the formula and that amount taken off the top would be sufficient to provide
increases to those systems targeted for increases by the state formula. The
commenter also recommended that all systems be held constant at their fiscal
year 2004 level of state funding and those systems identified for increases
would receive additional federal funds instead of additional state funds.
Response: The department welcomes input from interested parties. These
comments were also received and reviewed by the PTAC at their meeting on May
20, 2005.
Comment: One individual noted that state the funding formula should subsidize
public transportation providers on a rational basis, but based on funding
allocation tables there are small urban transit systems with high ridership
that are negatively affected. The commenter stated it does not seem logical
that transit providers who carry a lot of passengers are going to lose funding.
Response: The proposed rules are designed to provide a more fair and equitable
allocation to all systems. This means systems should receive an allocation
more closely related to their actual need and performance. Without an increase
in funds, it is likely that no system will receive funding equal to their
total need.
Comments: Several individuals submitted comments supporting the use of
performance measures, but stated that they must be reflective of longstanding,
nationally accepted, and recognized standards and not have the effect of penalizing
any transit system.
Response: The department welcomes input on potential factors and measures.
The proposed funding allocation formula was based upon considerable input
from PTAC, as well as input from other knowledgeable parties. PTAC itself
met many times over the several months leading up to the rule proposal. The
proposed measures are identical or very similar to measures discussed in several
national publications, including reports from the Transportation Research
Board's Transit Cooperative Research Program.
Comments: Several individuals submitted written comments expressing concern
over traffic congestion and compromised air quality which would be a result
of reducing the number of trips/routes/buses due to cuts in funding in rural
and urban areas.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress.
Comment: A commenter representing Capital Area Rural Transit System (CARTS)
provided comments disputing taking service away from people in one area to
provide service in other areas. The commenter further stated that the performance
measures proposed do not accurately gauge or measure performance and the population
data is based on information that is at least five years old. The commenter
stated that services can be grown incrementally, but don't do it by cutting
existing services.
Response: The proposed rules are designed to provide a more fair and equitable
allocation to all systems. This means systems should receive an allocation
more closely related to their actual need and performance. Without an increase
in funds, it is likely that no system will receive funding equal to their
total need.
Comment: One individual requested that the department not take away the
rides for dialysis patients because loss of rides equals death.
Response: Local public transportation services are controlled by the local
providers and their oversight boards. The department is responsible for a
fair and equitable distribution of funds to all areas of the state as appropriated
by the legislature and Congress. In addition, there may be alternative transportation
services available.
Comment: An individual representing Texoma Area Paratransit System (TAPS)
offered comments. The commenter is generally opposed to some of the performance
measures contained in the proposed amendments and the transition period in §31.11,
subsection (c). The commenter stated that if §31.11(c), is changed to
reflect the use of any and all funds available to the commission, above the
fiscal year 2004 base year allocation amounts, and after providing for increased
allocations for those cities warranting increases under the proposed formula
changes, it should ensure that no small urban transit system receive any less
than their fiscal year 2004 base year allocation amount of state transit funds.
The commenter also stated that so allocating state transit funds to small
urban transit systems of the state, the commission should also endeavor to
provide funds each biennium in at least an amount that will allow the required
matching dollars for the federal public transit appropriations for each small
urban area as appropriated by the U.S. Congress, approved by the President,
and published in the Federal Register each year.
Response: The proposed rules are designed to provide a more fair and equitable
allocation to all systems. This means systems should receive an allocation
more closely related to their actual need and performance. Without an increase
in funds, it is likely that no system will receive funding equal to their
total need. The commission does not determine the overall level of funding
but it is responsible for allocating the funds available.
Comment: A representative of Central Texas Rural Transit District and its
board of directors submitted written comments. They stated that over the past
year, transit agencies have been forced to deal with rapidly increasing fuel
prices, vehicle maintenance, and insurance. They further stated that these
transit agencies are struggling to maintain current service levels and cannot
endure the funding cuts that would occur if the proposed rules are adopted.
Additionally, they noted the proposed performance measures are not true measures
of performance. They maintain that nationally accepted performance measurers
cited by the National Transportation Board and accepted by FTA are cost per
trip, cost per mile, and farebox recovery rate, and that there are no nationally
recognized performance measures that include "per capita" in the calculation.
Response: Actual funding levels will not be known until the state appropriations
act and the federal transportation reauthorization act become law. Funding
levels may vary from the scenarios presented. At this time, it appears that
no additional state funding will be available for the fiscal year 2006 - 2007
biennium. If additional state and federal funds do become available, then
the proposed formula would allocate those funds. The department welcomes input
on potential factors and measures. The Transit Cooperative Research Program
Report number 88, "A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-Measurement
System" lists over 400 measures, including several that use "per capita" as
an element.
Subchapter B. STATE PROGRAMS