AASHTO SSFP-2017 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (Revision 11).pdf

上传人:李朗 文档编号:418069 上传时间:2018-11-04 格式:PDF 页数:226 大小:3.17MB
下载 相关 举报
AASHTO SSFP-2017 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (Revision 11).pdf_第1页
第1页 / 共226页
AASHTO SSFP-2017 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (Revision 11).pdf_第2页
第2页 / 共226页
AASHTO SSFP-2017 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (Revision 11).pdf_第3页
第3页 / 共226页
AASHTO SSFP-2017 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (Revision 11).pdf_第4页
第4页 / 共226页
AASHTO SSFP-2017 Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation (Revision 11).pdf_第5页
第5页 / 共226页
亲,该文档总共226页,到这儿已超出免费预览范围,如果喜欢就下载吧!
资源描述

1、Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation Final Report 2017FY 2015 Dataii 2017 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) The Cooperative Alliance for Seacoast T ransportation family , Dover , New Hampshire, photo courtesy of Gene Paltrin- eri of Gene Paltrineri Photography; 3) Capital T ransit, Juneau, Alaska, photo courtesy of Kenneth Gill, Gillfoto Graphics, Juneau, Alas

4、ka. Middle row from left to right: 1) Gallup Express photo, photo courtesy of T ommy Mimms, Gallup Express, Gallup, New Mexico; 2) Allegan County T ransportation Services, Allegan, Michigan, photo courtesy of Square One Design and Allegan County T ransportation Services. Bottom from left to right: 1

5、) St. Cloud Metro Bus s Northstar Link coach service out of Big Lake, Minnesota, photo cour- tesy of St. Cloud Metro Bus and the Minnesota Department of T ransportation; 2) Savannah River Ferry , photo courtesy of T rey Daniell, Geor gia Department of T ransportation; 3) Sedgwick County T ransportat

6、ion (SCT) driver T erri Agnew taking Alberta Rizzo to a social service appointment. Photo courtesy of Kandace Bonnesen, Sedgwick County Department on Ag- ing, W ichita, Kansas. 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a viola

7、tion of applicable law.Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation iii April 2017 Dear Reader ,The AASHT O Standing Committee on Public T ransportation is pleased to release the 35th compilation of the Survey of State Funding for Public Transportation. The survey results reflect FY 2015 data.

8、This annual report provides a snapshot of state-by-state investments in public transportation. 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 table

9、s and charts, readers can understand how each funding and tax mechanisms are used to support transit operations and capital projects.AASHT O engages with its public transportation partners to support the critical investments in our multimodal pub- lic transportation systems, moving our nation toward

10、 the goal of doubling transit ridership to 20 billion trips by 2035. W e support improvements in public transportation capacity to meet mobility needs; coordinating housing, land use, and transportation policy to support transit-friendly development; and using public transportation as a tool to acco

11、m- modate increasing travel demand. Public transportation is essential to moving people in both urban and rural areas and provides basic mobility options for elderly individuals, individuals with disabilities, and low income individuals. Public transportation helps mitigate traffic congestion, conse

12、rve fuel, enhance the efficiency of highway transportation, address air quality issues, and support security and emer gency preparedness activities. W ith our nation s population expected to top 400 million by 2050 and the population of seniors expected to slightly more than double by that time, our

13、 member departments of transportation continue to provide public transportation as a mobility option.Historical funding patterns demonstrate the important role that state departments of transportation fulfill in public transportation finance and administration and the results you see in the Survey o

14、f State Funding for Public Transporta- tion reflects this ongoing commitment. State DOT s spent approximately $18.8 billion on transit in FY 2015, which is an increase over the past five years compared to the nearly $14 billion states spent in FY 201 1. Federal funds totaled $10.6 billion for FY 201

15、5, which is a slight increase over the slightly less than $10 billion the Federal government spent five years ago. T wenty-one states increased funding for public transportation in FY 2015. State and Federal investments must continue in order to grow our public transportation systems. The Survey of

16、State Funding for Public Transportation is viewed by the public transportation industry , national as- sociations, and Federal and state government agencies as one of the most comprehensive resources on state involvement in public transportation. On behalf of the Standing Committee on Public T ransp

17、ortation, 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 transportation in your state. Sincerely , Bud Wright Executive Director AASHTO Charles Zelle Chair, AASHTO Standing Committee

18、on Public T ransportation Minnesota Department of T ransportation 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.iv Manchester Transit Authoritys Route 12 South Beech Street Bus, Manchester, New Hampsh

19、ire. Photo cour- tesy of Manchester Transit Authority. 2017 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 v T able of ContentsPart I: Highlights of State T

20、ransit 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 Select Examples of State Transit Funds Usage 1-9 Change

21、s 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 Part 2: State Transit Programs 2-1Methodology . 2-1Ala

22、bama 2-2Alaska 2-3Arizona . 2-6Arkansas . 2-7California 2-10Colorado 2-17Connecticut .2-20Delaware 2-24District of Columbia .2-28Florida .2-33Georgia .2-38Hawaii .2-42Idaho .2-43Illinois 2-46Indiana.2-49Iowa .2-52Kansas .2-55Kentucky 2-59Louisiana 2-63Maine 2-66Maryland 2-69 2017 by the American Ass

23、ociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.viMassachusetts .2-75Michigan .2-79Minnesota 2-83Mississippi 2-89Missouri 2-92Montana .2-95Nebraska 2-98 Nevada 2-101New Hampshire .2-104 New Jersey 2-108 New Mexico 2-111 New Y

24、ork .2-114 North Carolina .2-122 North Dakota .2-130 Ohio 2-133 Oklahoma 2-138 Oregon .2-142 Pennsylvania .2-147Rhode Island 2-153 South Carolina 2-158South Dakota 2-163Tennessee .2-166Texas .2-172Utah 2-175Vermont .2-176Virginia 2-179Washington .2-184W est Virginia .2-191 Wisconsin 2-194Wyoming 2-1

25、97 2017 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 Public Transit by Select Years 1-2Table 1-2 States with

26、 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 Funding 1-9Table 1-6 Changes in State Transit Funding Lev

27、els for FY 2014 and FY 2010 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 Transit Funding 1-17 List of FiguresFigure 1-1 State and

28、Federal Funding for Public Transit 1-4Figure 1-2 Per Capita Funding by Population and Transit Operator Status, 2014. 1-12 A Streamline bus on the Montana State University campus during a 10th Anniver- sary celebration of Streamline bus service. Photo courtesy of David Jacobs, Montana Department of T

29、ransportation . 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.viii Columbus, Indiana Transfer Center in June 2015. Photo courtesy of Brian E. Jones, Indiana Department of TransportationOffice of Trans

30、it. 2017 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 2015Survey of State Funding for Public Transportati

31、on 1-1 1.0 Highlights of State Transit FundingFY 2015 This report, the 35 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 Public Transit Table

32、 1-1 (on the next page) shows that state funding for public transit for the past five years has steadily increased from $14 billion in FY 2011 to $18.8 billion in FY 2015. Twenty-one states increased their public transit funding by a total of $1.7 billion over FY 2014 levels (see Table 1-2) includin

33、g California up $639 million, Illinois up $418 million, Pennsylvania up $295 million, and Massachusetts up $99 million. Six DOTs account for 90 percent of all funding increases: California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia. Twelve states showed a decline in funding an

34、d 18 showed no change in funding levels, including five states that do not fund public transit. The New Mexico Rail Runner. Photo courtesy of Jake Schoellkopf, New Mexico Department of Transportation. 2017 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved

35、. 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 2011 F Y 2012 F Y 2013 F Y 2014 F Y 2015 Alabama $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Alaska $169,270,513 $179,978,475 $181,562,047 $187,652,905

36、$185,858,364 Arizona $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Arkansas $3,250,078 $3,476,547 $3,481,243 $3,550,045 $3,531,248 California $1,731,332,723 $1,849,193,635 $3,040,697,663 $2,259,430,056 $2,898,424,596 Colorado $12,350,000 $12,350,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $14,000,000 Connecticut $411,810,210 $453,476,446 $474,33

37、3,253 $465,086,221 $515,278,413 Delaware $83,942,400 $82,731,400 $95,272,500 $100,601,100 $116,794,507 DC $387,362,000 $484,165,796 $454,788,000 $507,890,000 $546,129,790 Florida $174,895,126 $217,309,774 $189,254,448 $229,673,093 $271,179,216 Georgia $3,721,358 $2,920,272 $2,949,962 $3,342,964 $3,0

38、47,836 Hawaii $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Idaho $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 $312,000 Illinois $1,323,000,000 $814,447,610 $854,683,301 $3,118,234,749 $3,536,569,161 Indiana $55,177,788 $56,018,794 $57,909,868 $57,909,867 $59,140,747 Iowa $12,744,547 $12,898,990 $12,898,990 $12,723,031 $14,274,001 Kansas

39、$6,000,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $11,000,000 $11,000,000 Kentucky $1,472,766 $1,489,991 $1,745,712 $1,867,907 $1,713,412 Louisiana $4,955,000 $4,955,000 $4,955,000 $4,955,000 $4,955,000 Maine $530,026 $530,026 $547,845 $1,147,845 $1,147,845 Maryland $1,049,499,695 $1,086,510,064 $1,522,123,479 $906,

40、699,174 $815,472,457 Massachusetts $1,206,947,412 $1,245,380,962 $1,392,854,042 $1,550,905,555 $1,649,889,696 Michigan $214,975,143 $240,436,975 $271,830,940 $245,125,303 $263,768,319 Minnesota $263,250,400 $309,427,000 $307,652,000 $418,061,000 $403,773,000 Mississippi $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,

41、000 $1,600,000 $1,613,000 Missouri $2,993,658 $2,993,658 $560,875 $3,417,258 $1,530,875 Montana $319,862 $319,142 $546,025 $377,895 $334,820 Nebraska $2,900,000 $2,900,000 $2,900,000 $4,872,884 $4,872,884 Nevada $666,819 $107,115 $37,501 $0 $0 New Hampshire $422,153 $243,687 $52,597 $679,281 $998,98

42、3 New Jersey $773,423,628 $918,027,433 $1,076,490,515 $381,686,937 $357,738,903 New Mexico $11,187,647 $6,665,448 $7,610,500 $6,643,800 $6,643,800 New York $4,246,055,900 $4,465,883,700 $4,465,883,700 $4,786,084,700 $4,786,084,700 North Carolina $74,947,962 $73,574,654 $84,643,069 $79,356,533 $84,84

43、3,069 North Dakota $3,150,000 $3,151,595 $5,296,836 $5,216,175 $6,449,468 Ohio $10,638,436 $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 $132,292,392 $32,669,819 $40,394,560 $32,669,819 $37,439,321 Pennsylvania $1,055,849,793 $1,09

44、1,936,432 $1,161,119,714 $1,237,148,591 $1,532,172,650 Rhode Island $56,940,909 $53,072,997 $51,629,898 $55,819,226 $50,612,785 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 $770,000 Tennessee $44,349,000 $44,499,000 $40,060,10

45、0 $49,889,987 $47,220,000 Texas $28,741,068 $30,341,068 $31,941,067 $30,341,068 $30,341,068 Utah $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Vermont $6,842,927 $6,842,927 $7,482,900 $7,436,700 $8,496,969 Virginia $201,357,502 $239,202,753 $262,284,774 $251,381,851 $298,898,733 Washington $80,017,638 $52,775,879 $59,882,611 $52,

46、956,037 $85,568,222 West Virginia $2,786,009 $2,786,009 $2,786,009 $2,677,058 $2,476,279 Wisconsin $115,724,700 $117,851,500 $106,478,300 $109,228,300 $110,737,500 Wyoming $2,615,350 $2,522,468 $2,696,122 $2,522,468 $2,596,155 T OT A L S $13,985,142,538 $14,233,797,041 $16,322,049,966 $17,221,994,38

47、3 $18,793,749,792 Table 1-1. State Funding of Public Transit by Select Years 2017 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 1-3Survey of State Funding

48、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 FY2015, states provided $18.8 billion in transit funding, while Federal funds totaled $10.6 billion. Figure 1-1 shows the total of

49、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, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Maryland collectively allotted $15.2 billion in state funding. About $4.9 billion almost half of all Federal funds spent on transitwent to these six states. The remaining 45 states allotted a total of $3.6 billion in state funding and shared about $5.8 billion in Federal f

展开阅读全文
相关资源
猜你喜欢
相关搜索

当前位置:首页 > 标准规范 > 国际标准 > 其他

copyright@ 2008-2019 麦多课文库(www.mydoc123.com)网站版权所有
备案/许可证编号:苏ICP备17064731号-1