Now, everything I'm about to describe relates to a situation where a county, as a small urbanized area with a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), was assigned designated recipient responsibilities by a state to manage its FTA Section 5307 urban formula program. This is relevant because JARC projects are funded with Section 5307 (and Section 5311 Rural Formula) under MAP-21. Further, as the designed recipient and FTA grant recipient, the county has the responsibility to manage Sec 5307 projects within the latitude afforded by FTA requirements.
I’m cutting straight to the results without describing how we got there.
We are using Section 5307’s new formula factor - Household-income-Less-Than-150%-of-Federal-Poverty-Level, to identify the amount of Sec 5307 funds available for JARC & Mobility Management projects. The State provided calculations to its small and large urbanized areas. Very useful.
We are using the existing Coordinated Planing project solicitation process to solicit and evaluate Sec. 5307 JARC and Mobility Management projects.
We added a third party review panel, composed of public transit, county, and human service agency representatives to prioritize recommendations for JARC & Mobility Management projects. The Coordinated Plan Committee, MPO and other staff provide input to the review panel. The recommendations are made to the MPO to adopt and add to its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The County uses the TIP as the basis of creating a draft program of projects for Sec. 5307 grants.
The County is revising its program management plan, FTA grant management procedures and supplemental agreements to implement this approach.
And that is one way how JARC survives under MAP-21. What’s your story?
Note: I encourage all mobility managers to join the Partnership for Mobility Management on its website: http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=1790