|
|
|
Title: CASE STUDY ON LOCAL FINANCING TECHNIQUES: BUFFALO, NEW YORK
Accession Number: 00451152
Record Type: Component
Availability: Find a library where document is available Abstract: Buffalo, New York, in the two-county area of Erie and Nigara, is facing significant changes in its economy; major industries are phasing down or out. Since its metropolitan planning organization (MPO) has seven voting members, decision making can take a relatively long time. Downtown has a transit mall and a light-rail project that bisect the district and form a major focus for urban redevelopment. Transit is a major aspect of downtown development. When the Niagara Fontier Transportation Authority voted to advance the light-rail project and Niagara County voted not to advance it in 1976, their differences had to be reasolved because decisions of MPO, of which they are both members, must be unamimous. A transit financial study made to protect Niagara County's concerns and to reflect Erie County's fair share yielded a 5-year transit operating assistance plan. Its major issues were as follows: Shall transit be expanded? Should there be more service or the same service with lower fares or equal fares? If federal and state aid falters, what level of local government should be anticipated to support ransit? What funding source should be considered for that type of financial need? The New York State transportation law requires the state to provide operating assistance to the urban districts in an amount proportional to their service characteristics; counties in that service district are to provide matching amounts. When Erie County and Niagara County were offered three choices: more service, the same service, or reduced service with various fare optios, they accepted the provision that if additional aid did sometime come to the region, it would not be allocated to Niagara County. They accepted the equity issue--that revenues would be credited to the boarding passengers in each county for the particular mode operating in that county and that cost would be attributable to vehicle miles and service of that particular mode in that particular county. The priorities of residents of the two counties were fare increases, service cutbacks, and federal and state aid; local aid was not one of the options.
Supplemental Notes: Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. This paper appeared in TRB Special Report 208, Proceedings of the Conference on Evaluating Alternative Local Transportation Financing Techniques. Conference was conducted by TRB and sponsored by FHWA and UMTA, November 28-30, 1984, Denver, Colorado.
Monograph Title: PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE ON EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FINANCING TECHNIQUES Monograph Accession #: 00451145
Corporate Authors: Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Authors: Small, E HPagination: pp 37-38
Publication Date: 1985
Conference:
Conference on Evaluating Alternative Local Transportation Financing Techniques
Location:
Denver Colorado, United States Media Type: Digital/other
TRT Terms: Uncontrolled Terms: Geographic Terms: Old TRIS Terms: Subject Areas: Administration and Management; Finance; Highways; Public Transportation; Society; I10: Economics and Administration
Files: TRIS, TRB, ATRI
Created Date: Nov 30 1985 12:00AM
More Articles from this Serial Issue:
|
