DOCSLIB.ORG

DOT Is Committed to Ensuring That

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DOT Is Committed to Ensuring That Signed and Anticipated Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Funding Agreements Since 1/20/2017 FTA has advanced funding for 41 new CIG projects throughout the nation under this Administration since January 20, 2017, totaling approximately $10.7 billion in funding commitments. Date Signed by CIG Funding Project Name Project Sponsor Mode Total Project Cost FTA Commitments 1 Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (CA) Caltrain Commuter rail 5/23/2017 $1,930,670,934 $647,000,000 2 Purple Line LRT (MD) Maryland Transit Administration Light rail 8/22/2017 $2,407,030,286 $900,000,000 3 Laker Line BRT (MI) Interurban Transit Partnership BRT 2/9/2018 $72,761,922 $56,189,668 4 Jacksonville First Coast Flyer BRT East Corridor (FL) Jacksonville Transportation Authority BRT 2/23/2018 $34,009,455 $16,930,000 5 Prospect MAX BRT (MO) Kansas City Area Transportation Authority BRT 4/9/2018 $55,810,330 $29,890,000 6 Everett Swift II BRT (WA) Community Transit BRT 4/9/2018 $73,631,772 $43,190,000 7 SMART Regional Rail - San Rafael to Larkspur Extension (CA) Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Commuter rail 4/9/2018 $55,435,057 $20,032,873 8 IndyGo Red Line (IN) Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation BRT 5/14/2018 $96,329,980 $74,989,685 9 Tacoma Link Extension (WA) Sound Transit Light rail 5/15/2018 $214,613,395 $74,999,999 10 Albuquerque Rapid Transit (NM) ABQ Ride BRT 8/30/2018 $133,671,298 $75,035,549 11 Santa Ana Streetcar (CA) Orange County Transportation Authority Streetcar 11/30/2018 $407,759,966 $148,955,409 12 Lynnwood Link (WA) Sound Transit Light rail 12/19/2018 $3,260,357,587 $1,172,730,000 13 Dallas DART Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions (TX) Dallas Area Rapid Transit Light rail 5/28/2019 $128,744,912 $60,760,380 14 Minneapolis Orange Line BRT (MN) Met Council BRT 6/19/2019 $150,700,532 $74,078,782 15 Virginia Street BRT Extension (NV) Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County BRT 9/24/2019 $114,877,667 $40,387,863 16 Tempe Streetcar (AZ) Valley Metro Streetcar 9/25/2019 $192,376,712 $75,000,000 17 Spokane, Central City Line BRT (WA) Spokane Transit Authority BRT 1/21/2020 $92,231,000 $53,425,000 18 Seattle, Federal Way Light Rail Project (WA) Sound Transit Light Rail 1/22/2020 $3,160,704,705 $790,000,000 19 Portland, Division Transit Project BRT (OR) Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon BRT 1/23/2020 $174,827,901 $87,413,950 20 Albany, River Corridor/Blue Line BRT (NY) Albany Capital District Transportation Authority BRT 1/27/2020 $42,513,790 $26,922,248 21 Jacksonville, Southwest Corridor BRT (FL) Jacksonville Transportation Authority BRT 1/27/2020 $32,991,054 $16,495,527 22 El Paso, Montana Corridor BRT (TX) City of El Paso Mass Transit Department BRT 3/13/2020 $49,200,774 $28,222,000 23 Los Angeles Westside Purple Line Extension Section 3 (CA) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Heavy rail 3/16/2020 $3,599,267,008 $1,300,000,000 24 St. Petersburg, Central Avenue BRT (FL) Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority BRT 7/28/2020 $43,930,680 $21,836,000 25 San Francisco, Transbay Corridor (CA) Bay Area Rapid Transit Heavy rail 9/11/2020 $2,705,720,281 $1,169,000,000 26 Minneapolis, Southwest Light Rail Transit (MN) Metropolitan Council Light Rail 9/11/2020 $2,003,152,549 $928,840,370 27 Miami-Dade, South Corridor Rapid Transit Project (FL) Miami-Dade County Department of Transportation and Public BRT 9/25/2020 $299,940,163 $99,999,999 28 Lake County, West Lake Corridor Commuter Rail Project (IN) Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District Commuter Rail 10/28/2020 $944,892,265 $354,572,704 29 Milwaukee, East-West BRT (WI) Milwaukee County BRT 12/14/2020 $55,051,498 $40,933,255 Total 1/20/17 -12/17/20 $22,533,205,473 $8,427,831,261 ANTICIPATED FUNDING AGREEMENTS FOR EXECUTION 30 Phoenix, Valley Metro South Central Light Rail Extension (AZ) Valley Metro Light Rail TBD $1,345,088,335 $529,830,295 31 Kansas City, Streetcar Main Street Extension (MO) City of Kansas Streetcar TBD $351,706,565 $174,059,270 32 Gary, Double Track Northwest Indiana (IN) Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District Commuter Rail TBD $491,121,424 $172,964,251 33 Hudson County, Portal North Bridge Project (NJ) New Jersey Transit Commuter Rail TBD $1,732,168,451 $766,500,000 34 Indianapolis, IndyGo Purple Rapid Transit Line (IN) Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation BRT TBD $155,000,000 $77,500,000 35 Albany, Washington/Western BRT (NY) Capital District Transportation Authority BRT TBD $77,700,000 $60,888,093 36 Ogden, Ogden/Weber State University Bus Rapid Transit (UT) Utah Transit Authority BRT TBD $117,042,857 $75,074,151 37 Vancouver, Mill Plain BRT (WA) Clark County Public Transit Benefit Area BRT TBD $49,864,825 $24,882,548 38 Portland, MAX Red Line Extension and Reliability Improvements (OR) Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District Light Rail TBD $206,016,448 $99,999,999 39 Pittsburgh, Downtown-Uptown-Oakland-East End BRT (PA) Port Authority of Allegheny County BRT TBD $249,904,596 $99,950,000 40 Phoenix, Northwest Extension Phase II (AZ) Valley Metro Light Rail TBD $401,300,000 $158,100,000 41 Raleigh, Wake Bus Rapid Transit New Bern Avenue Project (NC) City of Raleigh BRT TBD $71,500,000 $35,000,000 Total Anticipated Funding Agreements $5,248,413,501 $2,274,748,607 Updated December 17, 2020 Advanced CIG Funding Since 1/20/2017 $10,702,579,868.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brooklyn Transit Primary Source Packet
    BROOKLYN TRANSIT PRIMARY SOURCE PACKET Student Name 1 2 INTRODUCTORY READING "New York City Transit - History and Chronology." Mta.info. Metropolitan Transit Authority. Web. 28 Dec. 2015. Adaptation In the early stages of the development of public transportation systems in New York City, all operations were run by private companies. Abraham Brower established New York City's first public transportation route in 1827, a 12-seat stagecoach that ran along Broadway in Manhattan from the Battery to Bleecker Street. By 1831, Brower had added the omnibus to his fleet. The next year, John Mason organized the New York and Harlem Railroad, a street railway that used horse-drawn cars with metal wheels and ran on a metal track. By 1855, 593 omnibuses traveled on 27 Manhattan routes and horse-drawn cars ran on street railways on Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Avenues. Toward the end of the 19th century, electricity allowed for the development of electric trolley cars, which soon replaced horses. Trolley bus lines, also called trackless trolley coaches, used overhead lines for power. Staten Island was the first borough outside Manhattan to receive these electric trolley cars in the 1920s, and then finally Brooklyn joined the fun in 1930. By 1960, however, motor buses completely replaced New York City public transit trolley cars and trolley buses. The city's first regular elevated railway (el) service began on February 14, 1870. The El ran along Greenwich Street and Ninth Avenue in Manhattan. Elevated train service dominated rapid transit for the next few decades. On September 24, 1883, a Brooklyn Bridge cable-powered railway opened between Park Row in Manhattan and Sands Street in Brooklyn, carrying passengers over the bridge and back.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City
    CASE STUDY Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City In 2019, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) released a tender to Shared Mobility providers to develop a new scalable and sustainable on-demand transit proposal. At a glance Liftango was engaged by the MTA for a The MTA network comprises the nation’s simulation service to predict the uptake largest bus fleet and more subway and for an implemented on-demand service. commuter rail cars than all other U.S. Liftango’s simulation technology was transit systems combined. The MTA’s provided to MTA as a benchmark to operating agencies are MTA New York City measure the realism and efficiency of Transit, MTA Bus, Long Island Rail Road, tender proposals from shared mobility Metro-North Railroad, and MTA Bridges and providers. Essentially, enabling MTA to Tunnels. make an educated decision on whom they should choose as their on-demand provider. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is North America’s largest transportation network, serving a population of 15.3 million people across a 5,000-square-mile travel area surrounding New York City through Long Island, southeastern New York State, and Connecticut. 01 The Problem MTA needed to provide a one of the largest growing As MTA’s first time launching better transport solution sectors in the next five to ten this type of project, there to the people of New York years. The census shows was some risk surrounding City’s outer areas. Why? that a number of people are launch. By engaging Liftango, Existing bus services being leaving for work between 3-6 the aim was to mitigate risk, less frequent than a subway pm and therefore returning simulate possible outcomes service or completely during the overnight period.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD)
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------- With corresponding provisions of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Law and Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Law Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority California Public Utilities Code Page 2 of 110 Introduction The Southern California Rapid Transit District, also known as the SCRTD or the “District” (1964-1993) was created by the State as the successor to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority or “LAMTA” (1958-1964). LAMTA was the first publicly governed transit operator in Los Angeles and also responsible for the planning of a new mass transit system to replace the aging remnants of the transit systems built by Pacific Electric (1899-1953) and Los Angeles Railway (1895-1945). Unfortunately, the LAMTA had no ability to raise tax revenues or powers of eminent domain, and its board was appointed by the Governor, making the task building local support for mass transit improvements difficult at best. Dissatisfaction with the underpowered LAMTA led to a complete re-write of its legislative authority. While referred to in state legislation as a merger, the District law completely overwrote the LAMTA Act of 1957. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, also known as LACTC or the “Commission” (1977-1993) was created by the State in 1976 as a separate countywide transportation planning agency, along with transportation commissions in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. At the time the District was initially created, there were no transit or transportation grant programs available from the State or Federal governments. Once funding sources became available from the Urban Mass Transit Administration, now the Federal Transit Administration, the California Transportation Commission, and others, the creation of county transportation commissions ensured coordination of multimodal transportation planning and funding programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity Bus Planning Process
    The 2018 South Carolina Intercity Bus Program Evaluation Prepared for the South Prepared by: Carolina Department of RLS & Associates, Inc. Transportation, Office of Public Transit December, 2018 955 Park St, Room 201 –POBox 191 Columbia, SC 29202 (803) 737‐2146 https://www.scdot.org/inside/inside-PublicTransit.aspx#services Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Statutory Requirements ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Work Program ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 South Carolina Intercity Busy Service ........................................................................................................................ 1 State’s Intercity Bus Needs ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 5311(f) Funding Recommendations........................................................................................................... 2 II. Project Background and Context ............................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Paratransit Contracting and Service Delivery Methods
    T R A N S I T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M SPONSORED BY The Federal Transit Administration TCRP Synthesis 31 Paratransit Contracting and Service Delivery Methods A Synthesis of Transit Practice Transportation Research Board National Research Council TCRP OVERSIGHT AND TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1998 PROJECT SELECTION COMMITTEE OFFICERS CHAIRMAN Chairwoman: SHARON D. BANKS, General Manager, AC Transit, Oakland, California MICHAEL S. TOWNES Vice Chair: WAYNE SHACKELFORD, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation Peninsula Transportation District Executive Director: ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Commission Washington, D.C. MEMBERS MEMBERS BRIAN J.L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor, Bruton Center for Development Studies, University SHARON D. BANKS of Texas at Dallas AC Transit SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement Inc., Washington, D.C LEE BARNES E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation Barwood Inc JOANNE F. CASEY, President, Intermodal Association of North America, Greenbelt, Maryland GERALD L. BLAIR JOHN W. FISHER, Director, ATLSS Engineering Research Center. Lehigh University Indiana County Transit Authority GORMAN GILBERT, Director, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State SHIRLEY A. DELIBERO University New Jersey Transit Corporation DELON HAMPTON, Chairman & CEO, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, D.C., ROD J. DIRIDON LESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor, University of Virginia, Department of Civil Engineering (Past Chair, International Institute for Surface 1986) Transportation Policy Study JAMES L. LAMMIE, Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York SANDRA DRAGGOO THOMAS F. LARWIN, San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board CATA BRADLEY L.
    [Show full text]
  • Complementary Paratransit Service Compliance Review Guam
    U.S. Department Headquarters East Building, 5m Floor, TCR Of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 Federal Transit Administration APR 0 3 2012 Mr. Rudy Cabana Interim General Manager Guam Regional Transit Authority Government of Guam P.O. Box 2896 Hagatna GU 96932 Re: ADA Complimentary Paratransit Service Compliance Review Final Report Dear Mr. Cabana: Thank you for your responses to the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Compliance Review conducted at the Guam Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) from February 9-12, 2010. FTA would like to thank you and your staff for the cooperation provided during the review. At that time, you were informed that FTA would issue a draft report of the findings, on which GRTA would have an opportunity to provide comment, and a final report would then be released. GRTA's comments were to be included in the attachments to the final report. Upon receiving GRTA's comments to the draft report on December 16, 2011, this report is considered final. A copy so marked is enclosed for your records. As of the date of this letter, the Final Report became a public document and is subject to dissemination under the Freedom of Information Act of 1974. FTA recognizes that it has been over two years since our onsite review and that changes have likely occurred in GRTA's paratransit program. We appreciate the efforts that GRTA has already taken to correct the deficiencies identified. We also value the ongoing cooperation and assistance that you and your staff have provided during this review.
    [Show full text]
  • Paratransit Plan Exhibits
    ADA Paratransit Plan Exhibits for Public Comment, December 2017 to January 5, 2018 Paratransit Plan Exhibits Table of Contents EXHIBIT 1: RTS SYSTEM MAP AND SCHEDULES........................... 2 EXHIBIT 2: PARATRANSIT SERVICE AREA MAPS .......................... 2 EXHIBIT 3: SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE ............................................ 8 EXHIBIT 4: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & NOTIFICATION ............... 20 EXHIBIT 5: NO-SHOWS (MISSED RIDES) .................................... 38 EXHIBIT 6: COMPLAINTS ........................................................... 53 EXHIBIT 7: TIMELY SERVICE ....................................................... 58 EXHIBIT 8: PICKUP PERIODS FOR RETURN TRIPS AND “NO STRAND” POLICY ....................................................................... 76 EXHIBIT 9: TIME-LINE OF IMPLEMENTATION ........................... 79 EXHIBIT 10: ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION ................................. 110 EXHIBIT 11: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ..................... 162 EXHIBIT 12: CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES .................... 163 EXHIBIT 13: MPO CERTIFICATION ........................................... 181 EXHIBIT 14: RATIFIED BOARD RESOLUTION ............................ 182 Page 1 of 182 ADA Paratransit Plan Exhibits for Public Comment, December 2017 to January 5, 2018 EXHIBIT 1: RTS SYSTEM MAP AND SCHEDULES This exhibit provides the link to the RTS Service Map for April 2017 https://www.myrts.com/Portals/0/Schedules/RTS- System-Map-April-3-2017.pdf and the link to the portion of the RTS website containing
    [Show full text]
  • An Econometric Analysis of Public Transportation in Montreal Vincent Chakour Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechani
    An econometric analysis of public transportation in Montreal Vincent Chakour Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics McGill University, Montreal Submitted Electronically August 14, 2013 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Civil Engineering © Vincent Chakour 2013 Acknowledgments I would first and foremost like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Naveen Eluru, whose inspiring guidance, supervision, and constant support throughout my Master’s program made the completion of this thesis possible. I would also like to thank Guillaume Barreau for modeling the transit trips to McGill in Google Maps, Alex Burkley for his help with land use variable generation, and the transportation team in the Department of Civil Engineering as well as the TRAM research group in the School of Urban Planning for their help and support. I would like to give a special thanks to Ahmed El-Geneidy from the School or Urban Planning, Daniel Bergeron from the Agence Métropolitaine de Transport (AMT), and Jocelyn Grondines from the Société de Transport de Montréal (STM) for providing the necessary data to carry out the studies. I would also like to acknowledge financial support from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada under the Discovery Grants program and from the McGill Sustainability Projects Fund. 1 Contributions of Authors Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this report are based on three separate papers. The paper from Chapter 2 has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Public Transport on September 8th 2012 and presented at the Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting, whereas the paper from Chapter 3 has been presented at the Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting and submitted for publication in the journal of Transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Worth Transportation Authority Financial Report September 30, 2019
    Fort Worth Transportation Authority Financial Report September 30, 2019 C O N T E N T S Page Independent Auditor's Report ................................................................................................................................... 1 Management's Discussion and Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4 Financial Statements Statements of Net Position ................................................................................................................................ 12 Statements of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position .............................................................. 13 Statements of Cash Flows ................................................................................................................................. 14 Notes to Financial Statements .......................................................................................................................... 16 Supplementary Information Schedule of Revenues and Expenses - Budget and Actual ........................................................................ 30 Federal and State Awards Section Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ................................................................................................ 31 Schedule of Expenditures of State Awards .................................................................................................... 32 Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal and State
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Spec-Tran ADA Paratransit Application
    CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Spec-Tran ADA Paratransit Application Spec-Tran – operated by the Capital Area Transportation Authority – provides curb- to-curb public transportation for people who are unable to use CATA’s fixed-route system for some or all of their trips due to a physical or mental disability. Completing this application will help determine whether and under what circumstances the applicant can use fixed-route bus service and when Spec-Tran paratransit service is needed. Instructions: How to complete this form The applicant (or someone assisting the applicant) must complete the entire packet with the exception of the Medical Verification section. A licensed physician or other medical professional must complete and sign the Medical Verification page. All questions must be answered. Incomplete forms will be returned. If you need assistance to complete this form or if you have any questions about ADA service and eligibility, please feel free to contact Disability Network Capital Area: Tel: 517-999-2760 Toll Free: 1-877-652-0403 TDD/TYY Relay: 1-800-649-3777 Please return your completed form to the following agency: Disability Network Capital Area 2812 N. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Lansing, MI. 48906 Fax: 517-999-2767 Dear Applicant: There are two ADA paratransit eligibility standards that apply to Spec-Tran: 1. Your disability prevents you from navigating the fixed-route bus system (i.e., getting on, riding or getting off the bus) with or without the assistance of another individual. Please note that all CATA fixed-route buses meet ADA accessibility standards and are ramp equipped.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Considerations of Equity in Financing and Providing Transit Service in Texas
    SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY IN FINANCING AND PROVIDING TRANSIT SERVICE IN TEXAS by Dock Burke Katie N. Womack Joanne Saunders Technical Report 1078-lF Technical Study Number 2-10-84-1078 The Issue of Equity in Texas Transit Finance Sponsored by Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation in cooperation with U. S. Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration April 1986 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY IN FINANCING AND PROVIDING TRANSIT SERVICE IN TEXAS by Dock Burke Katie N. Womack Joanne Saunders Technical Report 1078-lF Technical Study Number 2-10-84-1078 The Issue of Equity in Texas Transit Finance Sponsored by Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation in cooperation with U. S. Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration April 1986 TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS Approximate Conversions to Motrlc Meosures .. Approximate Conveniont from Metric Measures When You Know Mulllply by To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply by To Find Symbol - LENGTH • I== LENGTH ...~ In inches •2.& nntlm1ter1 cm mm mllllmettn 0.04 ln­ in It 30 centimeltrs cm - cm untimeters 0.4 inchn In yd '"'nrds 0.9 met1t1 m m ....... 3.3 It m; miles 1.6 kilomet.n km m m•t•• 1. 1 '"'yards yd km kilometers 0,8 mil" mi AREA AREA equare Inches 6.5 1quare centimeters cm' .. squire fHt 0.09 square nwten m' - cm' squire eentimtt9" 0.16 wquar• lnchn in' ..u1re y1rd1 0.8 square meter• m' m' squire 'me1•n 1.2 ..uara y1rd1 yd' 1 1 1qu1r• mil" 2.6 square kilonteters km km squire kilom•tWI 0.4 square mlles mi1 ....
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity Bus Feeder Project Program Analysis
    Intercity Bus U.S. Department of Transportation Feeder Project Program Analysis September 1990 Intercity Bus Feeder Project Program Analysis Final Report September 1990 Prepared by Frederic D. Fravel, Elisabeth R. Hayes, and Kenneth I. Hosen Ecosometrics, Inc. 4715 Cordell Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814-3016 Prepared for Community Transportation Association of America 725 15th Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 Funded by Urban Mass Transportation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590 Distributed in Cooperation with Technology Sharing Program Research and Special Programs Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 DOT-T-91-03 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE s uh4h4ARY . S-l Background and Purpose ............................................. S-l CurrentStatusoftheProgram ......................................... S-3 Identification of Participant Goals ....................................... S-3 Analysis of Participants .............................................. S-8 casestudies ...................................................... s-11 Program Costs and Benefits ........................................... S-l 1 Conclusions ...................................................... S-13 Goals and Objectives for the Rural Connection ............................. S-15 Identification of Potential Future Changes ................................. S-17 1 -- INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OFTHE PROBLEM . 1 BackgroundandPurpose.............................................
    [Show full text]