Public Transportation’s Impact

on Rural and Small Towns

A VITAL MOBILITY LINK
 Public Transit’s Impact on Rural and Small Towns
A Vital Mobility Link

We thank the Community Transportation Association of America for their Peer-Review of this paper
Summary Points

• The number of rural and small town public transit agencies has increased over
the past two decades to approximately 1,400 agencies (2014).
• America’s rural population is declining, but ridership has increased from 2007 to
2015. This equates to an 8.6 percent increase in per-capita rural ridership over
the past 8 years, and a 7.8 percent increase in total rural ridership. For
comparison, urban public transit ridership increased by 2.3 percent in the same
time period.
• Rural demographics make public transit increasingly desired. Older Americans
make up a larger portion of rural populations (17 percent) than in urban
populations (13 percent).
• Rural residents with disabilities rely on public transit- they take about 50 percent
more public transit trips than unimpaired people do.
• There are 2.9 million rural veterans, making up 33 percent of the veteran
population enrolled in the VA health care system. Rural public transit can help
them access needed services.
• Public transit can reduce the risk of road accidents. Rural residents travel about
33 percent more than urban residents, and although rural areas only make up 19
percent of the population, they account for around 49 percent of traffic fatalities.
• Rural poverty rates exceed urban poverty rates in all regions. Rural public transit
can help reduce personal travel expenditures due to gas and other vehicle
maintenance expenditures (rural households spend about 7 percentage points
more of their budgets on transportation than urban households do).
• Public transit can help promote active lifestyles in rural communities struggling
with health problems such as obesity, and can link people with healthcare
services.
• Rural public transportation can be an important force in supporting local
economies by connecting residents (especially non-drivers) with local businesses
and job opportunities.
• Rural public transit spending per capita is lower than in urban areas. Increased
local and federal investment can help address this.

2
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
Rural and Small Town Demographic Analysis ................................................................. 5
Older Americans.......................................................................................................................... 5
People with Disabilities................................................................................................................ 8
Veterans .................................................................................................................................... 11
Adolescents ............................................................................................................................... 12
Public Transit’s Economic Impact on Rural and Small Towns ....................................... 14
Rural Poverty............................................................................................................................. 14
Safety and Security ................................................................................................................... 18
Active Lifestyles ......................................................................................................................... 18
Economic Development ............................................................................................................ 19
Summary of Trends ................................................................................................................... 20
Performance Metrics and Cost-Benefit Evaluation ........................................................ 21
Public Transit Planning and Service Options ................................................................. 26
Service Coverage ...................................................................................................................... 27
Transit Supply ........................................................................................................................... 27
Transit-Oriented Communities .................................................................................................. 28
Transit Service Innovations ....................................................................................................... 28
Planning and Funding ............................................................................................................... 28
Case Studies ................................................................................................................. 30
North Dakota ............................................................................................................................. 30
Montana .................................................................................................................................... 31
Washington State ...................................................................................................................... 31
Small Community Transit Service and Ridership Targets ........................................................ 33
Idaho ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Campus Transportation Management ...................................................................................... 34
People’s Transit......................................................................................................................... 34
Norway ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Myths and Realities of Rural Public Transit ................................................................... 36
Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 38
References and Information Resources ........................................................................ 40

3
Introduction
Rural communities and small towns have much to offer, including a sense of community,
affordable housing and access to open space. However, many of these areas are currently
experiencing population declines due to various demographic and economic trends. An aging
population, industrial shifts, changing consumer preferences and diminishing local services have
all contributed to rural stagnation.

Like people anywhere, rural and small town residents rely on transportation to access jobs,
schools, medical facilities, retail shopping, recreation, social events and other services. This can
be challenging in these areas because of lengthy travel distances and limited travel options,
particularly for people with limited ability to drive.

While it is sometimes assumed that public transportation is only essential for large urban areas
with significant traffic congestion, this report shows that public transportation can also play an
important role in rural areas and small towns. Although public transit serves a minor portion of
total rural travel, the trips that are provided are particularly valuable.

By examining current trends, this report reveals the increasingly critical connection between
public transit and rural communities and small towns. This paper also looks at rural public transit
cost efficiency, and describes successful examples of smaller community public transit
programs.

Figure 1 Types of Rural Transit Services

Public transit modes vary – from fixed route local buses, to demand response and vanpool (which may be
operated by local non-profits), to interregional bus services that connect smaller communities with urban
centers. Local governments may also decide to subsidize traditional taxi services or mobile ride-hailing
services.

4
Rural and Small Town Demographic Analysis
This section describes the various benefits that public transportation has on rural areas and small towns,
and how demographics will affect future rural public transit demands.

Table 1 Types of Non-Drivers

Public Transit User Types Prevalence Consequences if Public Transit is
Unavailable
Older Americans who do not or 10-20% of residents
should not drive and increasing
Lack mobility, require more costly chauffeuring
People with disabilities 3-5% of residents (special vehicle travel to transport a non-driver),
Adolescents (12-20 years) 5-15% of residents or move to another community with better
transport options
Stay-at-home parents in single-
vehicle household Varies
20-40% of Lack mobility or spend an excessive portion of
Low-income households households budgets on transport
Lack mobility, require chauffeuring or expensive
Drivers who temporarily lack a vehicle Varies taxis
Lack mobility or visit other areas with better
Tourists and visitors Varies transport options
Law-abiding drinkers Varies Drive impaired, risking citations and crashes
Although it does not serve all mobility needs, public transit adds real value in rural communities by
providing independent mobility for people who cannot or should not drive.

Older Americans
Although many older Americans drive safely, as people age, particularly past 75 years, their
driving ability tends to decline, as illustrated in Figure 2. By choice or necessity, many older
Americans adjust their routines and rely on alternative transportation options.

Figure 2 Driving Ability by Age, Location and Gender (Mattson 2012)

100%
19-64 65-74 75-84 85+
90%
Portion Who Drive

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Urban Male Urban Female Rural Male Rural Female

5
Figure 3 Baby Boom Age Cohort Travel Trends (McGuckin and Lynott 2012)

Figure 3 illustrates the reduction in automobile trips and increases in public transit trips by the Baby
Boomer generation as they age.
Note: Next National Household Travel Survey results to be released in 2018.

A relatively large and growing portion of rural and small town residents are older Americans
(figures 4 and 5). About 17 percent of rural residents are over 65 years of age- 5 percentage
points more than the U.S. population overall (Werner 2011). Rural and small town census tracts
contain 21 percent of the total U.S. population but approximately 25 percent of all older
Americans, and 21 of the 25 “oldest” counties are rural (HAC 2014).

Figure 4 Rural and Urban Age Trends (Mattson 2016)

Rural population median age and portion of residents 65 years or over are increasing rapidly.

6
Figure 5 Older American Population Change, 2000-2010 (HAC 2014)

Many rural areas are experiencing rapid senior population growth.

Surveys indicate that most older Americans want to “age in place”, that is, continue living in
their current communities. To make this possible, rural communities and small towns need
appropriate mobility options. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) report, Aging
In Place: A State Survey of Livability Policies and Practices (Farber and Shinkle 2011) highlights
the importance of providing suitable mobility options to allow aging residents to retain their
independence. As Lydia Morken and Mildred Warner explain in their report, Planning for the
Aging Population: Rural Responses to the Challenge (Morken and Warner 2011),

“Whether older adults can age in place hinges largely on transportation. Can they reach
the services available to them, get to a routine doctor’s appointment, or attend a social
event? Older adults’ diverse mobility needs present some of the most pressing
challenges for rural communities. Most people will outlive their ability to drive, and
many will face isolation when they can no longer get behind the wheel. Older adults in
rural and suburban areas will feel this acutely as communities designed for the car offer
few other transportation options.”

Compared with other geographic areas, rural communities have greater gaps in senior
transportation services (NCST 2010). Serving seniors’ travel demands helps support local
economic development. Rural communities that develop such services can attract and retain
more seniors and the economic activity they generate.

7
 Nancy H. – Kittery, ME
“As a senior citizen, at some point I will prefer to take public transportation to get around. I live in southern
Maine, across from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Many people commute to Portsmouth, where parking is
always a problem.”

Sarah H. – Bath, ME
“We are seniors and live two miles to the town center, if we walk it is nice to be able to take the bus home.”

Carolyn N. – Kingman, AZ
“I am an older lady and do not drive anymore. I live in Arizona where public transportation is very limited. I
wish it was more available for doctor appointments and just getting out to places like the senior center,
etc.”

Mirta M. – Chapel Hill, NC

“There is a point in everyone’s life in which driving becomes difficult or all together impossible due to
normal aging. For this reason alone, it is a smart investment to improve public transit infrastructure
/services as a way of promoting healthy living for the whole community, including that of the increasing
senior population. Personally, thanks to public transportation I can keep an active professional and social
life.”

People with Disabilities

Many people with temporary or long-term disabilities are limited in their ability to drive. As
Americans age, it becomes more difficult for them to travel (as illustrated in Figure 6), in part
because of medical conditions and disabilities, making community-based services essential.

Figure 6 Residents with a Condition that Makes Travel Difficult (Mattson 2012)

50%
50%
Portion Of Total Population

40%

29%
30%

19%
20%

10% 8%
3%

0%
<19 20-64 65-74 75-84 85+

8
Many people with disabilities who would previously have been institutionalized now live in
regular homes in residential neighborhoods, reflecting the principle of community integration.
This can provide a better quality of life and overall cost savings for the disabled community, and
if successful, provides support services such as appropriate public transportation. Even if they
live in automobile-owning households, people with disabilities often want public transit services
so that they can live more independently and minimize the chauffeuring burdens they may
impose on family members.

Many rural residents with disabilities rely on public transit. And, those with mobility
impairments take about half as many daily trips as people without such conditions. However,
residents with medical conditions take about 50 percent more trips on public transit than
unimpaired people do (Table 2).

Table 2 Rural Residents’ Travel (Mattson 2012, Tables 3.3 and 3.11)
Daily Trips Portion Taking a Transit Trip
With medical condition 2.65 1.9%
No medical condition 4.17 0.8%

A 2016 survey taken in Ohio by the Ohio Colleges of Medicine Government Resource Center
found that less than 37 percent of respondents had personal access to a vehicle. That resulted in
54 percent responding that they relied on rides from family or friends, and 30 percent saying
that they relied on public and paratransit. More than 50 percent noted that they routinely had
to wait more than 30 minutes or more for service and that they had to travel for a long time
period. Since most rural communities offer relatively limited public transit services, there is
considerable latent demand. Many rural residents with disabilities would use public transit more
if additional service were available.

Public transit is particularly important for people with both disabilities and low incomes. Figure
7 displays the percentage of older Americans (over 65 years) who have disabilities and live in
low-Income households (below 150 percent of poverty threshold).

9
Figure 7 Percent of Seniors with Disabilities and Are Underprivileged (He and
Larsen 2014)

Judith L. – Idaho Falls, ID

“I'm a disabled senior citizen. I depend on public transportation to get around -- from
everything to errands, shopping, medical appointments and other basic, everyday essentials
that others take for granted. I simply can't afford to get around without public
transportation.”

Candy B. – Elkhart, IN
“I had a stroke; it affected my eyesight and I didn't feel comfortable driving anymore. I still
needed to get my medicine and go to my doctor and grocery store. Thank goodness there was
a way I could be independent with the bus."

10
The Veterans Administration is working with rural communities to provide special services for veterans
with disabilities. ([Link]/health/NewsFeatures/[Link])

Veterans
There is a particularly urgent need for public transit to serve military veterans with disabilities
who live in rural communities (Ellis, et al. 2013). Roughly 33 percent of those enrolled in the
Department of Veterans Affairs Health Administration system (2.9 million) live in rural areas
(Peterson 2014). The VA’s Office of Rural Health states that rural veterans are on average 2
years older than urban veterans, and that 44% of rural enrolled veterans have at least one
service connected condition. Other studies show that many have service-connected disability
ratings above 50 percent, requiring more specialized healthcare services than veterans in urban
areas (Burkhardt et al. 2011). Figure 8 shows that the VA healthcare utilization rate is higher in
rural areas than in urban areas, further underlining the importance of robust public transit
services to those facilities.

Figure 8 Rural and Urban Use of Healthcare 2011-2015

11
Indeed, rural locations create challenges for veterans and their families, including greater
isolation and longer travel distances to obtain services. To address these needs, rural
communities need special mobility and public transportation services, such as local and intercity
public transportation suitable for veterans, their families, and healthcare workers (VA 2014).

Figure 9 Percentage of Veterans and Nonveterans Living in Rural Areas by State

Adolescents
Many young people are limited in their ability to drive. The portion of young people that have
driver’s licenses and own cars has declined steadily during the last three decades (Figure 10), in
part due to changing needs and preferences: many young people attend school or have low-
wage jobs, value technology (smartphones and computers) more than motor vehicles, and are
willing to use alternative travel modes (APTA 2013; Interrante 2014; McDonald 2015).

12
Young people who cannot drive often find it difficult to access jobs and services in rural areas.
Communities that provide suitable transportation options, including convenient local and
regional public transit services, increase young people’s independence and reduce family
members’ chauffeuring burdens. A Norwegian study found that rural parents greatly value
public transit services, even if they did not use it themselves, because it reduces the need to
drive their children (ITF 2015). Serving these travel demands helps attract and retain families
with adolescents and young adults, and can help slow the long-term population and economic
declines occurring in many rural communities.

Figure 10 Drivers Licensure Rates by Age (Sivak and Schoettle 2016)

Driver licensure rates for adolescents declined significantly during the last three decades.

13
Public Transit’s Economic Impact on Rural and Small Towns
This section describes various economic benefits that public transportation has on rural areas and small
towns.

Rural Poverty
Rural areas have lower average incomes and higher poverty rates than urban areas. In 2015,
median household incomes were $44,212 in rural areas, 24 percent less than the $58,260 in
urban areas (USDA 2016). Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the increased poverty rates of rural areas,
particularly in the South and among the elderly.

Figure 11 Urban Versus Rural Poverty Rates, 2011-15 (USDA 2016)

20%
Poverty Rate

15%
Metro (Urban)
10%
Nonmetro (Rural)
5%

0%
Northeast Midwest South West
Rural communities have far higher poverty rates than urban communities.

Figure 12 Poverty Rates by Location and Gender (HAC 2014)

14%
14%
11.8% 11.4%
12%
9.8%
Poverty Rate

10%
8.2% All elderly
8% 7.2%

6%
Male elderly
4% Female elderly
2%
0%
U.S. Rural & Small Town
Poverty rates are particularly severe for elderly rural women, many of whom cannot drive.

Rural residents also drive more miles than urban residents. Overall, rural residents travel about
33 percent more (Figure 13), rural workers travel 38 percent more, and lower-income rural
workers 59 percent more annual miles than their urban peers (Brown and Schafft 2011).

14
Figure 13 Urban Versus Rural Vehicle Travel (FHWA 2013, Exhibit 1-5)

Annual Passenger-Miles Per 15,000

Capita, 2009

10,000

5,000

0
Urban Rural
Rural residents drive a third more than urban residents. Although both urban and rural residents reduced
their annual vehicle travel between 2001 and 2009, the reduction was greater in urban areas, further
affecting the differences in their annual mileage and associated costs.

Because of lower average incomes and higher vehicle mileage, rural households spend a much
greater portion of their budgets on transportation than urban households. In 2013, rural
households devoted 20 percent of their total budget to transport which is 7 percentage points
more than urban households. Rural households also spend 1.8 percentage points more of their
budget on fuel than urban households (Figure 14).

Figure 14 Urban Versus Rural Transportation Expenditures (BLS 2017)

Portion of Household Budget

20%

15%

Vehicle fuel
10%
All other transportation

5%

0%
Urban Rural
Rural households spend 7 percent more of their household budget on transportation and 1.8 percent more
on vehicle fuel than urban households.

When gas prices surpassed $4 a gallon, many rural households were spending more than 10
percent of their budgets on fuel, as illustrated in Figure 15. Recent fuel price declines provided
substantial savings to rural motorists, but also reduced wages and employment in rural
communities that specialize in oil and gas production. Rural households will continue to be
particularly vulnerable to fuel price fluctuations in the future.

15
Figure 15 Portion of Household Income Spent on Gasoline (Krauss 2008)

Motor vehicle expenses due to long travel distances are a major financial burden to many lower-
income rural households, sometimes leaving residents with insufficient money to purchase
other essential goods such as utilities, medicine and healthy foods. Although lower-income
motorists use various strategies to minimize expenses, such as owning older vehicles,
performing some of their own repairs, and purchasing minimal insurance coverage, owning and
legally operating an automobile is estimated to cost several thousand dollars annually, not
including large unplanned expenses from mechanical failures or accidents.

The 2009 National Household Travel Survey measures the financial stress that many rural
households bear from excessive transportation costs. It asked respondents to rate the
importance of various transportation issues. Of these, “Price of Travel” rated highest by a
significant margin, particularly for rural respondents, 62 percent of whom assigned it the highest
rating, compared to 59 percent of urban respondents, and “Access or Availability of Public
Transit” rated second highest, as illustrated in Figure 16.

16
Figure 16 Rating of Transportation Issues (Mattson 2012)
70%
Portion Assigning Top Rating to Urban
60%
Rural
50%

40%
Issue

30%
20%
10%

0%

Transportation unaffordability and inadequate public transit services were the two most important
transport issues identified by 2009 National Household Travel Survey respondents.

Automobile ownership comes with a wide range of costs, such as vehicle operating costs (fuel,
maintenance, parking fees and road tolls), vehicle financing (and depreciation), insurance and
registration fees. Thus, true affordability requires that households have multimodal options to
limit their vehicle ownership/use. Having alternative modes, including adequate public transit
services required to meet daily needs, can be a financial lifesaver. For example, lower-income
rural residents may use public transit to save fuel and vehicle wear when travelling to another
community, to avoid owning a second car, and as an emergency option when their vehicle is
temporarily unavailable. The ability to live with fewer vehicles is particularly important for
households that are experiencing crises, such as a job loss, vehicle failures, traffic accidents or
fuel price spikes.

Tashia J. – Johnston, SC
“I live in rural Johnston, S.C., and without transportation, even eating becomes a crisis.
Medical appointments and basic needs are left to chance.”

Debbie C. – Nixa, MO
“I live in the growing suburb of Nixa, Missouri where public transit has yet to be offered.
However, there is a great need. I think if you talk to the local food pantries and non-profits you
will find that much of the food and energy assistance needed in Nixa is due to the fact that
quality employment is unreachable if you can't afford a vehicle, or its maintenance costs.”

17
Safety and Security
Rural communities have relatively high traffic casualty (death and injury) rates. Although they
are home to only 19 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 49 percent of traffic
fatalities. Rural vehicle travel averages 1.84 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT),
2.6 times the 0.71 rate in urban areas (NHTSA 2017). Traffic safety is therefore particularly
important in rural areas and public transit can be part of the solution.

Drivers over the age of 70 and from the age 13-19 (teenagers) have relatively high accident
rates. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Highway Loss Data Institute, 16 to
19-year-olds have a crash rate nearly 3 times the rate for drivers 20 and over (IIHS 2015). And
while older Americans do not drive as many miles, they have the second highest crash rate per
mile (AAA 2016). Since most injury crashes involve multiple vehicles, higher-risk drivers can
endanger other road users, in addition to themselves. Many traffic safety strategies, such as
special senior driver testing requirements, graduated licenses for young drivers, and campaigns
to discourage impaired and distracted driving, depend on reducing higher-risk driving. To be
effective, alternative mobility options are required so that higher risk groups can reduce their
driving without giving up their independence. For example, older Americans need
transportation to healthcare services, stores and social activities; young people need transport
to school, jobs and recreation; and those who have over indulged in alcoholic beverages may
need transportation home from restaurants and bars. Public transit can serve many of these
trips.

Public transit can also increase personal security by limiting the risk of assault. When non-drivers
lack mobility options they may ask for rides with strangers and put themselves in potentially
risky situations. Transportation agencies collect traffic collision data and make investments to
improve highway safety, but do not track traveler assaults or consider personal security when
evaluating investments. More comprehensive risk analyses could justify more investment in
public transit to increase personal security on rural roadways. Described differently, for non-
drivers, a highway that lacks appropriate public transit services is an unsafe transportation
facility. (For more on public transit safety, see: [Link]

Active Lifestyles
Health experts are increasingly concerned about health problems caused by sedentary lifestyles
and associated increases in obesity, which lead to increases in healthcare and disability costs,
and reduce longevity. These problems can be particularly severe in rural communities. For
example, 22 percent of rural children are obese, compared to 17 percent of urban children, and
40 percent of rural adults are obese, compared to 33 percent of urban adults (Hansen and
Hartley 2015).

To address these risks, public health officials are encouraging people lead more active lifestyles.
While there are many ways to be active (some costlier than others), one of the most effective
ways to increase physical fitness and health is to utilize active transportation modes (walking
and cycling) for both utilitarian and recreational travel, as a substitute for automobile travel. In
response, many communities are improving pedestrian and cycling conditions by building
sidewalks and bike lanes/paths, and implementing complete streets policies. These policies help
benefit public transit, and makes it easier for residents to walk to and from bus stops. Since

18
most public transit trips include walking and cycling links, residents who switch from driving to
public transit can get more exercise as well.

Economic Development
Many rural communities are experiencing economic shifts. Resource industries such as logging,
fishing, mining and farming are increasingly automated, which results in reduced employment
opportunities. The boom and bust cycles associated with various industries can contribute to
the population and economic declines occurring in many rural communities (Figure 17).

Figure 17 Nonmetropolitan Population Change, 2000 to 2010 (Johnson 2012)

Many rural communities and small towns have declining population.

In response, many of these communities are working to diversify their economies by attracting
new industries. Public transit can support these efforts by expanding the pool of potential
employees available to businesses, particularly non-drivers (youths and older Americans) or
lower-income residents. This can be critical for local businesses and industries such as tourism,
healthcare/senior services, farming and food processing. By continuing to support such
industries, rural communities can make strides in gaining population. Between 2000 and 2010,
277 rural counties considered retiree destinations gained 13 percent in population on average,
and 299 rural counties considered recreational destinations gained 11 percent in population on
average (Johnson 2012).

Public transit can help support rural economies in several ways:

• It helps attract and retain residents who cannot drive (including older Americans, young people,
people with disabilities and lower-incomes) and tourists, therefore helping to support local
businesses, healthcare centers, and schools.
• It can help businesses reduce their parking costs, which is particularly important for revitalizing
older downtowns, and for developing large institutions such as colleges and hospitals.

19
 • A 1998 TCRP Report assessing the economic impacts of rural public transportation found that
there was an 11 percent difference in average net earnings growth between rural counties that
had public transit systems and those without (Burkhardt, Hedrick and Mcgavock 1998). The
researchers also discovered an economic multiplier of 3.35 for every dollar of federal
investment in rural public transit.

Summary of Trends
In virtually every community, including rural communities and small towns, a significant portion
of residents and visitors cannot or should not drive, creating demand for alternatives. Public
transit can play an important role in serving these needs. Failing to satisfy these needs can have
significant negative consequences to individuals, families and communities.

Rural public transit demands, and the benefits of serving those demands, are expected to rise
significantly in the future. It is expected that the number of older Americans will increase by
around 40% within the next decade (2014 Census Projections). For rural areas, this also will
result in increases in residents with high mobility needs, including people over 75 years of age
and veterans. In addition, more rural communities will experience the economic consequences
of shifting population and stagnant growth. More residents with disabilities, fuel price
fluctuations, increased preferences for healthier lifestyles and car-free tourism could be the
backbone of higher public transit demand in the future.

20
Performance Metrics and Cost-Benefit Evaluation
This section examines the benefits and costs of rural and small town public transportation.

The U.S. has nearly 6,800 public transit agencies, including 820 that operate in large urbanized
areas, approximately 1,400 agencies that operate in rural areas and small towns, and
approximately 6,350 that provide demand-response services to people with special needs (APTA
2016). Rural public transit agencies, funding, vehicle revenue-miles and passenger trips have all
increased during the last two decades (FHWA 2013; Mattson 2015). However, some types of
public transportation, particularly intercity bus services, have declined in recent years (BTS
2011), causing an increasing portion of rural communities to lose scheduled intercity transport,
as illustrated in Figure 18.

Figure 18 Areas with Intercity Bus Services in 2010 (Firestine 2011)

A significant portion of rural communities lack public transportation services.

21
Despite a decline in 2015 rural public transit ridership, there are indications that it is more
resilient than urban public transit ridership. 2015 rural public transit ridership is 7.8 percent
above 2007 ridership, which equates to roughly 10 million additional trips. Because of rural
population declines, rural ridership per capita is over eight percent more than in 2007.

Figure 19 Ridership and Population Trends

Rural Unlinked Passenger Trips

150,000,000
145,000,000
Unlinked Passenger Trips

140,000,000
135,000,000
130,000,000
125,000,000
120,000,000
115,000,000
110,000,000
105,000,000
100,000,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Rural Population (Non-UZA)

59,500,000
59,400,000
59,300,000
59,200,000
59,100,000
59,000,000
58,900,000
58,800,000
58,700,000
58,600,000
58,500,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Rural Unlinked Passenger Trips is above 2007 levels even with a near 1 million decline in population

22
Mirroring the loss in rural population is the decline in rural vehicle miles traveled (Figure 20).
From 2007 to 2015, rural vehicle miles traveled fell by roughly 10 percent; a stark contrast to
urban VMT trends.

Figure 20 Urban and Rural VMT Trends

Table 3 Public Transit Expenditures Per Capita, Service and Ridership (FTA
2015)
Expenditures Service
(Dollars) (Veh. Revenue-Miles)
Per Capita Per Capita Dollars Per Mile

Total $195 26 $10.32

Smaller communities $62 15 $4.16

Public transit expenditures (both capital and operating) totaled $64.1 billion in the U.S. in 2015, averaging
close to $200 per capita

In an analysis of vehicle revenue miles (one of public transit’s best indicators of service), rural
communities and small towns were found to have experienced a 12 percent increase in VRM
from 2007 to 2015. Still, as Table 3 shows, smaller communities lag behind national figures for
vehicle revenue miles per capita and public transit expenditures per capita.

23
Figure 21 Comparing Costs

$10,000 Roadways
Parking Facilities $2,000
$8,000 Vehicle
Annaul Dollars

$1,000
$6,000

$4,000 $1,000
$500 $7,000
$2,000
$3,000
$30 $120 $200
$0
Rural Transit AAA Membership Average Transit Old, Low-Milage New, High-
Car Mileage Car

Overall, rural area and small town public transit services typically cost $20-40 annually per
capita (Lynott 2014; Mattson and Hough 2015; TROUT 2015). This is small compared with annual
automobile association membership fees (public transit services are similar to automobile
association memberships in that they provide a mobility option motorists can use if their vehicle
fails to operate or they cannot drive for other reasons), national per capita public transit
spending, or total costs of owning and operating automobile, including vehicle, fuel, road and
parking facility costs, as illustrated in Figure 21.

Public transit travel is often less expensive overall than other alternatives. For example, a typical
5-mile rural public transit trip costs about $7 (driver, fuel and vehicle expenses). That is less
expensive than:
• A taxi fare for the same trip (typically $10-15 for a 5-mile trip).
• Total costs to own and operate an automobile for infrequent use ($3,000 annual costs
divided by 150 annual trips equals $20 per trip).
• Total vehicle operation and time costs for driver to chauffeur a passenger 5 miles to a
destination and return alone (10 miles at 50¢ per mile equals $5 in vehicle operating costs,
plus 20 minutes charged at $15 per hour equals $5 in time costs).
• The accident costs of a higher-risk driver (youth, older American or impaired) forced to drive
due to inadequate alternatives. U.S. traffic collision costs were estimated to total $836
billion in 2010, which is about $2,700 annually per capita. Since rural areas have about twice
the per capita crash casualty rates as the national average (NHTSA 2014), traffic accident
costs average over $5,000 annually per capita in rural areas (Blincoe, et al. 2014).

Public transportation spending can provide a positive return on investment if it reduces the
amount of automobile travel, reduces accident rates, or provides an increase in local economic
activity. Public transit services can also help government agencies and businesses save money.
For example, it can reduce the costs for healthcare and social service programs that pay client
travel expenses, as well as the number of parking spaces that governments and businesses must
provide in a commercial area for customers and employees.

24
Public transit investments may also be economically justified if they help attract and retain more
residents and businesses in a community, increasing local economic activity the tax base. For
every 100 households that leave a community, around one million dollars is lost each year in
local economic activity (assuming a household spends $10,000 annually on local goods, services
and taxes), further contributing to a decline in local public services and businesses. Public transit
can increase total employment by expanding the pool of potential employees available to
businesses and the pool of potential jobs available to willing workers.

Several recent studies have estimated benefit-cost ratios for various types of public transit
services (Ferrell 2015). They indicate that public transit investments generally provide positive
economic returns, that is, each dollar spent on services provides more than one dollar in
economic benefits. Although the highest benefit-cost ratios are typically found in larger urban
areas, most rural public transit economic studies indicate that they provide net monetary
benefit. In their report, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rural and Small Urban Transit, Godavarthy,
Mattson and Ndembe (2014) estimated the benefit/cost ratio for rural public transit services in
each U.S. state, considering various categories of benefits, as illustrated in Figure 22. Because
that study only considered a portion of public transit benefits (for example, it ignores parking
cost savings, and the value that non-drivers place on having independent mobility), total
benefits for rural areas are likely greater.

Figure 22 Rural Public Transit Benefit Analysis (Godavarthy, Mattson and Ndembe 2014)
Benefit Categories Benefit Estimates

This figure illustrates the categories of benefits, and benefit estimate results for each U.S. state.

25
Public Transit Planning and Service Options
This section describes appropriate types of public transit for rural communities and small towns, as well as
different performance indicators and planning tools.

Certain types of public transit services are more suitable for smaller communities, as
summarized in Table 4. Many communities use a combination of these services, with subsidized
taxis and community buses serving people with special needs, demand response in moderate-
density areas, fixed-route buses connecting local destinations, and intercity bus and train routes
connecting towns and cities.

Table 4 Public Transit Services Suitable for Smaller Communities

Government
Name Description Service Quality User Costs Costs
Varies
Moderate to high, depending on
Private taxies receive subsidies depending on size of subsidy
for certain types of trips. Users local taxi service and length of
Taxi Subsidies pay any additional fares. availability. trip. Varies.
Non-profit organizations
Volunteer coordinate volunteer drivers Low. Limited to Users may be
Drivers – Own who provide rides in their own what volunteers asked to help Varies. May help
Vehicles vehicles. can provide. pay for gas. reimburse drivers.
Non-profit organizations use Varies. Users
volunteer or paid drivers to Low to moderate, may be asked to
Community offer rides in subsidized depending on help pay Low. Helps fund
buses vehicles (usually vans). resources. expenses. vehicles.
Non-profit organizations or Varies. Generally
Paratransit government agencies Moderate, requires a fare
(Demand coordinate paid drivers using depending on of several
Response) vans or small buses. resources. dollars. High.
A transportation agency or Low compared Very low. Vanpools
Vanpool employer group helps organize Good for longer with driving a are generally self-
services commuter vanpools commute trips private vehicle supporting
Fixed Route Government agencies or High in service Generally
Transit Bus contractors operate buses on area, depending requires
Services scheduled routes. on resources. moderate fares. Moderate to high.
Integrated Local and regional agencies High, depending
Regional coordinate public transit on funding: more Generally
Transit services to connect funding allows requires
Services communities. more service. moderate fares. Moderate to high.
Comparable to rural “Ubers”,
Rural these ride-hailing services are
Transportation app based and can connect High, depending Low. Some grant
Network drivers with passengers. See on where the funding/
Companies “Liberty Mobility Now” services are Can be as low as government
(TNCs) [Link] available $1 per mile. contracts
Various types of public transit services can be appropriate in rural areas and small towns.
Note- Ride Hailing in Rural America:
[Link]
like-uber-with-a-neighborly-feel

26
Public transit services are often provided through partnerships that involve various
organizations and government agencies. For example, many rural communities use a
combination of funding sources to support local non-profit organizations or government
agencies that provide public transit services (NCMM 2015). In many cases, federal and state
funds are available to help communities establish and operate mobility services to meet special
needs, such as mobility for veterans with disabilities. (Peterson 2014).

Service Coverage
Service coverage refers to where and when public transit service is offered. Service coverage
analysis can be used to understand service gaps and to align service with planning objectives
(such as providing basic mobility for non-drivers), to increase employment opportunities, or to
support tourism. The following factors can be considered when evaluating coverage:
• Area. Fixed-route public transit serves a more limited area, usually around urban centers
and along major highways. Demand response and subsidized taxi services have the flexibility
to serve a larger area.
• Population and jobs. With GIS tools, it is possible to measure the portion of households and
jobs that are served, and even the portion of public transit-dependent residents.
• Schedules. Rural public transit often operates with limited schedules, such as only during
weekdays, and for some routes, only once or twice weekly.
• Restrictions. Many public transit providers must limit the amount of service they can
deliver: for example, the number of demand-response trips that people with disabilities take
each week or month.
• Demand types. Public transit serves various types of demands, including basic mobility for
people with disabilities and low incomes, commuting/intercity trips and recreational trips.
Analysis can investigate the degree to which these demands are being served, and the
community satisfaction with the service.

Supply (Trips or Vehicle-Revenue-Miles Per Capita)

Standard public transit service performance indicators include vehicle revenue-miles (mileage
when vehicles are in service), revenue hours, and unlinked passenger trips per capita. Currently,
smaller community public transit systems (communities with fewer than 60,000 residents),
average 5-10 vehicle revenue-miles per capita, and 2-6 annual trips per capita.

The following factors should be considered when establishing service targets:

• The number of older Americans, people with disabilities, immigrants, and lower income
households.
• Industries that attract non-drivers, such as a colleges or universities, retirement
communities or tourism businesses.
• Whether the community has goals to create more compact, multimodal communities.

27
Transit-Oriented Communities
This refers to whether a region (such as a county) has at least one village or town with a
commercial center that offers basic services (medical and dental clinics, pharmacy, grocery
store, school, park and recreation center), in addition to good walking and cycling conditions,
local and intercity public transportation taxi services, a variety of housing options, including
some suitable for people with disabilities and lower incomes. This gives people who cannot or
should not drive access to the services they need to live comfortably in that region.

Transit Service Innovations

Many rural areas and small towns are implementing public transit service partnerships and
management innovations (Hosen and Powell 2014):
• Some communities offer TaxiBus service: passengers must reserve a ride, and are carried
between numerous fixed stop locations by taxis which can pick up other passengers during
the same trip (example: [Link]
• Some small towns support periodic vanpooling or commuter bus service to help residents
commute to nearby cities and access services. This may include seasonal or special bus
services to recreational activities, such as festivals, beaches, or ski hills

Planning and Funding

This indicator refers to the quality of planning for public transit services, and the ability to
increase services if more funding becomes available. While various federal and state programs
support rural public transit (NRTAP 2015), many transportation agencies lack the resources
needed to meet growing rural public transit demands. It is important to identify tools and
support from state departments of transportation and other organizations to develop local rural
public transit planning capacity.

Rural Public Transit Planning Resources

AARP Livable Communities ([Link]/ppi/issues/livable-communities) provides guidance on policies and
planning practices to create safe, accessible, affordable and vibrant communities.
William Dieber, et al. (2014), Planning Transportation To Meet The Needs Of An Aging Illinois: An Assessment,
Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement; at [Link]
Elizabeth Ellis and Brian McCollom (2014), Guidebook for Rural Demand-Response Transportation: Measuring,
Assessing, and Improving Performance, TCRP Report 136, TRB; at [Link]
Ranjit Godavarthy, Jeremy Mattson and Elvis Ndembe (2014), Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rural and Small Urban
Transit, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute ([Link]); at
[Link]
Kenneth I. Hosen and S. Bennett Powell (2014), Innovative Rural Transit Services: A Synthesis of Transit
Practice, TCRP Synthesis 94, Transportation Research Board ([Link]); at [Link]
KFH Group (2014), Effective Approaches to Meeting Rural Intercity Bus Transportation Needs, TCRP Report 79;
at [Link]
Brian J. Morton, Joseph Huegy, and John Poros (2014), Close to Home: A Handbook for Transportation-
Efficient Growth in Small Communities and Rural Areas, Web-Only Document 211, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP); at [Link]
National Rural Transit Assistance Program Website ([Link] Federal Transit Administration.

28
 Rural Transportation ([Link]
National Center for Mobility Management.
Rural Assistance Center Transportation Topic Page ([Link]/topics/transportation) provides
practical information on ways to improve transport options in rural communities.
Rural Transportation Planning Clearinghouse ([Link]) serves as the national
professional association for rural transport planning professionals, policymakers and other stakeholders.
Small Urban & Rural Transit Center ([Link]) at North Dakota State University.
USEPA (2015), Smart Growth Self-Assessment for Rural Communities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
([Link]); at [Link]

Many communities are implementing public transit service improvements and support
strategies that make travel more convenient and attractive, and encourage its use, including bus
lanes and bus rapid transit systems, enhanced buses and bus stops, smartphone apps with
schedules and real-time bus arrival information, commute trip reduction programs, improved
walking and cycling connections with public transit, and transit-oriented community policies.
Although these amenities are most common in larger urban areas, they are starting to be
implemented in smaller communities, particularly college towns and resorts.

Table 5 Pro-Transit Arguments for Various Stakeholders

Interest Group Reasons to Support Public Transit
• Improves their independence and ability to participate in activities
Older persons and • Saves money compared with car ownership and taxi travel
people with • Supports “aging in place.” Reduces the need for non-drivers to move
disabilities away
• Improves their independence and ability to participate in activities
Youth • Saves money compared with car ownership
• Reduces chauffeuring burdens
• Provides a mobility option if their vehicle fails or they are unable to drive
Motorists • Reduces crash risk to all road users
• Helps attract and retain residents and their business activity
• Expands the pool of lower-wage employees
• Allows non-driving tourists to visit
Business leaders • Reduces parking costs
• Serving non-drivers’ travel demands is an important and growing
responsibility for transportation professionals
Transportation • Reduces crash risks
professionals • Reduces traffic and parking congestion
• Reduces crash risks
• Encourages physical activity (since most public transit trips include
Public health walking links)
professionals • Reduces hitchhiker assault risk
Reasons to support public transit can be tailored to the concerns of various constituents.

29
Case Studies
This section describes examples of rural public transit planning and program development.

North Dakota
A study, Identifying and Satisfying the Mobility Needs of North Dakota’s Transit System, by the
Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute (Mattson and Hough 2015) analyzed demographic
and economic trends that affect public transit demand, and surveyed various service providers
to identify existing and future service gaps and estimate the additional funding required for
future needs. It calculated a Mobility Need Index rating for each county based on projected
growth in total population, residents aged 65 or older, people with disabilities and low incomes,
workers without access to a vehicle, and population densities (Figure 23). Each number
represents a quintile (20 percent of total areas), so for example, the areas rated 1 represent the
20 percent with the lowest public transit need, and those rated 5 represent the 20 percent with
the highest need.

Figure 23 Mobility Needs Index Map (Mattson and Hough 2015)

The Mobility Needs Index indicates where public transit demand is projected to increase due to growth in
population groups that rely on it.

The analysis indicates that demand for both conventional public transit and specialized mobility
services will increase significantly, particularly in areas experiencing population growth. Many
areas need longer service hours, weekend service, and more services in rural areas,
predominantly for medical and work trips.

The study evaluated four possible scenarios:

1. Each region meets at least one of the three benchmark values (per capita vehicle-miles,
vehicle-hours or passenger-trips compared with peer public transit agencies).
2. Public transit services increase at a rate equal to or greater than growth in total population,
although days and hours of service are limited.
3. Requires that each region meet at least two of the three benchmarks.
4. Requires that each region increase service by at least 10 percent.

The results were used to project service, staffing, facility, vehicle and funding needs for each
scenario, as summarized in Table 6. This analysis indicates that the state’s rural transit funding

30
must increase 30-63 percent to meet future needs, although, since rural public transit services
are a small portion of total public transit programs, this only represents a 9-18 percent increase
in total statewide funding needs. Under the highest growth scenario, annual funding must
increase by $3.9 million ($1.5 million local and $1.9 million state), or about $11.50 total
additional annual dollars per rural resident (according to the U.S. Census, rural Idaho has about
300,000 residents).

Table 6 Funding Increases Required (Mattson and Hough 2015)

This table estimates the additional funding required to achieve various future service targets.

Montana (Mattson and Hough 2015)

Montana has made a concerted effort to provide public transit in its rural communities. The
number of rural public transit systems increased from nine in 2008 to almost 40 in 2015. To
achieve this, the state government partnered with local councils on aging that offered
community bus services. Montana Department of Transportation Bureau Chief Audrey Allums
explained, “We went to these Councils on Aging and said, ‘You’re already running a senior bus
service; if you open your doors to everyone, print a schedule and follow the FTA guidelines, we
will help you pull it all together and receive FTA funding.’”

Local governments provided matching funds using Older Americans Act funding, property taxes,
donations and other local government money. Sanders County in northwest Montana
established public transportation services after a resident died because she was unable to
access cancer treatments. The community responded by saying, “Never again in our town.”

Washington State

Travel Washington Intercity Bus Program

For many years, Washington State’s intercity bus service was declining, leaving rural
communities without scheduled public transportation to other towns and cities. In response,
Washington State created the Travel Washington Intercity Bus Program which contracts with
private companies to provide services to many rural communities (Figure 24). Commencing in

31
2007, it relies largely on federal grants and requires minimal state funds. The State Department
of Transportation works with communities to design the program and select service providers
(Lynott 2014). Program manager Steve Abernathy, says that this approach has garnered strong
community support. “When the Gold Line (northeastern Washington) was announced,
communities were falling over each other to see who could bring the most to the ribbon
cutting.”

Figure 24 Washington Intercity Bus Network ([Link]/transit/intercity)

Washington State supports an intercity bus network that serves rural areas and smaller towns.

The intercity buses connect to local public transit services and are catalysts for private
investment. Homes, hotels and banks are being developed around transit centers, and their
parking lots are sometimes used for farmers’ markets and concerts. Abernathy describes the
program as, “allowing people to stay where they want to live, yet still have the mobility,
connections and access to the state, national and international transportation network. It allows
older adults to stay in the communities where they have friends, where they raised their
children and where they are part of a community.”

Rural Public Transit

Washington State has several programs to help rural communities plan, coordinate and fund
local public transit services (USDOT 2011). Public transit is provided through government
agencies and community transportation providers which include private non-profit, private for-
profit and tribal organizations. These organizations can access various federal, state and local
funds, including voter-approved special taxes. The Washington State Department of
Transportation provides administrative and technical assistance to regional transportation
planning organizations and public transit service providers. As a result, most rural counties in
Washington State have coordinated public transit services providing travel to and within many
communities. For example, it is possible to travel around the Olympic Peninsula to many small
communities, Indian reservations and tourist destinations using the Olympic Transit Loop, which
consists of six different but coordinated local public transit agencies (OPTC 2012), as illustrated
in Figure 25.

32
Figure 25 Olympic Peninsula Public Transportation

It is possible to circle the Olympic Peninsula and visit most communities using integrated local public
transit services. ([Link]/sites/default/files/onp_transit_guide_2012.pdf)

Small Community Transit Service and Ridership Targets (CUTA 2009)

In 2009, the Canadian Urban Transportation Association (CUTA) identified existing public transit
service and ridership rates in various communities, and used this information to set targets for
2040 to accommodate growing demands associated with demographic and economic trends
such as aging population and rising future fuel prices. See Table 7.

Table 7 Small Community Transit Service and Ridership Targets (CUTA 2015)
2013 2040 Targets
Service: annual per capita vehicle-hours 0.7 1.3
Ridership: annual per capita passenger trips 15 40

Idaho (Mattson and Hough 2015)

The Community Transportation Association of Idaho (CTAI) is a non-profit organization which
supports the development of multi-modal transportation services in Idaho communities,
including fixed route, demand response and ridesharing services. CTAI helps distribute federal
and state funds. Agencies must have a coordinated plan in order to receive these funds. To meet
the requirement, the state is divided into 17 local networks that meet to talk about community
needs and implementation strategies. The CTAI employs a full-time mobility manager in each of
the state’s six transportation districts. These managers facilitate the coordinated planning
process and bring together key stakeholders, elected officials and leaders from the senior center
or agency on aging. Executive director Heather Wheeler explains, “One of the key things the
CTAI is doing is trying to bring mobility options to the rural communities so individuals can
maintain their rural lifestyle and have access to health care, work, school or other necessary
appointments.”

33
Campus Transportation Management (Van Heeke, Sullivan and Baxandall 2014)
Many small-town colleges and universities are implementing campus transportation
management programs that encourage students and staff to reduce automobile travel to help
address local traffic and parking problems, increase affordability and safety and improve the
community’s quality of life. These programs usually include a combination of campus shuttle
buses, public transit service improvements, walking and cycling improvements, plus incentives
to reduce driving, such as parking pricing reforms and discounted or free public transit services.

For example, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (town population 59,376) provides
financial support to enable fare-free service throughout the community. Between 1997 and
2011, the proportion of students using public transit to commute to campus more than doubled,
from 21 percent to 53 percent. Morgantown, West Virginia (population 31,073) operates 20 bus
routes, which are free for university and high school students, including one between the
University of West Virginia campus and downtown which operates until midnight, to discourage
driving under the influence. Similarly, the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville (population
80,621) has 10 free bus routes for students. It also has a Safe Ride program that provides those
who feel threatened or impaired with a free ride home from any location within the city limits.

People’s Transit (Barry 2010)

Huron, with a population of 12,000, is the county seat of Beadle County, at the midpoint of
eastern South Dakota. Temperatures can drop as low as 25 degrees below zero, and with a large
older population, many residents were worried about how their older neighbors in this rural
community could access life’s essentials without transportation options. This led to the
establishment of People’s Transit 30 years ago, which started as a pilot program that received
most of its funding from the Older Americans Act. The service quickly expanded, bringing older
Americans meals, and access to recreational activities and health services. In 1975, Huron
officials added the first wheelchair-accessible van to the fleet.

In the late 1990s, a building committee was established. Then-City Commissioner and former
Mayor, David McGirr, worked with community members to locate a site for the Huron’s Great
transit center. Given South Dakota’s frigid winters, the center had to be energy efficient to
minimize costs. While shoveling parking lots and thawing buses before they go out on the road
is labor intensive, the community has come to heavily rely on the system. McGirr explained,
“Transit service is a critical element in our infrastructure. Without People’s Transit, there would
be a lot of people here living a lower standard of life. If ever they went away, I don’t know how
we’d replace them.”

Norway (ITF 2015)

The Norwegian government provides financial support for developing new public transport
systems in rural districts in Norway. This has resulted in several types of demand-response
service being developed in sparsely populated areas. The services vary in the types of
passengers served, frequency and flexibility. All systems require travelers to request service by
phone at least two hours in advance.

One example is in the south-eastern part of Norway (Østfold). In addition to regular express bus
services from the municipality center to nearby cities, the inhabitants of more sparsely
populated areas have access to a local demand-response service. Initially the service was
restricted to older residents and co-travelers, but after a certain time the transportation

34
authorities opened the services for all users. There are two different routes: One serves the
northern part of the area three days a week, the other serves the southern part on the two
other weekdays. Although buses follow routes, passengers can be picked up at homes up to two
kilometers away from the specified route. There are two departures on each service day. The
first departure is at about 10 o’clock, i.e. after the school transport is finished in the morning.
The second service runs about three hours later. This makes it possible to carry out errands in
the municipality center. If nobody demands the service at least two hours in advance of
scheduled departures, there is no service. Depending on the number of passengers and their
special needs (for example, a wheelchair) the lines will be serviced by minibuses or regular taxis,
owned and administrated by the local taxi central. The service was meant to replace subsidized
taxies for people with special needs.

Another model for demand-response services was developed for a sparsely populated and
geographically large municipality in the eastern part of Norway (Hedmark). Authorities
introduced it as a new public transportation concept with departures from the municipality
center every hour, if requested at least two hours in advance, using regular taxis. The service
has fixed stops but there is some flexibility in routes. Passengers must be at the bus stop at
specified times. As the stops are fixed, the service is not intended to replace services for people
with special needs. The structure of the time schedule is based on the time of departure from,
and arrivals to, the municipality center. Every route starts from, and arrives at, the municipality
center half past every hour. The operating time is between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays and
between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekends. From the center, it is possible to change to railway and
express bus services for trips that cross the border.

User surveys indicate that demand response services are popular. Key user groups include
young and older people without a driver's license. Some parents also expressed appreciation
that there were other modal options besides driving.

35
Myths and Realities of Rural Public Transit
This section addresses common criticisms of rural public transit.

Myth #1: Public Transit Is Only Justified in Large Cities

Public transit serves various roles in an efficient and equitable transportation system. In large
cities, it provides space-efficient mobility on major travel corridors, which reduces traffic and
parking congestion. In both large and small communities, it provides basic mobility for non-
drivers, affordable transportation for lower-income households, transportation for tourists, and
support for local economic development. Although it serves a limited portion of total travel in
most rural communities, those trips tend to be particularly important, including travel for
healthcare, basic shopping, school, work and tourism. Public transit can help reduce many of the
problems facing rural communities and small towns, including population and economic
declines, poverty and high traffic fatality rates.

Myth #2: Public Transit Is Costly

Public transit services are sometimes criticized for being costly, particularly in rural areas where
low ridership and dispersed development results in high costs per passenger-mile and low cost
recovery (portion of total costs financed by fares). However, public transit can actually be very
cost effective compared with alternatives. For example, a typical 5-mile rural public transit trip
costs about $7, which is less expensive than many alternatives:
• A taxi fare for the same trip (typically $10-15 for a 5-mile trip).
• Total costs to own and operate an automobile for infrequent use ($3,000 annual costs
divided by 150 annual trips equals $20 per trip).
• Total vehicle operation and time costs for driver to chauffeur a passenger 5 miles to a
destination and return alone (10 miles at 50¢ per mile equals $5 in vehicle operating costs,
plus 20 minutes charged at $15 per hour equals $5 in time costs).
• The accident costs of a higher-risk (youth, older, or impaired) driver forced to drive due to
inadequate alternatives.

As stated previously, per capita public transit expenses are small in rural areas compared with
larger cities, with motor vehicle costs, and even compared with automobile association
memberships which offer roadside assistance for drivers who have car problems. Public transit
serves a similar function; it provides a mobility option for those who need it most. Even
residents who do not frequently use public transit value having it available.

Myth #3: Public transit is subsidized, unlike roads which motorists finance through user
fees
Many people assume that roads are fully financed by user fees such as fuel taxes and road tolls.
Although user fees finance most highway costs, city and county roads are financed primarily
through general taxes (Henchman 2013). Of the $235 billion spent on U.S. roadways (about
$732 per capita), only $113 billion (about $360 per capita) was financed by user fees (FHWA
2015, HF-10); the rest was financed by general taxes which residents pay regardless of how
much they drive.

Therefore, people who drive less than average subsidize the costs of people who drive more
than average. Public transit subsidies offset these cross subsidies and they ensure that residents
who do not drive receive a share of government transportation spending.

36
Myth #4: Buses Run Empty
Some complain that public transit vehicles (buses and vans) occasionally appear empty. These
vehicles often operate with extra capacity due to fluctuating demand, just as private vehicles
generally operate with empty seats. Most public transit systems have times when vehicles are
nearly or completely full.

Myth #5: Small towns and rural communities rely on informal transport services
Informal travel arrangements can be unreliable or uncomfortable. Formal public transit services
offer a reliable, professional service, with fixed schedules and amenities such as wheelchair lifts
and bike racks. Non-drivers often prefer paying for public transit rather than being entirely
dependent on family or friends for transportation. The need for more formal public transit is
increasing, with rural community organizations finding that they cannot serve the growing
demand with only volunteers.

Myth #6: Self-driving cars will soon eliminate the need for public transit
Some people argue that autonomous (self-driving) cars will soon eliminate the need for
communities to subsidize public transit services. Such claims are unrealistic. Although vehicle
manufacturers are making progress developing self-driving technologies, it will be several years
before such vehicles can operate reliably under all travel conditions – for example, no current
technologies can navigate safely in heavy rain and snow – and even longer before they are
affordable enough for most households to purchase. Even when these vehicles operate reliably,
many children and people with disabilities will still need assistance or supervision. It is unlikely
that self-driving cars will replace public transit services before the 2030s, and subsidies will still
be needed to provide basic mobility for people with disabilities and those with low incomes.

37
Conclusions
Public transportation helps rural communities become more efficient and equitable. It helps
ensure that all residents, including non-drivers, enjoy independent mobility and receive a fair
share of public spending on transportation facilities and services. Serving these demands can
provide multiple benefits. However, many of these benefits can be overlooked or undervalued
in formal transportation planning, such as during project economic evaluations, as summarized
in Table 8. As a result, the importance of rural public transit improvements is often under
estimated.

Table 8 Major Categories of Rural Public Transit Benefits

Benefit Category Degree Considered In Conventional Planning
Users
More independent mobility Seldom included in formal economic evaluation
Financial savings compared with automobile or
taxi travel Generally overlooked
Reduced accident and assault risk Generally overlooked
Less risk of impaired driving citation or accident Generally overlooked
Motorists
Sometimes recognized by individuals but seldom
Reduced chauffeuring burdens included in formal economic evaluation
Reduced traffic risks (less higher-risk driving) Generally overlooked
Reduced traffic and parking congestion Generally overlooked
Local Economy
Retains and attracts more residents Seldom included in formal economic evaluation
Increased tourism by non-drivers Seldom included in formal economic evaluation
Helps attract major employers such as colleges
and hospitals Seldom included in formal economic evaluation
Rural public transit can provide various benefits to users and communities. Many of these benefits can be
overlooked, so public transit improvements are often worth far more than recognized.

Although public transit serves only a minor portion of total rural inhabitants, many of those trips
are crucial. For example, allowing older residents and people with disabilities to access
healthcare and basic shopping, young people to reach school and jobs, and tourists to visit
without a motor vehicle. Failing to serve these needs can be costly. If public transit is
unavailable, residents may miss medical appointments and lose jobs, or must be chauffeured.
Communities that lack public transit will be at a stark disadvantage when it comes to attracting
people with disabilities, younger residents, and tourists compared to other communities with
better mobility services. This contributes to the spiral of declining population and economic
activity that threatens many rural areas. Public transportation can make important contributions
in addressing these problems.

38
Current demographic and economic trends are increasing rural public transit demand and the
benefits of serving that demand. Aging population, more residents with disabilities, industrial
shifts and rising poverty, further restrictions on higher-risk driving, and changing consumer
preferences are increasing the number of residents who cannot, should not, or prefer not to
drive. Communities that serve the growing demand for alternative modes and “car free”
lifestyles have the potential to attract and retain more residents and visitors, along with the
economic activity they generate. Motorists also benefit from reduced chauffeuring burdens and
chances of being injured by a high-risk driver.

Analysis in this report indicates that public transit demand can be expected to further increase
in rural communities within the next decade. In doing comprehensive transportation planning,
agencies should plan for increasing the amount of revenue miles operated, depending on the
demographic shifts of each individual community. Rural communities will require increased
funding to plan for this operational expansion.

Current rural public transit spending is low, particularly compared with:

1. Per capita spending on public transit in urban areas.
2. What many motorists pay for automobile association memberships.
3. What motorists spend on automobiles.
4. What governments and businesses spend on roads and parking facilities.
5. The potential benefits of such investments.

Many federal and state programs support rural public transit, although local communities must
usually provide matching funds. Examples described in this report indicate that many rural
communities are using innovative partnerships and diverse funding sources to finance
improvements in public transit. Overall, such programs are often very cost effective, considering
all benefits and costs; each dollar invested often provides far more than a dollar in total savings
and benefits.

Of course, rural communities are diverse, and so are their mobility needs. There are many ways
rural communities can provide mobility services -- ranging from volunteer programs operated by
local charities, subsidized taxi services, community transport, demand response and fixed-route
bus services. Many rural communities have demonstrated that with creativity and good
management it is possible to significantly improve public transit services with modest
investments.

Improving public transit service requires broad community support. To build this support,
proponents must create a vision of a more diverse transportation system and demonstrate the
resulting benefits to stakeholders. It is important to have credible technical analyses about these
benefits; it is also important to support such analyses with anecdotal material that vividly
illustrates how public transit can benefit local individuals, businesses and communities. To meet
growing public transit demand, leaders will need to overcome various obstacles including
misunderstandings about the role that public transit plays in small towns and rural communities,
biases against planning and funding practices, and local underinvestment in public transit.

39
References and Information Resources

APTA (2013), Millennials and Mobility: Understanding the Millennial Mindset, American Public
Transportation Association ([Link]); at [Link]

APTA (2016), Public Transportation Fact Book, American Public Transportation Association
([Link]); at [Link]
[Link].

Sean Berry (2010), Case Studies on Transit and Livable Communities in Rural and Small Town
America, Transportation for America ([Link]); at [Link]

Jon E. Burkhardt, James L. Hedrick and Adam T. Mcgavock (1998), Assessment of the Economic
Impacts of Rural Public Transportation, TCRP Report 34, Transportation Research Board
([Link]); at [Link]

Jon E. Burkhardt, Joseph M. Rubino and Joohee Yum (2011), Improving Mobility for Veterans,
TCRP Research Digest 99, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board
([Link]); at [Link]

Jon E. Burkhardt, Charles A. Nelson, Gail Murray And David Koffman (2004), Toolkit for Rural
Community Coordinated Transportation Services, TCRP Report 101, TRB ([Link]); at
[Link]

Lawrence Blincoe, et al. (2014), The Economic And Societal Impact Of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2010, Report No. DOT HS 812 013, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www-
[Link]); at [Link]/Pubs/[Link].

BLS (2015), Consumer Expenditure Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics ([Link]); at

[Link]

David L. Brown and Kai A. Schafft (2011), Rural People and Communities in the 21st Century:
Resilience and Transformation, Polity Press ([Link]); at
[Link]

BTS (2011), The U.S. Rural Population and Scheduled Intercity Transportation in 2010: A Five-
Year Decline in Transportation Access, Bureau of Transportation Statistics ([Link]); at
[Link]

COIC (2013), Central Oregon Regional Transit Master Plan, Central Oregon Intergovernmental
Council ([Link] at [Link]

CTOD and CNT (2006), The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability
of a Housing Choice, Center for Transit-Oriented Development and the Center for Neighborhood
Technology, Brookings Institute ([Link]); at
[Link]/metro/umi/20060127_affindex.pdf.

40
CUTA (2009), Transit Vision 2040 — Five Years of Progress, Canadian Urban Transportation
Association ([Link]); at [Link]
[Link].

Richard Dowling, et al. (2008), Multimodal Level Of Service Analysis For Urban Streets, NCHRP
Report 616, Transportation Research Board ([Link]); at
[Link]

Tony Dutzik, Benjamin Davis and Phineas Baxandall (2011), Do Roads Pay for Themselves?
Setting the Record Straight on Transportation Funding, PIRG Education Fund ([Link]);
at [Link]/reports/usf/do-roads-pay-themselves.

David W. Eby, et al. (2012), Recommendations For Meeting The Mobility Needs Of Older Adults
In Rural Michigan, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
([Link]); at
[Link]/documents/mdot/MDOT_Research_Report_RC1592_408044_7.pdf.

Elizabeth Ellis and Brian McCollom (2014), Guidebook for Rural Demand-Response
Transportation: Measuring, Assessing, and Improving Performance, TCRP Report 136,
Transportation Research Board ([Link]); at
[Link]

Elizabeth Ellis, et al. (2013), Community Tools to Improve Transportation Options for Veterans,
Military Service Members, and Their Families, TCRP Report 164, Transportation Research Board
([Link]); at [Link]

ERS (2014), Rural America At A Glace, Economic Research Services, U.S. Department of
Agriculture ([Link]); at [Link]/media/1697681/[Link].

ERS (2015), Geography of Poverty, Economic Research Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture
([Link]); at [Link]/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-
being/[Link].

Christopher E. Ferrell (2015), The Benefits of Transit in the United States: A Review and Analysis
of Benefit-Cost Studies, Mineta Transportation Institute ([Link] at
[Link]

FHWA (2002), Rural Transportation Planning, Federal Highway Administration

([Link]); at [Link]/planning/rural/[Link].

FHWA (2015), Highway Statistics, Federal Highway Administration ([Link]); at

[Link]

FHWA (2013), Conditions and Performance, Federal Highway Administration

([Link]); at [Link]/policy/2013cpr.

41
Theresa Firestine (2011), The U.S. Rural Population and Scheduled Intercity Transportation in
2010: A Five-Year Decline in Transportation Access, U.S. Department of Transportation; at
[Link]

Gerard Fitzgerald (2012), The Social Impacts Of Poor Access To Transport In Rural New Zealand,
Research Report 484, NZ Transport Agency ([Link]); at
[Link]/resources/research/reports/484/docs/[Link].

FTA (2015), National Transit Database Spreadsheet ([Link]),

2015 data for transit systems in UZA with less than 60,000 residents; at
[Link]
series-system-0.

Stephen Fuller, John Robinson, Francisco Fraire and Sharada Vadali (2011), Improving
Intermodal Connectivity in Rural Areas to Enhance Transportation Efficiency: A Case Study,
University Transportation Center for Mobility ([Link] at
[Link]

Ranjit Godavarthy, Jeremy Mattson and Elvis Ndembe (2014), Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rural and
Small Urban Transit, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University,
for the U.S. Department of Transportation ([Link]); at [Link]/wp-
content/uploads/2014/07/[Link].

HAC (2013), Demographics of Senior and Veteran Housing in Rural America - Housing Assistance
Council, , Housing Assistance Council ([Link]); at
[Link]/ruralhome/hac-seniors-may2013webinarpresentationweb.

HAC (2014), Housing an Aging Rural America, Housing Assistance Council ([Link]);
at [Link]/storage/documents/publications/rrreports/[Link].

Anush Yousefian Hansen and David Hartley (2015), Promoting Active Living in Rural
Communities, Active Living Research, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
([Link] at [Link]

Wan He and Luke J. Larsen (2014), Older Americans With a Disability: 2008−2012, American
Community Survey Report, U.S. Census Bureau ([Link]); at
[Link]/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/acs/[Link].

Joseph Henchman (2013), Gasoline Taxes and Tolls Pay for Only a Third of State & Local Road
Spending, The Tax Foundation ([Link]); at
[Link]
spending.

Kenneth I. Hosen and S. Bennett Powell (2014), Innovative Rural Transit Services: A Synthesis of
Transit Practice, TCRP Synthesis 94, Transportation Research Board ([Link]); at
[Link]

42
ICMA (2010), Putting Smart Growth to Work in Rural Communities, International City/County
Management Association ([Link]); at
[Link]

Erica Interrante (2014), The Next Generation of Travel: Research, Analysis and Scenario
Development, FHWA Office of Policy Transportation Studies ([Link]); at
[Link]/policy/otps/nextgen_finalreport.cfm.

IPCS (2011), Supporting Sustainable Rural Communities, Interagency Partnership for Sustainable
Communities, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ([Link]/smartgrowth); at
[Link]/smartgrowth/pdf/2011_11_supporting-[Link].

ITF (2015), International Experiences on Public Transport Provision in Rural Areas, International
Transport Forum ([Link]); at
[Link]/Pub/pdf/15CSPA_RuralAreas.pdf.

C. Kirabo Jackson and Emily Greene Owens (2010), “One for the Road: Public Transportation,
Alcohol Consumption, and Intoxicated Driving,” Journal of Public Economics; at
[Link]

Kenneth M. Johnson (2012), Rural Demographic Change in the New Century Slower Growth,
Increased Diversity, Carsey Institute ([Link] at
[Link]

JPT (2012), “Rural and Intercity Bus Special Issue” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No.
3; at [Link]/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/jpt_15.[Link].

KFH Group (2014), Effective Approaches to Meeting Rural Intercity Bus Transportation Needs,
TCRP Report 79, Transportation Research Board ([Link]); at
[Link]

Clifford Krauss (2008), “Rural U.S. Takes Worst Hit as Gas Tops $4 Average,” New York Times, 9
June 2008; at [Link]/2008/06/09/business/[Link]?ref=business&_r=0.

Todd Litman (2013), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute ([Link]); at [Link]/[Link].

Todd Litman (2014), “A New Transit Safety Narrative” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 17,
No. 4, pp.121-142; at [Link]/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JPT17.4_Litman.pdf.

Jana Lynott (2014), Reconnecting Small-Town America by Bus: New Federal Transit Rules Spur
Investment, AARP Public Policy Institute, American Association of Retired Persons
([Link]); at [Link]

Noreen C. McDonald (2015), “Are Millennials Really the ‘Go-Nowhere’ Generation?” Journal of
the American Planning Association, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2015.1057196; summarized in “The
Clearest Explanation Yet for Why Millennials Are Driving Less”

43
([Link]/commute/2015/07/the-clearest-explanation-yet-for-why-millennials-are-
driving-less/398366)

Nancy McGuckin and Jana Lynott (2012), Impact of Baby Boomers on U.S. Travel, 1969 to 2009,
American Association of Retired Persons ([Link]); at [Link]

Jeremy Mattson (2012), Travel Behavior and Mobility of Transportation-Disadvantaged

Populations: Evidence from the National Household Travel Survey, Upper Great Plains
Transportation Institute; at [Link]/pubs/pdf/[Link].

Jeremy Mattson (2016), Rural Transit Fact Books, Small Urban and Rural Transit Center
([Link]), Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute; at
[Link]

Jeremy Mattson and Jill Hough, (2015), Identifying and Satisfying the Mobility Needs of North
Dakota’s Transit System, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute ([Link]); at
[Link]/pubs/pdf/[Link].

Sue Mitchell and Ben Hamilton-Baillie (2011), Traffic in Villages – Safety and Civility for Rural
Roads: A Toolkit for Communities, Dorset AONB Partnership ([Link]); at
[Link]/assets/downloads/Rural_Roads_Protocol/[Link].

Lydia Morken and Mildred Warner (2011), Planning for the Aging Population: Rural Responses to
the Challenge, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University prepared for the
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; at
[Link]
7c889cdf4a15a7b45512f4.

NSMM (2015), Rural Transportation, National Center for Mobility Management

([Link] at
[Link]

NCST (2010), Transportation: The Silent Need. Results of a National Survey of Area Agencies on
Aging, National Center on Senior Transportation
[Link]/Transportation_TheSilentNeed.pdf.

NHTSA (2017), Rural/Urban Comparison, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www-
[Link]); at [Link]

Noxon (2009), Improving Travel Options in Small & Rural Communities, Transport Canada
([Link]); at [Link]/media/documents/[Link].

NRTAP (2015), National Rural Transit Assistance Program Website ([Link]

Federal Transit Administration.

OPTC (2012), Olympic Peninsula Transit Guide, Olympic Peninsula Tourist Commission
([Link]); at
[Link]/sites/default/files/onp_transit_guide_2012.pdf.

44
ORH (2014), About Rural Veterans, Office of Rural Health ([Link]); at
[Link]/about/[Link].

Kathleen Painter, Eric Jessup, Marcia Gossard, Ken Casavant (2007), “Demand Forecasting for
Rural Transit: Models Applied to Washington State,” Transportation Research Record 1997, pp.
35-40; at [Link]/forum/downloads/2007_4B_DemandEst_paper.pdf.

PATH (2006), The PATH Guide: Planning Ideas, Tools And Examples To Achieve Transportation
Access And Equity In Rural California, Prepared by Natural Resources Services, A Division of
Redwood Community Action Agency, Eureka, California, ([Link]/path), with funding
from The Caltrans Environmental Justice Program; at
[Link]/path/pdfs/PATHGuide5_06.pdf.

Del Peterson (2014), Improving Veteran Mobility in Small Urban and Rural Areas, Small Urban
and Rural Transit Center, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, [Link]/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/[Link].

PSRC (2004), Rural Town Centers & Corridors Project, Puget Sound Regional Council
([Link]/projects/rural/[Link]). This project looked at how to identify and integrate
rural highway corridor development needs with local town center development.

Reconnecting America (2012), Putting Transit to Work in Main Street America: How Smaller
Cities and Rural Places Are Using Transit and Mobility Investments to Strengthen Their
Economies and Communities, Reconnecting America ([Link]) and
Community Transportation Association ([Link]); at
[Link]

RTTC (2012), Active Transportation Beyond Urban Centers: Walking and Bicycling in Small Towns
and Rural America” Rails-to-Trails Conservancy ([Link]); at
[Link]/resources/documents/ourWork/reports/[Link].

Rural Transportation Planning Clearinghouse ([Link]) serves as the

national professional association for rural transport planning professionals, policymakers and
other stakeholders.

Rural Transportation Planning Website ([Link]/planning/rural) by the US Federal

Highway Administration provides a variety of resources and links.

SACOG (2008), Urban-Rural Connections Strategy, Sacramento Area Council of Governments

([Link]); at [Link]/1_ASSETS/CONTENT_FOLDERS/LIBRARY/[Link].

Katherine Shaver and Bill Turque (2015), “Suburbs such as Montgomery County Rethink Transit
to Court Millennials,” Washington Post ([Link]); at
[Link]

45
Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle (2016), Recent Decreases in the Proportion of Persons with
a Driver’s License Across All Age Groups, University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute; at [Link]

Small Urban & Rural Transit Center ([Link]) at North Dakota State University’s Upper
Great Plains Transportation Institute works to increase the mobility of small urban and rural
residents through improved public transportation.

Samina T. Syed, Ben S. Gerber, and Lisa K. Sharp (2013), “Traveling Towards Disease:
Transportation Barriers to Health Care Access,” Journal of Community Health, Vol. 38, No. 5, pp.
976–993; at [Link]/pmc/articles/PMC4265215.

Jim P. Stimpson, et al. (2014), “Share of Mass Transit Miles Traveled and Reduced Motor Vehicle
Fatalities in Major Cities of the United States,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, (doi:10.1007/s11524-014-9880-9); at
[Link]

TGM (2013), Transit in Small Cities: A Primer for Planning, Siting and Designing Transit Facilities
in Oregon, Oregon Department of Transportation and Growth Management
([Link]/LCD/TGM); at [Link]/LCD/TGM/docs/[Link].

Transit in Parks Technical Assistance Center (TRIPTAC) ([Link]) offers assistance for
non-auto transportation planning by U.S. Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs) and their
partners.

TRB (2012), Rural Public Transportation Strategies for Responding to the Livable and Sustainable
Communities, Digest 375 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), TRB
([Link]); at [Link]

TRB (2013), Methods for Forecasting Demand and Quantifying Need for Rural Passenger
Transportation: Final Workbook, Report 161, Transportation Research Cooperative Program,
TRB ([Link]); at [Link]

TRB Committee on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation (AP055)

TROUT (2015), About The TROUT, The Rural Overland Utility Transit ([Link] at
[Link]

Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute: Small Urban and Rural Transit Center ([Link]).

USDA (2016), Rural America at a Glance: 2016 Edition, U.S. Department of Agriculture
([Link]); at [Link]
poverty-well-being/geography-of-poverty/.

USDOT (2011), “Washington Case Study,” Transit at the Table III, USDOT
([Link]); at
[Link]/documents/TransPlanning/TAT_III_CaseStudy_WA.pdf.

46
VA (2015), Veterans Transportation Service, Veterans Administration ([Link]); at
[Link]/healthbenefits/vts.

Tom Van Heeke, Elise Sullivan and Phineas Baxandall (2014), A New Course: How Innovative
University Programs Are Reducing Driving On Campus And Creating New Models For
Transportation, U.S. Public Interest Research Group ([Link]); at
[Link]

Nagendra R. Velaga, et al. (2012), “The Potential Role of Flexible Transport Services in Enhancing
Rural Public Transport Provision,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 111-131;
at [Link]/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/[Link].

Carrie A. Werner (2011), The Older Population: 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-09, US Census
([Link]); at [Link]/prod/cen2010/briefs/[Link].

Western Transportation Institute ([Link]), is the country's largest National

University Transportation Center focused on rural transportation issues

WTI (2011), Montana Intercity Bus Service Study, Western Transportation Institute
([Link]); at
[Link]/other/research/external/docs/research_proj/intercity/final_report_dec11.pdf.

Ohio Colleges Of Medicine (2017). Transportation Challenges For Ohioans With Disabilities.
[Link]

IIHS (2015), Teenagers, [Link]/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers.

AAA (2016), Facts & Research, [Link]

friends/conversations-about-driving/facts-research/

47