Rural Transit

Introduction

Target Market

Long-Haul Suburban/Rural Commuters Traveling through Congested Urban Corridors
Long-haul commuters (commuter buses and vanpool/rideshare services) have the most potential for congestion reduction. Such commuter-oriented services best aid congested downtown feeder corridors, often serving riders who would otherwise be driving alone.

Commuter Buses
Commuter-oriented bus service provides access between outlying areas (suburbs and rural communities) and regional business districts or downtown. Rural commuter services can connect outlying communities and transit stations or park-and-ride lots—where passengers transfer to an urban transit system to travel the remaining distance.

The corridors that provide access to central business districts (CBDs) from rural areas may not be able to support high traffic volumes in the outlying segments and can become easily congested. Commuter bus service can remove vehicles from these segments, reducing emissions and improving commute times for all road users.

Vanpool/Rideshare Programs
Vanpool and ridesharing programs also target commuters traveling through congested corridors to access employment centers. Vanpools and rideshares travel to the CBD and outlying employer locations (large production facilities and government facilities such as military bases or prisons).

Vanpools and rideshares have similar effects on congestion, emissions, and travel time as commuter buses, while providing users with more flexibility (virtually door-to-door service and departure/arrival times arranged by riders). They are also more cost effective for transit agencies to operate. Typically, transit users pay for large portions of the overall service cost. Vanpools and rideshares are usually supported by employer contributions and subsidies, which supplement transit agency funding.

How Will This Help?

Fewer Personal Vehicles on the Road
Commuter buses and vanpools/rideshares reduce the number of personal vehicles on overcrowded corridors by increasing the average vehicle occupancy.

The reduction in vehicles on the road varies depending on the passenger capacity of the transit vehicle being used. Vanpool vans typically have at least 7 seats; commuter buses can range from mini-buses that have 15 seats to motor-coaches that have nearly 60 seats.

Reduced Emissions and Fuel Use
Having fewer vehicles on the road results in reduced emissions and improved environmental quality. Additionally, reduced congestion minimizes stop-and-go driving, which decreases fuel consumption.

Municipal Cost Savings
Transportation agencies responsible for the public right-of-way may experience long-term cost savings associated with fewer personal vehicles on roadways. A smaller number of vehicles on the roadway reduces wear on pavement, reduces public demand for increased roadway capacity, and improves public safety.

Transit agencies may increase their ridership by offering commute-focused rural transit options. While not a cost savings, increased ridership means more fare revenue. More fare revenue results in reduced dependence on other funding sources.

Personal Cost Savings
Commuters traveling to work in their own personal vehicles bear all costs associated with the trip: maintenance, fuel, tolls, etc. If these commuters switch modes to commuter bus, vanpool, or carpooling through a ridesharing network, their vehicle-related costs will dramatically decrease due to shared expenses.

Implementation Examples

The Ben Franklin Transit Rural Vanpool Program in Benton and Franklin Counties, Washington
The Washington State Department of Transportation began funding vanpool programs in 1982. In 1983, Ben Franklin Transit acquired two 15-passenger vans to begin its vanpool program. At the time, there was significant demand for an affordable method to transport large numbers of workers in Ben Franklin Transit’s rural jurisdiction because of large government and private employers. Vanpools emerged as a popular solution to this need because of their flexibility. Riders manage and operate vehicles, so there is no need for scheduling, route planning, or employing drivers.

In 2007, the agency’s vanpool vans traveled 3 million miles and earned $1.2 million in fares. In 2008, the program had 404 vans with a 224-group waitlist (meaning that they had demand for another 224 vans’ worth or riders). Conservatively assuming that each of the 404 vans carries 8 passengers, the Ben Franklin vanpool program may have removed as many as 3,232 vehicles from the local roadways each work day in 2008 (assuming the option for riders was to drive alone).

Agency representatives cite outreach, education, and excellent customer service as the reasons their program has been successful. They frequently visit with employers to discuss the vanpool program and always involve riders in programmatic decision making.

Treasure Valley Transit, Idaho
Treasure Valley Transit (TVT) serves nine counties in Idaho and Malheur County, Oregon. In 2010, TVT provided more than 145,000 trips that would have otherwise been taken in private vehicles. TVT operates 15 commuter-specific routes in its region.

After losing a previous funding source, TVT re-strategized and began pursuing opportunities that were specific to each of the communities within the agency’s service area. For example, some communities have heightened demand for transportation during the winter to access local ski resorts, while others need year-round circulator services. TVT brands buses specifically for each of the communities that get specific services to increase community buy-in and ownership. The agency also led the effort to approve a hotel tax used to fund transit services in the region.

Application Techniques and Principles

Innovation
Rural transit providers must be exceptionally innovative to provide long-term services and address the needs of the community. Much of the available transit funding is awarded through grants and may need to be reapplied for annually. Additionally, voters may opt out of previously approved taxes that support services. Because of funding variability and ever-changing demand (rural populations are shrinking as more people move to urban areas), innovation is often necessary to match services to current conditions.

Coordination
A functioning and collaborative network of service providers, stakeholders, decision makers, and the public is necessary for rural transit to survive and flourish, especially with shrinking budgets. Rural transit providers often work with local employers, schools, and health and human services organizations to establish funding sources and coordinate with riders.

Project Champion
Decision makers can make or break transit services by approving or denying funding. A project champion may be valuable in garnering financial and public support for implementing a new system.

Issues

Jurisdictional Boundaries
Transit providers of all sizes are often limited by jurisdictional boundaries. Rural transit providers need agreements with adjacent jurisdictions so they can deliver passengers to their destinations.

Lack of Community Buy-In
Without a supportive community, transit service struggles. The community provides riders and funding (often local taxation, which is voted for by community stakeholders). Transit providers should provide an avenue for continuous community educational efforts and information.

Distances
The longer distances in rural transit result in increased costs (fuel, maintenance, and staff) and longer wait times for riders. Rural areas are often many miles from desirable destinations. Longer wait times discourage riders who need to travel sooner than service is available. Increased costs slow service growth, challenging transit staff to find additional funding.

Who Is Responsible?

State departments of transportation (DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), counties, cities, tribes, employers, health and human services, and schools/universities are all responsible for rural transit at some level.

For example, the Capital Area Rural Transportation District (CARTS) near Austin, Texas, works with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), the local MPO, nine counties, many cities, employers, and Texas State University in San Marcos to provide services. These groups all have some level of commitment to provide service (and maintain responsibility if they fund services).

Project Time Frame

The timeline for implementing rural transit services is difficult to predict. Once the provider agency has been assigned, it has two options:

• Contract with a private-sector operator for service. This option is the fastest but potentially most expensive, and can likely be accomplished within one year (from analysis of needs, through required approvals, to vehicles on the road).
• Operate the service directly. In this case, the necessary implementation timeline could double.

Cost

Because each community has its own service needs, rural transit has a range of associated costs. For example, CARTS, a very large rural/urban transit provider, served 608,320 passenger trips and had more than $9 million in operating expenditures in 2013. In contrast, Kleberg County Human Services served a little more than 32,000 passengers and had $579,764 in operating costs that same year.

Data Needs

Population Data
Information on population characteristics, specifically about a region’s aging population or transit-dependent populations will be needed to assess rural transit need.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Data
Assessing the vehicle miles traveled before and after the implementation of rural transit services, especially those targeting commuters, highlights the success of the operation and areas of ongoing transit need.

Driving Alone
Analysis of the number of drivers that commute alone shows the potential for vanpool/ridesharing services in rural areas. It is possible some of these drivers would commute with others if the option were presented.

Travel Times
Travel times can show how the rural transit service has affected congestion. The transit provider can compare travel times for trips from rural areas to CBDs—both before and after the transit service started. By reducing the number of vehicles on the road (through increasing transit ridership), it is likely that travel times will decline.

Socioeconomic Status and Educational Attainment
On a long-term basis, rural transit can be assessed by demographic changes. One goal of rural transit is to provide improved access to employment and education. Improved socioeconomic status and educational attainment could imply that a rural transit provider was successful in this goal.

Rural Transit Best Practices

• Type of location: Areas with a population of 50,000 or fewer.
• Agency practices: Innovation and creativity. Rural transit demands are fluid and ever-changing. Agencies must adapt to succeed.
• Frequency of reanalysis: Daily collection of system performance metrics and frequent analysis so that service adjustment can be made proactively.
• Supporting policies or actions needed: Funding.
• Complementary strategies: Park-and-ride lots, express bus service, local bus service, vanpooling, carpooling, real-time ridesharing, temporary shoulder use, managed lanes (high-occupancy toll), transportation management associations, trip reduction ordinances, and flexible work hours.

For More Information

Brown, Dennis. Public Transportation on the Move in Rural America. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 2013.

Conrick, Amy. “Vanpools: A Viable Option in Rural Regions.” Profiles in Innovative Rural Transportation, Community Transportation Association of America, 2008.

Federal Highway Administration. Technology in Rural Transit: Linking People with Their Community. Washington, D.C., 2002.

Joblinks, Employment Transportation. Fact Sheet #10—Small Towns and Rural Communities: Effective Employee Transportation Strategies. Transportation Toolkit for the Business Community.

Mehle, Maria. Rural Rides: Providing Rideshare Matching, Volunteer Drivers and Other Solutions for Low-Income Earners. 2014.

Reconnecting America. 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. 2012.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Public Transit and Alternate Transportation Information. 2012.

Shoup, Lilly, and Becca Homa. “Transportation for America.” Principles for Improving Transportation Options in Rural and Small Town Communities, Washington, D.C., 2010.

Transportation Research Board. TCRP Synthesis 94: Innovative Rural Transit Services. Washington, D.C., 2011.

Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Rural Transportation Management: Improving Transportation Efficiency and Diversity in Rural Areas. Victoria, BC, Canada, 2014.

Virginia Transit Association. Rural Transit. 2014.