Ranjit Prasad Godavarthy

Method for Estimating Statewide Transit Needs and Investment Priorities for Rural and Small Urban Areas

This study demonstrated a method for identifying statewide transit needs and gaps, prioritizing investment needs for statewide transit planning, collecting better data for the demand-response transit level of service, estimating costs of needed improvements, and projecting service needs based on projected population growth. The method was applied to the state of North Dakota and is transferable to any state, especially those with a large number of rural demand-response transit agencies that are not located within metropolitan planning areas. Currently, data in the National Transit Database are insufficient for analyzing the level of service for rural transit agencies because the database lacks information on geographic service area and span of service. A survey conducted for this study filled this data need by collecting detailed information regarding each agency’s service area and the number of days and hours of service being provided. These data combined with population and demographic data are useful for identifying gaps in transit service and prioritizing needed service improvements. The study also calculated per capita trips, vehicle miles, and vehicle hours provided in regions across the state. These performance measures were compared with benchmark values to identify areas in which the transit system may not be meeting the needs of the service area population, with the understanding that needs are not identical in all areas. The study estimated necessary increases in service and funding to meet target levels in different scenarios. Population projections were also considered for estimating needed increases in service and funding.

Developing a Method for Assessing National Demand-Response Transit Level of Service

Demand-response transit service is a major source of mobility for older adults and people with disabilities in both urban and rural areas in United States. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant programs under sections 5307, 5310, and 5311 all have components designed to increase the availability of paratransit or demand-response transit service. However, there is little information in the National Transit Database (NTD) or elsewhere about the extent of demand-response transit service coverage across the country. The lack of data makes it a challenge to identify gaps in service and unmet needs. The primary objective of this study was to fill the data gaps to the available NTD database to effectively determine the demand-response transit level of service. This study also developed a priority ranking procedure to identify where the greatest needs for service improvements exist in a state.

Exploring Transit’s Contribution to Livability in Rural Communities: Case Studies of the North Dakota Cities of Valley City and Dickinson

This paper investigates the nexus of transit and rural livability as demonstrated by case studies in the North Dakota communities of Valley City and Dickinson. While there are many factors that influence the livability of a rural community, transit is believed to be an important contributor. For each of the two North Dakota communities considered, public/resident surveys, local transit rider surveys, and stakeholder interviews were conducted to understand differing opinions on livability and how transit contributes to livability. In both Valley City and Dickinson, surveys of residents showed that they believe affordable housing, low crime, quality healthcare, overall cost of living, quality public schools, and available jobs are the most important factors contributing to the livability of a small community. While transit was not among the top factors, survey respondents expressed considerable support for providing transit services and funding transit through various sources. Residents in both cities expressed the opinion that transit should be provided in their community as a transportation option for seniors, people with disabilities, those who choose not to drive, and those who cannot afford to drive. Transit riders in both cities indicated that transit is important to their quality of life, and stakeholders from both communities expressed the sentiment that transit is a critical lifeline for people who are elderly and/or have a disability, individuals with no vehicle, and those who cannot drive.

Cost–Benefit Analysis of Rural and Small Urban Transit in the United States

The true value of transit systems in rural and small urban areas in the United States has been largely unmeasured, and there are often effects that go unidentified. Many studies have documented the benefits of urban transit systems with benefit–cost analysis. However, not many have looked into the benefits of transit in rural and small urban areas, where there is a great need for public transit, especially for transportation-disadvantaged individuals. This study focused on evaluating the qualitative and quantitative benefits of rural and small urban public transit systems and analyzed the benefit–cost ratio for rural and small urban transit areas for fixed-route and demand-response services in the United States. Data for rural and small urban transit systems from the national transit database (NTD) and rural NTD were used for calibrating the transit benefits and costs. Results were presented at a national level to show the effects of transit investments in rural and small urban areas nationally. Transit benefits in the United States for 2011 were found to be

Accommodating Oversize/Overweight Vehicles at Roundabouts

1.6 billion for rural transit and

Bike share in Fargo, North Dakota: Keys to success and factors affecting ridership

3.7 billion for small urban transit, not including the economic effects. Results showed a benefit–cost ratio of 2.16 for small urban transit and 1.20 for rural transit in the United States. Sensitivity analysis showed that increasing the percentage of forgone trips to 50%, increasing the cost of forgone medical and work trips by 25%, and increasing the percentage of medical trips to 30% substantially increased the total transit benefits by 88%, 20%, and 158%, respectively.