Background

Depending on your source, defining a rural area may be driven by population density, geographic isolation, or even commuting patterns. While the US Census Bureau considers rural to be an area with less than 2,500 people, the US Office of Management and Budget considers rural areas to be those not a part of metropolitan areas (50,0000 people or more). The various ways to define rural areas reflect the multidimensional nature of these spaces. Similarly, the term small town has a wide array of connotations, encompassing communities ranging from tiny villages to sprawling suburbs. For this Learning Module, both rural and small towns are discussed since many small towns have a similar set of transportation needs as their rural counterparts and are often geographically isolated within a greater rural context. 

Unlike in densely populated urban communities, residents in rural areas and small towns do not usually have access to a wide range of mobility options. Typically, fixed-route public transit service is either limited or non-existent, flexible services require significant advance notice, and a private car is the most common mode of transportation. This is concerning as over a million households in rural America do not own personal vehicles. 

Furthermore, rural populations are also older than their urban counterparts, with residents 65 and older making up 18% of adults in rural areas compared to 13% in urban areas. [1] This is a crucial consideration for transportation planners, as the elderly tend to have greater mobility limitations. In fact, about one-third of people 65 and older have a disability that limits mobility. [2] 

As a result of the many challenges faced by rural and small towns, public agencies, non-profit organizations, and companies are collaborating in new ways to leverage emerging technology and service models to improve mobility options for rural and small town residents. Similar to the Michigan Department of Transportation, some agencies focus attention on populations with the greatest mobility difficulties, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. Others, like the Minnesota Department of Transportation, are developing regional platforms to enable multi-modal trip planning and payment for rural, small town, and urban residents. Municipalities, like the City of Wilson in rural central North Carolina, are replacing fixed-route transit services with on-demand, microtransit to provide more targeted service and solve first/last mile connections. Finally, private entities, like Iowa-based company Koloni, are working to find models for shared micromobility services that better fit the needs of smaller communities.

Next Subsection

Definitions

Micromobility: Fleets of small, low-speed vehicles, primarily used for single-person short trips in urban areas with good connectivity and a density of destinations. It serves as a first and last-mile option that is faster than hailing a taxi, walking, or transferring to low-frequency transit. Common forms of micromobility include bikeshare and scootershare, and semi-motorized variants of these modes. Typical trips are 1-3 miles, but some trips can be much longer, especially when aided by an electric vehicle.

Mobility-on-Demand (MOD): A multimodal system of transportation services where an individual can use transportation when and where they need it, without the need for their own  personal vehicle. It provides travel options in an integrated network to allow people to get to work, run errands, and go about their daily lives. 

Mobility Management: An innovative approach for managing and delivering coordinated transportation services. Mobility management programs focus on connecting customers to the transportation service that will best meet their travel needs through trip planning support, travel training, and aggregation of transportation service information.

Rural: The US Census Bureau does not formally define “rural” areas. However, an area is considered rural if it does not fit into the category of urbanized area (50,000 or more people) or urban cluster (between 2,500 to 50,000 people). Typically, rural areas have a lower population density and limited commercial land use.

Previous Subsection

Trends

Since mobility needs and local conditions such as street design or geography will differ across communities, local transportation systems have different functions, assets, and barriers that must be addressed during the planning process. As a result, there is not a clear one-size-fits-all planning and implementation plan that can be easily adapted from one market to another. 

Taking a context-sensitive approach is crucial to advancing programs and projects; however, remaining cognizant of emerging trends regarding the travel needs of rural and small communities will help inform future planning efforts. A June 2019 report from Todd Litman at the Victoria Transport Policy Initiative found eight primary trends and their corresponding impact on rural transportation demands. Planners should be aware of these trends and explore how they impact local transportation needs and expectations:

Next Subsection

Multimodal Networks

Many rural and small town communities are located along roadways designed for high-speed vehicle traffic, which makes walking, bicycling, and forms of micromobility unappealing and unsafe. While rural communities are often defined by the long distances one must travel to access grocery stores, medical facilities, or employment, most small towns were at one point well suited for walking and biking trips because of their compact community core. Initially, vehicles were not needed to travel short distances within these communities, but over time roads were widened to prioritize through traffic over local access. When looking to incorporate active transportation options and certain types of shared mobility into rural networks, resources such as The Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks guide offer design  and project implementation approaches to support connected, safe, and low emission travel for people of all ages and abilities in a rural and small town context. Some rural and small town communities have adopted mixed-use zoning along main corridors and integrated design requirements for complete streets to better accommodate active transportation networks. 

Planners should consider how independent connections and roadway types work together to foster access to key destinations and create a network where shared mobility will thrive. Thinking about the user of multimodal transportation infrastructure will help to determine design characteristics and how to best facilitate user comfort. According to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks 2016, a cohesive network will be driven by the following principles:

• Cohesion: How connected is the network in terms of its concentration of destinations and routes?
• Directness: Does the network provide direct and convenient access to destinations?
• Accessibility: How well does the network accommodate travel for all users, regardless of age or ability?
• Alternatives: Are there a number of different route choices available within the network?
• Safety and Security: Does the network provide routes that minimize risk of injury, danger, and crime?
• Comfort: Does the network appeal to a broad range of age and ability levels and is consideration given to user amenities?

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Planning Resources

The following guides offer further understanding of planning for shared mobility in a rural context. These guides touch on a number of planning related activities such as network planning, partnership development, and participation.

• Cambridge Systematics, Expanding Access to Our Communities: A Guide to Successful Mobility Management Practices in Small Urban and Rural Areas
• Transportation Research Board, Public Transportation Guidebook for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Private Partnerships (P3)
• Federal Transit Administration, Private Sector Participation Resources
• Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Rural Multimodal Planning
• FHWA, Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Technical Assistance Resources

The following organizations offer technical assistance related to rural transportation projects:

• Community Transportation Association of America: This organization offers information on rural, urban, and community transportation. They also offer a Health Care and Transportation Resource Center where individuals can access resources and stay up to date of policies impacting non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT).
• National Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP): This organization provides a National RTAP Resource library with a variety of technical assistance resources, training, and services that agencies can use to better rural transportation in their communities. 
• National Aging and Disability Transportation Center (NADTC): This organization provides technical assistance, training, and grants related to transportation access for seniors and individuals with disability. 
• Shared-Use Mobility Center: This organization provides technical assistance to a number of FTA grantees who operate pilot programs in both urban and rural contexts. They also offer a Mobility Learning Center (MLC), where one can explore tools, articles, multimedia, and other resources on a variety of mobility-related topics.
• National Center for Mobility Management (NCMM): This organization is a national technical assistance center funded through a cooperative agreement with the Federal Transit Administration that assists communities in implementing transportation policies and mobility projects.

Previous Subsection

Background

Rural or small town residents may be more reliant on personal vehicles than their urban counterparts due to the low density and long travel distances that characterize their communities. Other modes, such as public transit, are available in these communities as a transportation option for residents with minimal access or use of personal vehicles; however, they are often confined to limited service hours, days of operations, and coverage. While these alternative options are not as widespread or comprehensive compared to those in more urban settings, services like demand-response (dial-a-ride) and vanpool transportation act as essential lifelines for those with great mobility needs. 

Current gaps in rural and small town transit services have the opportunity to be addressed through emerging shared-use mobility practices that offer flexible, reliable, and convenient service. Yet, implementation of these shared mobility options in rural and small towns are minimal compared to urban settings.

Next Subsection

Types of Shared Mobility

Descriptions of the different types of transportation services found in rural areas are located below. Population density and land-use can often provide an overview of the geographic contexts in which different types of services are best suited.

Microtransit: Microtransit can refer to on-demand transportation, demand-response transportation, flexible transit, or mobility on-demand. Recently, rural and small towns are utilizing microtransit to expand mobility options for their residents. In these less dense areas, microtransit on-demand zones offer a way to reach previously inaccessible residents in the transit system. Microtransit has replaced fixed-route service in rural areas, or traditional demand response services have transitioned to the use of microtransit applications.

Rideshare/TNCs: Ridesharing services can provide on-demand trips for the aging population, NEMT recipients, veterans, and the general public in rural or small towns. While Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber have brought services to some rural and small towns, independent launches of these ridesharing services are not sustainable because of limited riders or costly trips. Due to these challenges, successful integration of ridesharing in rural and small towns depends on partnerships between rural transit agencies and ridesharing providers. 

Bikeshare: Bikesharing services are affordable options that can encourage active transportation in rural communities. However, there needs to be infrastructure, such as bike paths, routes, or signs, to achieve safe and successful bikeshare operations. If the necessary infrastructure is not in place, implementation of these facilities would need consideration ahead of planning for operations. In rural areas, bikeshare and scooter share programs are typically owned and operated by non-profit organizations or local jurisdictions. Low-cost bikesharing systems like the library model are best-case scenarios for rural communities as they do not have high start-up costs or require a set amount of ridership. In library model systems, bikes are made available for free checkout at places like the local library and effectively make use of already-existing institutions and resources. For example, the town of Montevallo, Alabama, uses a bike library model program called ValloCycle where residents ages 18 and older can rent bikes from city hall if they are registered members. 

Carpool/Vanpool: Vanpool is another rideshare model used by rural residents where a group of 5 to 15 passengers ride together to a common destination. Vanpools programs found in rural areas may be operated by a public entity, a public-private partnership, private companies, or an employer program. Most programs rely on passenger fares to fund operations but can operate publicly or privately. In rural Mason County, Washington, Mason Transit Authority (MTA), offers a vanpool program for rural residents where they provide the vans and ride-matching services, but rely on volunteer drivers for actual operation. 

Carshare: Carsharing services can meet specific needs in rural communities because they offer the option to access goods or services for a short period of time. However, to be successful in rural and small towns, carsharing services must often be small-scale and subsidized. Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) and Enterprise have shown that carsharing in rural areas is possible by integrating a program that offers micro-rentals (1-2 hours) for licensed drivers ages 21+. To keep the program affordable, VVTA offsets the usual membership fee and does not require users to fill up the gas tank before returning the vehicles.

Volunteer Transportation Organization: Volunteer Transportation Organizations (VTO) are organizations that manage and provide rides voluntarily. Traditionally, they are comprised of local drivers transporting local passengers, and predominantly serve populations with mobility challenges, such as the elderly, people with disabilities, and veterans. VTOs can range in size, with some requiring complex driver managing practices, specialized booking software, and 24-hour call-in centers. For example, the Volunteer Transportation Center in upstate New York, operates in three New York counties, has hundreds of volunteer drivers, and transports people millions of miles each year. It also serves both medical trips and other types of trips on a limited basis. 

In most VTOs, volunteer drivers use their personal vehicles to drive people who have requested a ride to and from their destination; however, some VTOs own their vehicles, such as the Green Raiteros program in rural Huron, California. For generations, Huron, California had been home to several Raiteros (or individuals with cars who drive friends and neighbors to their needed destinations). However, thanks in part to the advocacy efforts of the local mayor and funding from the California Public Utilities Commission, the town was able to establish the Green Raiteros organization, purchase dedicated cars, and set up a booking management system. VTO drivers get reimbursed for their operational expenses on a per-mile basis. 

VTOs differ from TNCs in several ways; first, the drivers are volunteering their time, unlike TNC drivers who are employed. Second, VTOs are typically non-profit organizations, rather than for-profit companies. Third, because VTOs often transport passengers to medical appointments, and because Medicaid has special provisions for non-emergency medical transportation, many VTOs rely heavily on Medicaid for mileage reimbursements. Other operational and organizational costs are often covered through other funding sources, such as grants. Finally, passengers requesting a VTO ride usually need to request the ride in advance to ensure the organization can coordinate with an available driver.

Paratransit: Paratransit is typically regarded as a transportation service for people who cannot use traditional fixed-route services. However, several types of transportation services fall under that umbrella. For example, in the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ADA paratransit service is required within 3/4 mile of any federally-funded public transit for no more than twice the regular fare, and this service must be available to people whose disabilities prevent them from using fixed-route service. Additionally, there are human services transportation, such as non-emergency medical transportation services and dial-a-ride services.

• Dial-a-ride: Dial-a-ride service is often viewed as a component of paratransit service, as it is a service offered to those who cannot use traditional fixed-route and timetable services like buses and trains. Traditionally, dial-a-ride has been a curb-to-curb service for those with mobility challenges, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. However, in some locations with limited mobility options, dial-a-ride service is open to anyone, including those without mobility challenges. In addition, dial-a-ride can be provided by different organizations, while paratransit is a transit agency service. The service functions much like a taxi, but reservations are needed in advance, and costs are lower. Many dial-a-ride vehicles are wheelchair accessible.
• Non-Emergency Medical Transportation: Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) is a specific category of human services transportation that provides patients trips to medical appointments, return trips from hospital emergency rooms, and transfers between hospitals. Medicaid has a provision for NEMT allowing those who are low income, older, or disabled to receive affordable access to appointments, though the service provision differs by state. The Government Accountability Office produced guidance in the report Non-Emergency Medical Transportation: Updated Medicaid Guidance Could Help States to help navigate variations in eligibility by state. Another useful source to learn more about the differing state-by-state policies is the TCRP Project B-44 report.

Rural Mobility as a Service (MaaS) can integrate existing rural transportations services with existing shared-mobility onto one app-or-web-based platform. Rural areas characterized by low population density, long travel distances, and low capacity utilization rates of transportation services could integrate different types of transportation to improve efficiency. Users can then access wayfinding and trip planning services (ex. receive ride alerts, trip payment, etc.) all in one place. Rural MaaS may focus more on the aggregation of demand due to factors such as population density, demographics, or transportation services available.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Geography

The specific transportation needs of rural areas depend greatly on the type of rural area. The categorization of rural is often associated with agricultural communities that have little to no transportation infrastructure. Areas with small populations and low densities are located immediately outside urban boundaries (suburban areas) or slightly further out (exurban areas). Still, they are likely to have varying degrees of access to the urban transportation system. For example, public agencies and community groups in Tompkins County, NY are working to integrate the transportation services offered by various mobility providers to better connect the surrounding rural communities with downtown Ithaca transit options. In general, the variety of the connotations surrounding rural means that policies and programs designed for some rural communities or small markets are not well-suited to the needs of others.

The transportation needs of small towns vary considerably depending on their geographic context. A small town could be home to a college campus, be located within a larger metropolitan area, or be surrounded by farmland. A small town with a college campus could likely support a small bikeshare system or other forms of shared mobility, whereas a small town within a rural setting may require more creative strategies given the lower population density. In addition, variations in topography and the presence of geographic features can influence what types of shared modes are best suited for implementation in smaller communities. For instance, small towns defined by their hilly terrain may be more inclined to consider a bikeshare with pedal-assist e-bikes.

Previous Subsection

Equity and Access

If individuals in these lower-density communities cannot drive themselves, they often lack access to alternatives. For example, a study conducted in New Brunswick, Canada, found that if older drivers in rural areas lost access to a personal vehicle, the number of trips taken would decrease by 34%[4]. From a health and wellness standpoint, that lack of mobility is frustrating and dangerous; an older adult who cannot drive has an immediate increased risk for adverse health outcomes, and takes 15% fewer trips to the doctor. [5] Because of the lack of transportation options, rural populations tend to overrely on emergency departments and ambulance services for non-emergency health care access. The lack of mobility options in small and rural communities is not just a challenge for the aging populations. In general, public transportation is tied to job creation, economic growth, and improved quality of life.[6] Unfortunately, limited financial resources and low population density in smaller towns often make certain mobility offerings – like traditional fixed-route bus service or shared active transportation programs – fiscally unsustainable. In conjunction with the lower median income rates, higher poverty rates, and higher healthcare costs seen in rural areas, the lack of transportation becomes a barrier to building social and economic wealth. Factors such as a lack of mobility options lead rural areas to spend about 7% more of their budgets on transportation-related expenses than those in urban areas. [7] Rural residents are more likely to identify the financial burden of travel and price of fuel as travel barriers.

Next Subsection

Low-income Individuals and PoC

Low-income individuals and people of color are disproportionately impacted by inadequate access to transportation which has exacerbated health disparities and brought about consequences related to education and future opportunity. Due to a lack of adequate transportation, missed medical appointments often lead to worsened medical issues, while high transportation costs can force families to limit spending for other basic needs. Access to medical care, nutritious food, and employment opportunities is especially crucial to those in rural areas where many services and destinations are spread apart. Most outlying areas, where an increasing percentage of American jobs are located, are only accessible by car. 

On average, those who are Black or of Hispanic ethnicity have to travel further to reach medical, dental, and vision care in both urban and rural areas compared to White populations. According to a study by the Southwest Rural Health Research Center published in 2021, Black individuals traveled around 8.29 miles to reach care in urban areas compared to 23.54 miles in rural areas. Rural residents of Hispanic ethnicity traveled more than three times the distance to reach care than Hispanic populations in urban areas. This discrepancy is also seen in the time it takes to reach destinations, with rural residents across both ethnicities facing longer travel times compared to their urban counterparts.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Resources

While equity is often a key component of all shared mobility planning or implementation projects, below are a few examples of how entities have used shared mobility to address transportation equity in their communities. 

• Denver Housing Authority and Boulder Housing partners have begun to place carsharing stations around public housing complexes to facilitate access to medical appointments, job interviews, and other essential destinations. Carsharing provides mobility support for those without personal vehicles but can be challenging to access; thus, placing these vehicles in an easy-to-access location can better facilitate use and address transportation needs. 
• The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority is undergoing a project to integrate its Direct Connect program, which connects riders in areas with low-frequency transit service to subsidized on-demand trips, into its mobile app. Resulting from a partnership with Uber and a local taxi company, this project offers a way for low-income users to plan and book multi-modal trips when transit buses are not running. 
• The University of Michigan is currently conducting a study to develop and evaluate a shared mobility system to improve health care access in two underserved communities in Michigan and rural Indiana. The project looks to address missed appointments at healthcare facilities in these communities and gain an understanding of effective design strategies for shared mobility systems in urban and rural settings.
• ITNAmerica is a national nonprofit senior transportation network who have affiliates across 11 communities in 10 different states. ITNAmerica offers senior transportation services run by volunteer drivers who earn transportation credits for contributing their time. Since ITN volunteer drivers rarely need to use all of the transportation credits they accrue, their excess credits go toward ITN America’s Road Scholarship program. This program helps low income seniors access rides regardless of their ability to pay for the service. ITN also offers a similar program, called the Community Road Scholarship, which is initiated by small towns and community organizations. When these entities volunteer, their transportation credits are allocated to an account for their own residents or members to distribute to in-need populations.

Previous Subsection

Rural Areas and Climate Risks

Rural communities across the country are particularly vulnerable to ongoing climate risks and stressors due to their geography and demographic composition. Physical isolation brings forth limited access to resources essential to everyday living. Those who live in rural areas often have to travel farther to access employment, medical facilities, and retail. They spend more money on fuel and car maintenance and produce more carbon emissions per capita. 

Adapting rural transportation infrastructure to withstand the costly hazards brought about by climate change will require considerable additional investment. In rural areas, roads and bridges make it possible for residents to access essential services like healthcare and support the overall economic livelihood of communities. Climate change presents a costly risk in terms of maintenance, repairs, and disruptions in connectivity. Infrastructure will be degraded, require more maintenance, and see a potential decrease in lifespan. The disruption of essential transportation networks will have consequences on both private and shared modes of travel. Still, integration of shared mobility options such as microtransit and electrification of shared vehicles allows rural and small town communities to expand their use of environmentally friendly travel and lower greenhouse gas emissions. 

While shared mobility services are found to offer significant environmental benefits through the reduction of passenger transport emissions, the mitigation capacity of these modes varies across landscapes and depends largely on the presence of mode shares. Successful deployment and supplementary emission reduction depend on residents’ willingness to adopt these services. Even though most shared mobility benefits in rural and small town communities are associated with access to destinations rather than the environment, the provision of these services will help residents reap the benefits associated with economic opportunity and healthcare access in a more sustainable way.

Next Subsection

Resources

Below are a few examples of how entities have intentionally added an electrification component to their shared mobility projects. 

• In December 2020, Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) in Texas launched the full-service version of CARTS Now, a microtransit project that provides affordable, point-to-point transportation in the communities of Bastrop and Taylor. As a part of this process, CARTS partnered with Electric Cab of North America (eCab) to add electric vehicles to their operations. While eCabs have limited service areas due to speed restrictions, residents can now receive electric on-demand transportation services to several destinations within the city.
• The Clean Rural Shared Electric Mobility (CRuSE) Project in Hood River, Oregon, is one of the first efforts in the country to bring lower-cost car sharing to a rural area. Under the three-year program led by Forth Mobility, five EVs are stationed at affordable housing sites, the city center, and tourist destinations in Hood River. To make the program more accessible, Forth Mobility will provide iPads at the affordable housing sites to help people sign up. The program will offer alternate payment options to support users without access to credit or banking and tiered pricing (including subsidies) for different user groups.

Previous Subsection

Background

To properly select the shared-use mobility service best suited to meet rural and small town community needs, interested parties should research and identify the existing mobility challenges and clearly illustrate how shared mobility can address a specific issue. Community needs assessments are a great way to help identify and understand the unmet mobility needs of communities and develop solutions in collaborations with residents, especially in a rural context. Key elements of Community Transportation Needs Assessments often include analysis of existing data and transportation accessibility indicators and community engagement efforts. Programs like California’s Clean Mobility Options and NYSERDA’s Clean Transportation Prizes leverage community needs assessments to promote mobility options in both urban and rural areas in their respective states. 

Because many shared mobility providers primarily operate in urban settings, they may not know how their services can operate and become successful in rural and small towns. Thus, programs like these can bridge service informational and procurement gaps between rural communities’ mobility needs and mobility operators. There may be trips traditionally filled by rural transit that can see improved success through shared mobility services.

Next Subsection

Partnerships

Before partnering with a shared mobility provider, public entities should identify data reporting needs. Services funded by grants through particular entities might require data reporting on items like operational performance. Remaining cognizant of the data to be collected from the potential implementation of a shared mobility service and clarifying those data needs to the shared mobility providers ahead of time will lend itself to the success of a pilot project. Data sharing agreements between cities and private providers often present challenges because of concerns surrounding privacy and proprietary interests. 

Public agencies may want to partner with private providers that have experience operating in rural or small town communities because private operators will have better knowledge on if and how their products can succeed in those spaces. However, private mobility providers are not the only private partners that can engage in rural shared mobility implementation. Healthcare organizations or local employers may be interested in partnering because they share a similar mission or can benefit from shared mobility operations. 

Often, shared mobility public-private partnerships arise out of the way to address  issues facing the existing public transportation system and its riders. Shared mobility is often used to bridge modes in the current transportation network but in the rural context, public entities will often partner with private mobility providers to improve connections to services often located 5, 10, or 20 miles away. Additionally, partnerships can arise out of a need to fill gaps in current services. In rural and small town environments, partnerships can support mobility at specific times or places that are not supported through the current public transit services. 

This section has several examples of public agency partnerships and programs that improve mobility options for residents in rural and small communities.  Some examples involve efforts that better connect exurban and suburban areas with their urban neighbors, while others are focused on addressing the mobility needs of the elderly and people with disabilities. These examples represent a small collection of the many projects currently underway across the country. Examples are broken up into five categories: Trip Planning Platforms, On-demand Service Improvements, Active Transportation Programs, Volunteer Transportation Programs, and Carsharing and Carpooling Programs.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Online Platforms or Apps

One of the largest trends in mobility on-demand approaches involves developing online platforms and applications that better inform users of their transportation options across multiple service providers.

• Michigan DOT awarded a $1 million mobility grant to regional transit agencies to finance improvements of paratransit reservation platforms. These improvements will ease scheduling and managing paratransit trips for seniors and people with disabilities.
• NEORide, a transportation consortium in Ohio, has launched a trip planning and ticketing app called EZfare, which allows travelers to purchase fares across seven participating transit agencies. This project received funding through the FTA’s Integrated Mobility Innovation (IMI) grant program. 
• Delaware Transit Corporation is partnering with the private mobility service, Via, to provides software that integrates fixed-route bus service, paratransit, and microtransit in Georgetown. The software creates more efficient transportation to jobs and healthcare in rural Sussex County.
• Led by the East Central Wisconsin Regional Transportation Planning Commission, several Winnebago County entities developed the Winnebago Catch-A-Ride Rural Mobility as a Service program through collaboration with Feonix Mobility Rising and QRyde. Through this program, all available transportation services in the region are integrated onto one single platform. 
• Tompkins County received funding to develop a multi-modal trip planning platform that integrates information on bus services, demand-response service, taxis, volunteer transportation, carshare, and bikeshare services. The platform will enable riders in rural upstate New York to plan multi-modal trips through a mobile app and web platform.
• The Vermont Agency for Transportation was awarded a grant through the FTA MOD Sandbox program, which provided the necessary funding to develop a statewide trip planner that incorporates more flexible transportation options, such as dial-a-ride, hail-a-ride, and deviated fixed route service.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

On-Demand Service Improvements

Many municipalities and community organizations are also looking to the private sector to help move the needle on on-demand services in their communities.

• Dakota County, MN is partnering with Lyft for paratransit rides to/from employment.
• SPLT was awarded a Michigan DOT grant to improve on-demand mobility offerings for elderly, disabled people in rural areas around Traverse City, MI.
• Michigan DOT awarded a grant to P3, as well as other public and private collaborators, to establish a ride-sharing platform in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
• Private operator Feonix Mobility Rising launched a pilot program in coastal Texas to offer mobility as a service to seniors and people with disabilities in rural counties.
• The Independent Transportation Network is expanding its mobility-on-demand transit model designed for older adults and people with disabilities in Portland, Maine, to new rural communities in Maine, Kentucky, and California. The model will use the automated routing and scheduling platform, ITNCountry, increasing access to trips. By accessing ITNRides 2.0 software and back-office solutions, organizations can create new community transportation programs using volunteer or paid drivers or expand existing programs.
• Capital Area Rural Transportation System, a public transportation system that serves non-urbanized areas of nine Central Texas counties, including Bastrop County, debuted its microtransit service, CARTS Now, in the communities of Bastrop and Taylor.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Volunteer Organizations

Although volunteer transportation organizations (VTO) are not new concepts, VTOs are currently well-suited to leverage local networks of volunteer drivers and innovations in trip routing and booking technology to improve service and offerings.

• Local non-profit formalized Green Raiteros volunteer transportation organization in rural Huron, California; private sector contributed car charging stations for electric cars. 
• Upstate New York volunteer transportation organization has developed its own proprietary reservation and driver management system for more efficient routes.
• The Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency will receive funding to link rural residents in northeast Minnesota to multiple public transit systems using on-demand transit and private taxi providers to enhance riders’ first mile/last mile options. The project will include an online portal and website focused on coordinating rural transportation services.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Active Transportation Programs

Another trend among communities of all sizes is the exploration of active transportation programs, such as bikeshares and electric-powered scooter share systems (e-scooters). However, rural and small communities need to adjust the financial and operating models to make such systems fit their local needs.

• Pocahontas, IA launched a bikeshare system as part of a larger, multi-year plan to expand the bike trail network in northwest Iowa. 
• George, UT – home to Dixie State University – launched a city-wide e-scooter program with Spin, which also operates the community’s bikeshare program. 
• With a grant from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, Allen County, Kansas established a free bike library to connect neighboring communities.
• St. Lucie County, a suburban county in eastern Florida, launched a two year bikeshare pilot with Zagster in 2018. The program includes 50 bikes across nine docking stations, and it is supported by a $63,000 grant from the Florida DOT and $27,000 from St. Lucie County.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Carshare, Carpool, and Vanpool

Many small and rural communities have also been exploring ways to increase mobility options for their residents by incentivizing carsharing and carpooling programs. These programs also have the added benefit of decreasing the number of cars on the road.

• Victor Valley Transit Authority launched a carsharing program in partnership with Enterprise in the town of Needles, California (pop. 5,000). Registered residents of the program can rent one of two cars (a sedan or minivan) at a rate of just $5 an hour. 
• The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Rural Vanpool Program was created out of a public-private partnership with COMMUTE with Enterprise, the largest vanpool company in North America. Through the Rural Vanpool Program, COMMUTE will supply up to 40 vehicles to provide vanpool services to counties of critical concern on a month-to-month contract basis. 
• Nebraska DOT partnered with Enterprise to establish a statewide commuter vanpooling program called Go NEWhere Vanpools. Through this program, the Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) provides a subsidy of up to $400 per month to groups who rent vans from Enterprise for carpooling to and from work. The program is funded through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration and aims to facilitate greater mobility, particularly in rural areas, while reducing the number of cars on roads throughout the state.
• California Vanpool Authority, CalVans provides agricultural workers rides to rural farms. The program offers affordable vans farmworkers can use to drive themselves and others to work. Rides cost around $2, which covers the agency’s maintenance and insurance fees.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Other Initiatives

Through a Planet M awarded grant, Hi-Ho Mobility partnered with Aequitas Mobility Services to pilot delivering prescription drugs to rural homes around Battle Creek, MI.

Previous Subsection

Background

Several grant and technical assistance programs – particularly at the federal and state level – can support local efforts to improve mobility options in rural and small communities. Additionally, coordination between different public entities and departments can support the cost-effective allocation of public monies toward transportation. For instance, different public agencies and departments, including health, or social services, could coordinate and merge their separate transportation services into one service.

Next Subsection

Federal Funding Programs

Formula Grant Programs

• Enhanced Mobility of Elderly and People with Disabilities (5310): The Section 5310 program provides funding for projects aimed at improving mobility for seniors and people with disabilities in all size markets. Found in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Section 5310, reauthorized under FAST Act.
• Formula Grants for Rural Areas (5311): This program provides capital, planning and operating assistance to states that support public transportation in rural areas (populations less than 50,000).
• National Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP): This program, housed under the FTA, provides resources, technical assistance, and partner collaboration for rural transit initiatives.

Competitive Grant Programs

• FTA Mobility-on-Demand On-Ramp: Public agencies that applied for and were selected for this program received free technical assistance to develop innovative mobility-on-demand projects. For example, a collection of public agencies and community groups in Tompkins County, NY, were selected for this program to support efforts to build a trip planning and booking platform housing all the various transportation services in Ithaca and the surrounding rural communities.
• FTA Mobility-on-Demand Sandbox Program: This FTA grant program was launched in 2016 and provided nearly $8 million in financial support to public agencies pursuing innovative mobility-on-demand projects. Eleven projects received grants, including the Vermont Agency of Transportation’s project to develop a statewide trip planning platform that included results for flexible forms of on-demand transportation. A case study on the Vermont project is available here.
• Integrated Mobility Innovation Program: This FTA funding opportunity provided $15 million in 2019 to projects focused on MOD, strategic transit automation research or mobility payment integration. 
• Accelerating Innovative Mobility Program: This FTA grant initiative provided $14 million in 2020 to projects supporting and advancing innovation in the transit industry while addressing access and equity. Projects included approaches that improved transit financing, planning, system design, and service.
• Enhancing Mobility Innovation: This FTA grant opportunity is providing $2 million in FY 2021 funds for projects that advance safe, reliable, equitable, and accessible services that support complete trips for all travelers. Projects under this program fall under two categories: Accelerating Innovative Mobility and Software Solutions. The program promotes technology projects that center the passenger experience, such as integrated fare payment systems.
• Accessible Transportation Technology Research Initiative: This initiative is a joint program between the USDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, FTA, and Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office. It aims to conduct research, development, and education activities to facilitate the adoption of information and communication technology into transportation initiatives. It has published a set of tools and resources for those looking to develop a Travel Management Coordination Center.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

State Funding Programs

Many state funding programs and opportunities related to transportation can be found on state agency websites, specifically those dedicated to the departments of transportation, economic development, and the environment. Below are two examples of state led programs that address shared mobility. 

Clean Mobility Options (CMO)

Clean Mobility Options is a program directing $32 million in funding and capacity-building to disadvantaged communities deploying zero-emission carsharing, carpooling/vanpooling, bikesharing/scooter-sharing, innovative transit services, and ride-on-demand services. This program is administered by CALSTART and Shared-Use Mobility Center (SUMC) in partnership with CivicWell. In its first year, the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program awarded $20 million worth of Mobility Project vouchers to eligible underserved communities, with $2 million of that specifically directed toward Native American tribal governments. In addition, the program also awarded Community Transportation Needs Assessment vouchers worth a total of $1.15 million to small and large communities across California.

New York Clean Transportation Prizes

New York’s Clean Transportation Prizes competitions initiative dedicates $85 million dollars to advance sustainable transportation solutions as a part of the effort to reduce the transportation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions. This initiative is administered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) in partnership with the New York State Department of Public Service (DPS) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Under this initiative, there are currently three funding programs, including the Clean Neighborhoods Challenge. The Clean Neighborhoods Challenge funds projects that aim to reduce air pollution, address transportation challenges, and enable widespread electric and active transportation use in New York States’ disadvantaged communities.

Previous Subsection

Federal Policies

The federal government has a number of policies in place regarding transportation to which local planners must adhere. Below are a few of the key acts and statements:

• Federal Rehabilitation Act (1973): This foundational law aims to “empower persons with disabilities to maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society.” This law codified and provided a funding mechanism for the Independent Living programs that often coordinate human services transportation.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (1990): In the transportation context, the ADA requires that all fixed-route systems and demand-responsive systems have wheelchair-accessible facilities and vehicles. The FTAs’ regulations state that users within three-quarter miles of fixed-route service are ADA Paratransit eligible (Per Title 49 CFR Part 39).
• Federal Automated Vehicles Policy Statement (2016): This USDOT statement outlined the federal and state roles in policing the design and performance of autonomous vehicles. Notably, the federal government is tasked with handling the safety requirements for such vehicles. The USDOT also released a Comprehensive Management Plan for Automated Vehicle Initiatives in July 2018.
• Consumer Public Safety Act: According to the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a “low speed electric bike” is defined as a “two- or three- wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor fewer than 750 watts (1 p.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph”. This definition sets the federal standard for e-bikes, but various states have delineated different levels of e-bikes further based on speed and motor wattage. The CPSC is an independent agency that promotes consumer products safety by assessing risks of injury, developing safety standards, and conducting research into product-related injury.

Next Subsection

State and City Level Policies

Historically, most local transportation initiatives were more concerned with abiding by federal requirements than with state-level policies. This is largely because states did not have a great deal of documentation on implementing innovative transportation projects. However, with the advent of new technology and the proliferation of e-bikes and scooters, states are continuing to recognize the need to adjust their existing language to more appropriately address the emerging mobility options. For instance, 29 states and Washington DC have passed legislation concerning autonomous vehicles, while five more have issued a related executive order. Similarly, the emergence of scooters is pushing several states to codify their definition and permitted use, although definitions differ between states. For example, the same scooter that is legally categorized in California as a “motorized scooter” and is required to be ridden on the road is categorized as a “toy vehicle” in Colorado and is therefore required to be ridden on the sidewalk. As new mobility options emerge in the coming years, local planners will need to keep up to date on the language and requirements included in related state policies.

Many states are actively encouraged by the private operators themselves to pass legislation regulating the industry. TNCs are lobbying state representatives to legislate the market because the statewide regulations tend to be far less constraining toward TNC operations than city regulations. Moreover, 41 states have passed preemptive laws that limit the ability of local municipalities to set their own standards. [8] The Portland, OR mayor wrote a public letter discouraging Lyft’s actions in early 2019, claiming that “if your lobbying efforts were to succeed, Portland would no longer be able to manage our transportation system to best support the mobility, safety, accessibility, sustainability and equity needs of our City”. [9] Relatedly, several states are currently working to enshrine better data protections and data sharing requirements in state legislation. These regulations will impact public agency partnerships with any private mobility operator, from TNCs to bikeshare operators to e-scooter companies.

These statewide regulations can prove limiting for smaller transit or regional government agencies interested in partnering with private operators. For example, suppose a county agency wanted to partner with a TNC for an on-demand service. In that case, the statewide regulations could restrict the amount or type of data the local agency could require from the operator. Furthermore, because smaller communities tend to have less negotiating power when dealing with these companies, the TNC would have even less incentive to provide the local agency with any more than the bare minimum of data required by the state.

As a result, public agencies serving small and rural communities need to be particularly diligent about attending to state legislative efforts regarding shared mobility and emerging transportation technology. There are several resources that smaller municipalities can utilize to ensure their interests are addressed in statewide regulations. Some such resources include:

• National League of Cities’ Rights in an Era of Preemption: A State-by-State Analysis. This 2018 update outlines state-level preemption in seven policy areas, including ride-sharing starting on page 15.
• Washington State’s Policy Guide for the Regulation of TNCs, released in January 2019. This report summarizes several local-level regulations concerning TNCs.
• California’s TNC Access for All Act, which when passed in September 2018, charged the California Public Utilities Commission with developing TNC regulations that address issues relating to accessibility for persons with disabilities who use TNC services. Furthermore, the state now collects $0.10 from each TNC trip to distribute on a competitive basis to access providers that establish on-demand programs to meet the transportation needs of people with disabilities in each county.
• Shared Use Mobility Center’s white paper regarding data sharing decision-making processes for transit agencies’ public-private partnerships, released July 2019.
• Networks of special interest groups and advocacy organizations, including AARP, Grantmakers in Aging and the Rural Community Assistance Corporation.

Previous Subsection Next Subsection

Policy Resources

• NACTO, Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation
• International Municipal Lawyers Association, Guidance for Regulation of Dockless Micromobility
• NACTO, Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility 
• Berkeley Transportation Sustainability Research Center, Shared Mobility Policy Playbook

Previous Subsection

References

1. Pew Research Center (2018 May 22). What United and Divides Urban, Suburb and Rural Communities. Retrieved from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/
2. Federal Transit Administration (2018). Beyond Traffic 2045. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/BeyondTraffic_tagged_508_final.pdf
3. American Public Transportation Association (APTA) (2017 October 5). Rural and Small Town Public Transit Ridership Increased Nearly 8% Since 2007. Retrieved from https://www.apta.com/news-publications/press-releases/releases/rural-and-small-town-public-transit-ridership-increased-nearly-8-since-2007/
4. Hanson, T.R., & Hildebrand, E. (2011). Can rural older drivers meet their needs without a car? Stated adaptation responses from a GPS travel diary survey. Transportation, 38, 975-992.
5. Grantmaking in Aging (2018 April). The Future of Rural Transportation and Mobility for Older Adults: Current Trends and Future Directions in Technology-Enabled Solutions. Retrieved from https://www.giaging.org/documents/180424_CITRIS_rural_mobility_paper_F.pdf
6. Chatman, D. & Noland, R. (2013 August 1). Transit Service Physical Agglomeration and Productivity in US Metropolitan Areas. Urban Studies, 51(5). Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098013494426?papetoc=
7. Bliss, L. (2017 October 10). “How Transit Use Could Rise in Rural America.” CityLab. Retrieved from https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/10/how-transit-use-could-rise-in-rural-america/542184/.
8. Smith, R., Borkholder, J., Montgomery, M. & Chen, M. S. (2018 January 18). Uber State Interference: How TNC’s Buy, Bully, and Bamboozle Their Way to Deregulation. National Employment Law Project. https://www.nelp.org/publication/uber-state-interference/
9. Theen, A. (2019 February 4). Portland blasts Lyft for proposed statewide bill, says may undercut local regulations. The Oregonian. https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2019/02/portland-blasts-lyft-for-proposed-statewide-assault-on-local-regulations.html