PROBLEM FOUR: URBAN SOLUTIONS DON’T WORK FOR RURAL AMERICA

URBAN SOLUTIONS DON’T WORK FOR RURAL AMERICA

Discussions around public transportation tend to evoke images of crowded subway cars, city buses, regional railroads, and instigate conversations on how we can transform these modes of transportation to make them not only more functional, but also more sustainable. In doing so, however, it is critical to note that what is true for urban American is not always true for rural America. For parts of the country that are significantly less dense and less urban, and where public transit is a viable option for far fewer people, there is a particularly heavy reliance on private vehicles. In taking all of this into consideration, the key question becomes -- How can we envision a Green New Deal for Transportation that addresses the unique needs and circumstances of rural America? The primary problems with transportation in urban areas revolve around high emissions levels, inequities in access to transportation, and a lack of reliability as it relates to the frequency, punctuality, and speed of public transit services. In rural areas, however, even getting around at all can be a real struggle for many citizens. Rural communities that exist far beyond the limits of any city are facing two key issues that are intimately intertwined: an over-reliance on private internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and a serious lack of public transit alternatives. The combination of these two problems has left residents of sparsely populated and geographically spread out regions disproportionately exposed and vulnerable to a specific set of burdens that are different from those faced by urban dwellers.

For many rural Americans, private vehicle dependence is part of a larger culture of independence.

While ‘car culture’ is a phenomenon that pervades every corner of America, the state of affairs in many rural communities has left residents in those areas feeling as though “[their] car or [their] truck is [their] key to independence.” 86 The activists and local officials who work on expanding public transit in these kinds of areas will tell you that convincing people to buy into their vision has been challenging to say the least. The way Bob Allen of the Transportation Justice Program in Oakland, CA sees it, much of the difficulty is attributable to the fact that the burdens of public transit are largely privatized and the benefits are socialized, while the opposite is true for private vehicles. 87 Even in urban areas, it is certainly true that changing the perceptions and the experiences associated with public transit are a critical part of addressing the issue. The

29

same appears to be true for rural areas, albeit for very different reasons.

Expanding public transit systems for rural America is about public health as much as anything else.

A study conducted by the America Public Transportation Association between 2000 and 2005 found that in communities of less than 200,000 residents, nearly 9% of all public transportation trips were for medical purposes. 88 This may come as a surprise to many, but when examining the problem of rural public transit in America, it quickly becomes clear that this is an issue that is intimately tied to public health. In fact, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) publishes a significant amount of content that both outlines the importance of this issue as well as calls for the expansion of rural public transit programs. As they highlight in an article, Stranded: Bridging the Transportation Gap for Rural Communities, those who would benefit the most from having an easy means for getting around are often the very people who do not own or cannot operate a personal vehicle. 89 This is a serious problem not only for older Americans, who are disproportionately represented in rural regions, but also for disabled and low-income residents. Not only do these communities face very limited options around travel, but the nearest healthcare service is often not so near at all. This combination can make for real disaster when it comes to a rural resident requiring medical care, especially immediate and highly time-sensitive medical care. While some areas, such as Missouri, have worked to create localized public transit services specifically designed to help people get to and from their healthcare providers, there is still significant need for options and

The shift away from ICE vehicle dependence represents a larger shift to cleaner energy and more sustainable, resilient economies that is long overdue in rural

America. As the effects of climate change continue to escalate and wreak havoc on the world, experts have predicted that rural economies will be hit especially hard. One of the reasons why is that these economies tend to be less diversified than economies in urban areas, in addition to relying heavily on agriculture and natural resources. This vulnerability has been captured particularly well by the steep decline of the coal mining industry over the last few decades, an industry which used to underpin the thriving economies and middle-class lifestyles of many rural communities. Coal, as well as the resistance to it, has become a polarizing and highly politicized issue, but the decline of this once great American industry represents a large shift that is underway. A critical but less talked-about part of this shift is the move away from ICE vehicles towards cleaner and more sustainable modes of transportation, such as electric vehicles. As discussed above, the relative lack of public transit options in rural America has created a situation in which owning a personal vehicle is the only viable option for many people when it comes to getting around. Rural residents spend about 7% more of their income on gas and vehicle expenditures than their urban counterparts, travel about 33% more, and represent 49% of all vehicle fatalities despite only making up 19% of the population. 90 Even if rural America’s public transit problem were solved tomorrow, there would still be a great need to curb the use of gas-guzzling,

30

high emissions vehicles. While electric vehicles (EVs) certainly come with their own set of challenges, there does seem to be a consensus that there is more hope in EVs as an alternative, than there is in the status quo.

There is hope: public transit is a viable alternative for some in

rural areas. The American Public Transit Association (APTA) found that between 2007 and 2015, there was a 8.6% increase in per-capita rural public transit ridership. It is believed that at least some of this is attributable to the fact that over the last ten years, many Americans have given up their personal vehicles because the maintenance was simply unaffordable. The cost of operating a personal vehicle can reach $3,000 annually or $20 per trip, while a five-mile rural transit trip typically costs around $7. 91 This makes it rather clear why so many have chosen to opt out of the private vehicle market. 92 The increase in rural ridership may also have something to do with the large numbers of elderly and disabled folks, many of whom rely entirely on public transit to get around. There does appear to be a rising consciousness, albeit slow and small, among rural residents that public transit can prove to be a safer, more affordable and more sustainable option than operating private cars. There is no doubt that increased investment in these programs and projects could truly go a long way in not only changing minds, but also in changing lives.

The federal government must subsidize the expansion of rural public transit programs. It goes without saying that public transit projects in rural areas will be very different from the types of transit systems that are seen in urban areas. In order to cater to the unique geographic needs of these communities, rural public transit programs will need to include services that allow riders to call ahead of time, much like Uber, and be cognizant of the degree to which isolated elderly populations rely upon them. When it comes to rural transit, one size will simply not fit all. One might wonder why the best policy response to the problem of rural transportation is expanding public transit rather than helping to subsidize the purchase of EVs, and much of that has to do with cost/affordability, scale, and sustainability. When taking all of these factors into consideration, it is clear that expanding rural public transit will create the best outcomes for the greatest number of people.

COVID-19 and Rural Public Transportation

The public health crisis caused by the novel coronavirus has devastated revenues and increased costs, as new measures have been put in place to ensure that the vehicles are clean and the drivers and passengers are safe.

According to LaQuita Thornley, the Executive Director of INCS Community Services, rural public transit systems were already operating on tight margins prior to the crisis and are now “at their wits end emotionally, physically, mentally, and financially.” This financial collapse has been compounded by a severe lack of funding, as the CARES Act funding for rural and tribal transit systems was cut from $4 billion to $2.2 billion just shortly before the bill passed. 93

Rural public transit drivers also tend to be older, making them more vulnerable to the effects of Covid-19. Many of them have already opted out of work, citing concerns for their health and the health of their families. The fact that personal protective equipment such as masks, gloves, and hand sanitizers are not widely available has further complicated this problem.

Many have begun to voice concerns about the long-term viability of rural public transit, worrying if it will ever be possible to return to pre-COVID ridership levels. Oklahoma State Representative, Avery Frix (R-Muskogee) stated that he expects “funding from local sources is going to plummet” and may not be available again “for years.” 94