Rural America in the 2000s: Population | Daily Yonder | Keep It Rural

Robert Gallardo assesses population trends for rural counties during this county in today’s Daily Yonder, summarizing:

Rural counties gained only 2.9% in population in the 2000s, compared to a national average of 9.1%. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.

Gallardo explains that Rural America is becoming more diverse, but most interesting to me is the patterns of where population growth and loss are occurring. The two noted areas of growth are in exurban communities, and in the mountain west, including Washington.

Gallatin County, where Bozeman is the county seat, had the 17th largest population increase among rural counties between 2000 and 2009, and the largest change in Montana. Besides Gallating County, the fastest growing counties during this decade includes quite a few other counties in the Greater Yellowstone, including:

Second fastest growing rural county in the country, Teton County, Idaho, with a 55.6% population change. This mostly is driven by people working in Jackson Hole, Wyoming and commuting over Teton Pass. The local community has been trying to deal with the impacts of the growth, including the implementation of a commuter bus over the pass. Unfortunately, Idaho has no local taxing authority, and the state doesn’t put any money towards public transportation, so every penny has to be scrounged together to try to leverage federal programs. Meanwhile, they are building roads and new suburbs, but maintaining and serving them are a bit more difficult to fund.

Sublette County, Wyoming is fifth on the list with a 48.5% population change over nine years.

via Rural America in the 2000s: Population | Daily Yonder | Keep It Rural.

As seen in the National Cooperative Business Journal

The May/June issue of the National Cooperative Business Journal highlights the Linx transportation cooperative Current Transportation worked on, including the map of services we developed.

NCBA Journal Linx Article

After 10+ years of work by many people and organizations, it’s exciting to see Linx up and going with many of the major transportation providers in the region participating. We now have a mechanism for providers to work together in better marketing their services, implementing common-sense technologies, and improving transportation.

Another economic analysis. This time it’s seatbelts.

Yesterday I mentioned economic analysis as it relates to intersection delay.  The benefits of decreasing delay and stop-and-go movements go to the public users, and the costs of improving an intersection go to the public agency.

Today’s front page of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle features an article that means to encourage us to wear our seat belt by pointing out the costs to everyone based on an individual’s choice.  It’s an effective shaping of the argument to try to persuade us to change public policy.

As I read the article, I couldn’t help categorizing according to the cost-benefit approach that I’ve been working with recently. Costs and benefits can be bared by the agency (e.g., the DOT), by the users (e.g., motorists), or by society (e.g., all Montanans). Tangible costs or benefits can be assigned a dollar figure, while intangibles can not. In this case, the intangible benefit goes to one user, the perceived improved comfort and sense of freedom to the individual not wearing a seat belt. As far as I can tell, there are no tangible benefits. Therefore, benefits = $0.

The $36 million of costs are carried by the motorists, and the society at large. The agency (DOT) carries no cost; motorists carry a portion (not defined in the article) in terms of higher auto insurance; the overall society bares the majority in terms of higher taxes and health insurance.

I’m not sure how they came to $51 per person, since Montana’s population is 974,989. Maybe they excluded children or used the number of people with Montana licenses. Nevertheless, people’s individual choices make a significant cost impact on each of us.

Benefit:cost ratio = $0/$36 million = 0.00. Since the B/C ratio is (far) less than 1, this economic analysis comes to the obvious conclusion that people should wear seat belts.

4-Minute TED Talk on Transportation

Become a Road Scholar in four minutes by watching this entertaining talk! Gary Lauder goes through analysis typical in transportation engineering, in this case looking at delay at intersections. Don’t expect to see his proposed solution any time soon.

Since I’m currently working on some economic analysis and benefit-cost assessments, I paid special attention to this topic in the talk. The savings in delay, gas usage, and crashes far outweigh the potential costs of a more expensive roundabout. True enough, yet the benefits all go to the public, and the costs all go to the agency, meaning the agency doesn’t have the available budget for the best overall solution without an increased investment. I find it hard to believe the public would recognize their personal savings and willingly hand over some of it to the Department of Transportation.

What a great example of the difficulties in choosing the most economically beneficial solution.

Ten Strategic Imperatives

Today is Monday, which means I received my weekly Fast Mail from the Community Transportation Association of America. As usual, it is full of interesting tidbits of information. My favorite this week is The Dawning of a New Era in Transit: Ten Strategic Imperatives (PDF)(294 KB)

“The convergence of major demographic and societal trends is creating an unprecedented opportunity for the future of America’s transit industry. The Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) recently presented ten strategic imperatives that will enable transit operators and the industry to transform the role and impact of transit across America.”

In short, those strategies are:

1. Identify and Meet Customer Needs
2. Provide Exceptional Customer Service
3. Aggressively Promote Your System and All Alternatives to Driving Alone
4. Be Green to Get the Green (Funding)
5. Measure and Report Your Real Impact
6. Advance the Community Conversation on Community Transit
7. Make Business Part of Transit’s Business
8. Create Partnerships to Serve the Entire Community
9. Help One Another Sing Our Industry’s Praises
10. Share Our Collective Experiences and Insights

I try to advocate for these strategies in the communities and transit systems I work with.

Should Amtrak come back?

Following is an editorial on returning the North Coast Hiawatha through Southern Montana offered by Missoula City Council member Dave Strohmaier.

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_48377d82-af91-11de-9605-001cc4c002e0.html

Missoulian

Returning rail service to the Garden City

Guest column | Posted: Sunday, October 4, 2009 2:15 am

Passenger rail in Missoula has a long and storied history. In the context of the demise of the Milwaukee Road’s Olympian Hiawatha, the Daily Missoulian reported on May 23, 1961, that “Steam is gone from the U.S. Railroad scene now, and passenger trains are disappearing, failing to meet the monumental competition of modern highways, two cars in every garage, glamorous airline transportation … and swarming freight trucks on the highway.”

Southern Montana’s other passenger rail line – originally called the North Coast Limited but then renamed the North Coast Hiawatha – hung on for another couple decades. But in 1979, amidst a national trend of passenger rail retrenchment, Amtrak eliminated this route.

Although passenger rail advocates have worked behind the scenes for years trying to restore Amtrak service to southern Montana, we’re closer today than we’ve been in three decades to making this a reality. Indeed, during my years on the Missoula City Council, I can think of few issues that have generated as much enthusiastic support as the return of Amtrak to the Garden City.

Of course, the naysayers will grouse that Amtrak is not self-supporting, and should not be subsidized. However, the fatal flaw with this argument is that it presumes the airline industry and our national highway system have been self supporting and free of public subsidies over the last half century. This is patently false. Billions of federal dollars – dwarfing the amount invested in Amtrak – have been dumped into air and highway transportation.

While air and highway transportation will continue to play important roles in southern Montana’s connections to the region and the nation, it’s critical to take a hard look at rail. Passenger rail provides yet another transportation option for Missoulians. If there was ever a time when traveling by air was ever glamorous, that era has long disappeared. For many Missoulians, making the long trek to Whitefish to catch the Empire Builder is just not an option. And in the face of serious concerns of climate change and energy conservation, it makes a great deal of sense to embrace passenger rail, which is significantly more efficient per passenger mile than other modes of transportation.

Not only is passenger rail a much needed transportation option for the majority of Montanans who reside in the southern part of the state, but it also has great potential to benefit local business as visitors spend money in our communities.

Will there be challenges to getting Amtrak back to Missoula? Absolutely. But it’s an undertaking worth pursuing. Some may wonder what role local government should play in regional and national transportation issues. To my lights, it should play a significant role. As important as it is to attend to potholes, curbs, sidewalks, bike lanes and other local transportation issues, we can’t forgot that ultimately Missoula – and all the communities of southern Montana – are connected to the broader region and nation, both socially and economically. To that end, we must actively engage our state legislators, the governor, and our congressional delegation on the importance of expanded passenger rail service.

Over the past few years, I’ve sponsored a number of City Council resolutions in support of federal and state legislation related to passenger rail. Thanks to Sen. Jon Tester, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 became law last year, and included language directing Amtrak to study the feasibility of restoring the North Coast Hiawatha route. Within the next few weeks, that study will be out for review, and it will form a critical first step towards identifying what it will take to revive regular passenger rail service to Missoula.

Recently the Montana Department of Transportation released its own draft study of restored passenger rail service to southern Montana, which can be viewed at www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/railplan. If you’re interested in seeing Amtrak return to southern Montana, it’s critical that you make your voice be heard. Comments on the State Rail Plan must be received by Oct. 15.

As residents of Montana’s second largest city, it’s high time we embrace bold visions for our community’s future, and I’m convinced that part of that vision surely includes passenger rail. All aboard!

Dave Strohmaier represents Ward 1 on the Missoula City Council.

Transportation vision articulated on Montana Public Radio

James Corless, director of T4America, recently visited Missoula and got a chance to sit down with Edward O’Brien of Montana Public Radio. The full length interview aired Friday evening, September 25, on Montana Evening News.

Follow this link to hear James discuss community design, safe streets, transit, Amtrak and high-speed rail as components of federal transportation reform:

http://www.mtpr.net/program_info/2009-09-25-132

James’ segment starts in 13:41 into the newscast.

In the news August 11…

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle wrote a good editorial today about the need for more investment in bikeable, walkable, livable communities. It’s a follow-up on an article they did two weeks ago about the Transportation for America campaign, where I was quoted. I have included the two articles below.

Our Opinion: 1950s-era policy must be updated for 2009 life

Bikeable, walkable, livable

Bozeman’s prototype shelter

Thanks to some hard work from a lot of people, we finally got a locally designed and built shelter put up on Friday. The attached article from the Bozeman Daily Chronicle does a good job of explaining the background and the effort.

Shelter-Bozeman Daily Chronicle July 25 2009

Mileage-based fee can help if done right

Last week at the Yellowstone Business Partnership‘s annual meeting, Basil Barna talked about the need to reform the way we invest in our transportation system. Among other things, he mentioned the effort to move towards a mileage-based fee instead of a gas tax. Basil did not support this change because of the penalty on fuel-efficient vehicles when charged by miles instead of gas usage. I respect Basil’s assessment, but I also recognize the need to pay for our  transportation system as we move towards more efficient gas-powered cars and cars powered by electricity, bio-fuels, and (maybe) hydrogen. Also, the gas tax does not allow for congestion pricing, either for charging drivers when they enter a congestion zone or charging higher use during congested peak hours.

Considering Basil’s perspectives, today I took the time to look at a presentation, and related report,  about the Oregon Department of Transportation’s mileage-based fee pilot study. I have concluded this structure can be effective in paying for our road system and addressing other policy issues. The study found success with congestion pricing: a 22% reduction in rush hour miles traveled among the people subject to congestion fees compared to those who were not, along with an overall reduction of miles traveled. It also discussed Basil’s point:

“The most common issue raised about a flat mileage fee rate structure concerns removal of the incentive for motorists owning gas guzzling vehicles to trade up to fuel efficient vehicles. This point derives from distress about the environmental impact of driving for reasons of climate change and air quality. Considering the mileage fee rate issue from the perspective of environmental sensitivity alone, this point has some validity. Two counter arguments tend to soften the point.”

“First, road charges imposed on vehicles—whether gas taxes or mileage fees—comprise only a minor portion of total fuel costs for operation. This counterpoint argues the change to a flat mileage fee rate would have a negligible impact—cost per mile driven—on vehicle choices. Recent research by Oregon State University provides evidence supporting this point.  This argument observes that people trade up for greater fuel efficiency primarily because of fuel cost not tax or fee cost.”

“The second counterpoint argues for consideration of additional perspectives in creating the mileage fee rate structure, particularly the need for a sustainable road funding source. From the standpoint of establishing good public policy, all compelling policy perspectives should be taken into account when a legislature adopts the rate structure. Even so, the mileage fee rate structure might not be the best place to accommodate every valid policy perspective. A legislature may choose to address the road funding concern in the rate structure while addressing the environmental concern, or other concerns, in other tax or fee structures that do not directly relate to road funding.”

“ODOT has considered several rate structure alternatives to the flat rate for encouraging fuel efficiency. Most of these alternatives start with a flat rate for at least the more fuel efficient vehicles in order to ensure road revenues do not erode because of fuel efficiency improvements (like they do now with the gas tax). The alternatives generally involve stacking a second rate on top of the flat rate to allow rate variability for various policy reasons. For example, a fuel inefficiency penalty might be applied to a high fuel consuming vehicles in addition to the flat mileage fee rate but still collected at the pump. Another example is to apply the mileage fee to high fuel efficiency vehicles while maintaining the gas tax for low fuel efficiency vehicles.”