This paper describes the application of a detailed benefits assessment framework and sensitivity analysis of the operation of rural public transit services in the state of Tennessee. The paper describes the major components of this benefits framework and its application to the demand-responsive services operated within the state during the 1998/99 fiscal year. An empirical analysis yields a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1.0, with benefits dominated by accessibility gains to current transit patrons through the provision of mobility-enhancing vanpool services. Without these services, the costs of providing an equivalent level of access to health care, job training, and other important household activities would be much higher. Improved and expanded transit rider-based data collection efforts are recommended.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AschauerD A, 1991Transportation Spending and Economic Growth: The Effects of Transit and Highway ExpendituresAmerican Public Transit Association, Washington, DC 20005.
2.
BeimbornEHorowitzASchuetzJZejunG, 1993Measurement of Transit Benefits Federal Transit Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
3.
Berk & Associates, 1998Economic Analysis for the Intercity Passenger Rail Program for Washington State 1998–2000Public Transportation and Rail Office, Washington State Department of Transportation, WA.
4.
BurkhardtJ EHedrickJ LMcGavockA T, 1998Assessment of the Economic Impacts of Rural Public Transportation Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 34, Transportation Research Board (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
5.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Apogee Research, Inc., 1996Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits: Summary Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 20, Transportation Research Board (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
6.
Cambridge Systematics Inc., Glen Weisbrod, Inc., 1999Public Transportation and the Nation's EconomyAmerican Public Transit Association, Washington, DC 20005.
7.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc., CerveroRAschauerD A, 1998Economic Impact Analysis of Transit Investments: Guidebook for Practitioners Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 35, Transportation Research Board (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
8.
CamphD H, 1997Dollars and Sense: The Economic Case for Public Transportation in America report by Aldaron Inc. for the Campaign for Efficient Passenger Transportation, c/o Citizen Action, Washington, DC 20036.
9.
CGA Consulting Services, Inc., 1998, “The economic impact of public transportation in the state of Tennessee”, draft report submitted to the Tennessee Department of Transportation, Office of Public Transportation.
10.
Crain & Associates, Inc., Byrd R, Omniversed International, 1999Using Public Transportation to Reduce the Economic Social, and Human Costs of Personal Immobility Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 49, Transportation Research Board (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
11.
HorowitzA JBeimbornE, 1995, “Methods and strategies for transit benefit measurement”Transportation Research Record number 1496, 9–16.
12.
Leigh, Scott and Cleary, Inc., 1999Transit Needs and Benefits Study final report and appendix to final report, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO.
13.
LeinbachT RWatkinsJ FStamatiadisN, 1994Transportation Services, Utilization and Needs of the Elderly in Non-Urban Kentucky FTA-KY-26-001, Federal Transit Administration, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
14.
LewisDWilliamsF L, 1999Policy and Planning as Public Choice: Mass Transit in The United States (Ashgate, Brookfield, VT).
15.
LitmanT, 1994, “Transportation cost analysis: techniques, estimates and implications”, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BC.
16.
LitmanT, 1999, “Evaluating public transit benefits and costs”, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BC.
17.
Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., 1998Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 403, Transportation Research Board (National Academy Press, Washington, DC).
18.
MeyerMNelsonA CPengZ-R, 1999, “Development of a methodology to evaluate the economic impacts of rural public transportation on Georgia counties”, FHWA-GA-99-930-9, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta, GA.
PengZ-RNelsonA C, 1998, “Rural transit services: A Local economic and fiscal impact analysis”Transportation Research Record number 1623, 57–62.
23.
RM Plan Group, 1994Public Transportation in Tennessee: Expanding Economic and Societal BenefitsChattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority, Chattanooga, TN.
24.
SkolnikJSchreinerR, 1998, “Benefits of transit in small urban areas: A Case study”Transportation Research Record number 1623, 47–56.
25.
SouthworthFVogtD PCurleeT RChatterjeeAWegmannF J, 2002An Assessment of Future Demands for and Benefits of Public Transit Services in Tennessee ORNL/TM-2002/55, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
26.
SouthworthFVogtD PCurleeT R, 2004, “Estimation of statewide urban public transit benefits in Tennessee”, paper presented at the 83rd Annual Transportation Research Board Meetings, Washington, DC, 11–15 January, 2004 Transportation Research Record forthcoming.
27.
StrathmanJDuekerK, 1987, “Regional economic impacts of local transit financing alternatives: Input–output results for Portland”Transportation Research Record number 1116, 40–48.
28.
TDHS, 1997Profile of the Tennessee Families First Family. Representative Families First CharacteristicsTennessee Department of Human Services, Nashville, TN, http://cber.bus.utk.edu/TDHS/CCS1997/Contents.htm.
29.
US DOT, 1997Improving Transportation for a Maturing Society Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, DOT-P10-97-01, United States Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
30.
USGAO, 1999Transportation Coordination: Benefits and Barriers Exist, and Planning Efforts Progress Slowly Report RCED-00-1, United States Government Accounting Office.
31.
WegmannFNewsomT, 2002Tennessee Vans: Accomplishments of a Statewide Van Transportation Service Delivery System—a Ten Year Review (1990–2000)Center for Transportation Research, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
32.
WegmannF JChatterjeeAVolpeR, 1992Cost-Effective Public Transportation for Small Urban Areas Southeastern Transportation Center, prepared by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
