Best Practices in Rural Regional Mobility (2017)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8Literature Review Study Process The initial step in the study process involved a search for previous research that focused on rural regional services. For the literature review, reports were identified and reviewed. Reports that address rural regional transit, or more generally rural transit, relevant for the study that have been published over the last 15 years were identified. This included material known to the study team as well as material identified through a search of TRID, the integrated database with records from TRB’s Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) Database and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Joint Transport Research Centre’s Inter- national Transport Research Documentation (ITRD) database. The literature review also found several reports, particularly articles in the Community Transportation Association of America publications that described rural regional transit systems. For the most part, the major finding is that there is not a lot of previous research addressing rural regional transit services. The literature that exists is largely directed at the benefits and fea- sibility of regional organizations for providing rural public transportation, rather than regional services. Increased ability to provide regional services is often cited as a major potential benefit of regional organizations, but there is little documentation about specific regional services that have been enabled by the creation of regional organizations. For this reason, the study team decided to look beyond the traditional literature in an effort to identify potential rural regional service case studies. This secondary effort in the literature review focused on PowerPoint presentations from the TRB Rural and Intercity Bus Conferences over the past 6 years to identify relevant presentations on rural regional mobility services. The vast majority of presentations featured intercity bus service projects. Presentations from the 2014 conference that address the broader theme of rural regional mobility are summarized and included in this chapter. Relevant Published Reports Regional Cooperation in Transportation Planning Regional Cooperation in Transportation Planning, prepared for Florida DOT, reviewed regional transportation planning practices across the country, highlighting innovative transportation planning approaches in other states that support regional transportation planning and coop- eration. The report provides specific recommendations for the state’s DOT to improve regional transportation planning and regional investment decision-making in Florida. The impetus for the report came from findings in the 2060 Florida Transportation Plan that the large number of govern- ment entities responsible for transportation planning and funding decisions posed a significant C H A P T E R 2

Literature Review 9 challenge to implementing the state’s plan. It also noted that improved regional decision-making was needed. The State of Florida’s plan concluded that improved regional decision-making requires restructuring existing institutions and processes, including consolidation of transportation entities to reflect urbanized growth trends, commuting patterns, funding mechanisms, and other economic relationships. One of the research tasks was to identify incentives established at the state level to encourage formation of regional planning, coordination, and partnerships among metropolitan and other planning organizations. The report finds that states’ incentive programs are typically not statewide but are at the regional or local level. In addition, most incentive programs are designated for one or two specific purposes, which can include transit and development of multimodal transpor- tation, smart growth, and other purposes. The only example the researchers found of a state- wide incentive program for regional transportation coordination is Florida’s Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP). Two other states are identified with statewide programs: North Carolina, with a focus on rural regions; and Virginia, where the program covers several areas of planning. The report notes that rural transportation planning across many states increased in the 1990s as a result of federal legislation and guidance. Thirty states have designated regional planning organizations to represent rural areas in statewide planning processes. The report states that local jurisdictions and states pursue regional governance because regionalism has the following functions: • Provides a holistic perspective for planning, inter-jurisdictional coordination, and adminis- trative purposes; • Achieves economies of scale by pooling resources such as funding, technical assistance, and service delivery, • Integrates sectors (i.e., various special purpose planning initiatives such as transportation and land use) thus increasing administrative efficiency; • Provides geographic coverage and representation (political power) in decision-making; • Allows public participation, data gathering, and implementation of state and federal programs; and • Enables two-way communication and conflict resolution vertically between local and state or federal governments and horizontally across jurisdictions. States must give local and regional entities the authority and support to engage in regional governance. Because regionalism falls outside dominant government schemes, local leadership and collaborative capacity are necessary to create, maintain, and evolve regional governance. One interesting aspect of the research was the development of a conceptual framework of regional transportation planning and coordination. This framework recognizes that states can foster regional coordination directly (by defining regional planning entities) and indirectly (by allowing intergovernmental compacts). State programs and policies vary according to the degree to which they are top-down or bottom-up initiatives. The researchers’ regional institution and planning framework describes the key features for such planning and the extent of regional integration. The key features are organization structure, planning procedure, representations, and sphere of influence. These features help explain how regional planning is accomplished, who is involved, and what sort of control and power it has. Florida’s TRIP incentive program encourages regional planning by providing state matching funds for improvements to regionally significant transportation facilities. Eligible recipients include two or more contiguous Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and two or more contigu- ous counties that are not members of an MPO.

10 Best Practices in Rural Regional Mobility Data Needs for Assessing Rural Transit Needs, Benefits, and Levels of Service NCHRP Project 20-65, Task 36, reviewed the federal data collection program for rural transit— the Rural National Transit Database (NTD)—to define additional data elements to improve the program and to identify options to evaluate rural service levels. NCHRP Research Results Digest 376: Data Needs for Assessing Rural Transit Needs, Benefits, and Levels of Service was a product of this study. While study efforts did not specifically look at rural regional transit, the digest discusses the importance of service area size when evaluating rural transit services. This is particularly true for rural regional systems that cross jurisdictional boundaries to reach activity centers and destina- tions beyond rural areas. In addition to proposing three new measures for the Rural NTD to assess rural transit from a national perspective, the digest suggests that rural services can be categorized by the type of trips they serve based on service frequency to assess their level of service to users. This is relevant for this study’s effort to classify regional services in rural areas. The study suggests the following categories: • Weekly or bi-weekly service to the activity center(s). This level of rural service can meet critical trip purposes, such as for medical appointments and food shopping and is often termed “lifeline transportation.” • Daily trips inbound from the rural area to the activity center(s)/outbound back to the rural area with at least 5 to 6 hours at the travel destination. Rural service provided daily with less than 8 hours at the travel destination allows users to meet certain trip needs, such as partici- pation at human service agency day programs, part-time employment, education trips, and medical trips (possibly including dialysis treatment). • Daily service during morning/afternoon peak periods and at least 10 hours at the activity center. Rural service at this level allows for full-time employment for traditional office-type jobs, most education trips, and medical trips. • Daily service during peak travel periods during the peak season. This type of rural service may be provided for visitors and employees for rural resort areas, such as ski areas or beach towns, or for peak service during the academic year for a college in a rural setting. • Connectivity to regional/national intercity carriers. This level of service will vary widely for any given rural community or area depending on the intercity bus schedule at the closest appropriate activity center (i.e., there is increased potential to coincide with the intercity bus schedule when there is greater frequency of rural service to that activity center). This approach, frequency of service corresponding to trip types served, may be an appropriate factor for classifying rural regional transit services for this study. Organizing Transit in Small Urban and Rural Communities Organizing Transit in Small Urban and Rural Communities is a research report prepared at North Dakota State University’s Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute that examines the case for regional organization of rural transit from an economist’s perspective, using North Dakota as a test case. The report notes that the benefits of consolidating rural transit agencies had not been quantified. Where such benefits are identified, they have been described in qualitative terms rather than in economic or quantitative ones. The study tests the following hypotheses: • Rural transit experiences economies of density. The presence of increasing returns to density in rural transit infers that it would be more efficient for a single transit agency to provide service in an existing service area, as is common practice, rather than to create a new transit agency to do so.

Literature Review 11 • Rural transit experiences economies of firm size. Economies of firm size differ from econo- mies of density in that it considers a proportional increase in service area. The presence of increasing returns to firm size infers that it is more efficient for an existing agency to provide increased levels of service in an expanded service area. • Rural transit experiences economies of scope. Economies of scope are present when a firm can produce goods or services at lower costs by producing a greater variety of services. A rural transit provider offering several different types of transportation service, such as fixed route general public transit, demand response public services, and human service client transporta- tion will have lower unit costs than if each service were provided by a separate agency or firm. Typically, administrative costs can be spread over more services, and staff, vehicles, and facilities can be used to provide several services, which reduces resource requirements. • Rural transit has excess capacity. National data suggests that there is an excessive number of vehicles industrywide. The presence of excess capacity would support a revision of federal and state policies relating to capital funding allocation and rules for vehicle disposition. • Rural transit is a natural monopoly. The presence of a natural monopoly in rural transit would support the existence of single rural transit agencies as the sole providers of demand response and fixed route service and for government subsidy of transit. These translated to six research questions: 1. Is increased service in an existing service area more efficiently provided by a single existing rural transit agency or by adding a new one? 2. Is increased service in an expanded area more efficiently provided by a single rural transit agency or by creating a second agency? 3. Are demand response and fixed route service most efficiently provided by a single firm or should two agencies provide each service exclusively? 4. Do rural transit firms have significant unused vehicle capacity? 5. Is a single regional transit agency always more efficient at providing multimodal service or are there cases where two agencies can provide service more efficiently? 6. Is there economic justification for government support of transit on the basis of increasing returns to scale or natural monopoly? Based on various econometric models and analyses, the findings of the research include the following: • It is more efficient for an existing rural transit agency to provide increased outputs within its service area than to create a new transit agency to do so. • At high levels of output and service area size, it is more efficient for a second agency to provide service, so that within very large regions with both fixed route and demand response service, it is more efficient for entities to specialize in one mode of service. • Significant amounts of excess capacity were found. Regionalizing Public Transportation Services Regionalizing Public Transportation Services was prepared by the Institute for Transporta- tion Research and Education at North Carolina State University. The study had several compo- nents, including a review of best practices of regional public transportation in other states and identification of opportunities and constraints for such regional service. The study attributes the following benefits to regionalization: • Riders have the ability to cross county lines; • More effective regional planning; • Ability to address regional transportation problems; • Adequate funding—a regional entity can be created with its own funding source;

12 Best Practices in Rural Regional Mobility • Transportation and land use planning integration; • Operational and administrative economies; • Regional transit in an urban area has the ability to plan and build a regional rail system; • Coordination or consolidation of specialized or rural public transportation services; • Development of specialized professional staff; and • Improved efficiency and effectiveness of the state DOT. The findings of the case study research include the following: • States with legislation promoting or mandating regional transit systems have more of such systems and a higher level of public and human service transportation consolidation. • Legislation may allow regional systems to be organized through intergovernmental agreement or to be private non-profit agencies. • Contracting and agency memberships are two principal types of relationships that can be established to create multi-county transit services. • A perceived loss of control is a common issue or fear that may be a barrier to consolidation or coordination of transit services. • A local champion can be important. • State DOTs can contribute to the formation of regional transit systems through a provision of technical assistance. • Funding incentives that favor regional service can be very effective. • The ability to mix funding sources throughout the entire service area is important. • Dedicated funding sources can be important, because they reduce the possibility that a lack of local funding becomes a barrier to local jurisdictions working together in a regional system. • Resources are saved with proper administration. • Availability of specialized professional staff for a larger/regional transit organization. • Regional systems may be able to realize economies of scale by operating fewer maintenance facilities. • The governing board must be sufficiently representative of the political jurisdictions and stakeholders in the region. • Funding “equity” means that the jurisdictions receive benefits commensurate with the funds they contribute. The study then recommends a number of regional transportation systems for North Carolina, suggesting areas that share common economic, employment, political, and social characteristics. North Carolina Statewide Regionalization Study The North Carolina Statewide Regionalization Study was prepared by the study team for the North Carolina DOT as the department’s response to Session Law 2011-145, House Bill 28.21, which required the DOT and its Public Transportation Division to study the feasibility and appro- priateness of developing regional transit systems with the goals of providing increased mobility between existing transit systems within one county and between counties, improving planning and coordination to better meet public demand, maximizing funding, and developing centralized professional staff that will create operational and administrative efficiencies. The study examined previous literature, experiences in other states, a series of stakeholder interviews, a survey of transit systems in North Carolina, and input from the Advisory Com- mittee. The study found that regional transit systems could demonstrate significant benefits in terms of addressing regional travel needs, improved regional planning, maximizing funding, and creating administrative and operating efficiencies. However, it is evident that successful efforts at regionalization do not necessarily require total consolidation of all transit functions under a single entity. The appropriate approach varies with local conditions, taking a blended approach

Literature Review 13 that integrates primary transit system functions similar to choosing different options from a menu. The feasibility of this approach is demonstrated by the variety of successful regional transit activities across the state, many of which have not required total consolidation. The final report was submitted to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee (JLTOC) and presented to the committee during the legislative session. The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) The TCQSM, now on its third edition, does not directly address rural regional transit services but does provide measures that can be used to assess the effectiveness of such service. The manual provides methodologies and tools to assess transit service quality and to calculate the capacity of fixed route transit as well as ferry transit. Regarding transit service quality, the manual provides a framework for assessing transit within two categories: (1) the availability of transit service and (2) its comfort and convenience. The specific measures for these factors differ for fixed route transit and demand response transportation, and the measures are described from the passenger’s perspective as well as the transit operator’s perspective. For example, for transit availability, three measures are defined: (1) frequency of service; (2) service span (i.e., the days and hours of service), and (3) access, which is the spatial element of transit availability (i.e., whether transit service is provided near one’s desired origins and destinations). These measures are rel- evant for rural regional transit because it is often difficult to provide enough transit, as measured by its availability, and to provide good access and connectivity with (a) the large geographic areas common for rural regional transit, (b) the very low population densities, and (c) the realities of funding. Regional Transit Coordination Guidebook As a result of population growth in Texas’s rural areas and extensive suburban development, the Texas DOT sponsored a project titled Regional Public Transportation Solutions for Intercity Commute Traffic. One of the products of the project was the Regional Transit Coordination Guidebook. The guidebook provides recommendations for initiating and sustaining coordination activities as well as evaluation strategies that can be used at various stages along the planning process. The guidebook builds on regional coordinated projects in Texas as well as elsewhere in the country. It also describes coordination efforts in Texas, where state legislation prompted 24 council of government regions to work with the DOT to develop regional plans for transit coordination. The guidebook lists the advantages of regional transit coordination: • Benefits to transit riders/travelers: – More travel alternatives for commuters, – Increased mobility and independence for people who do not or cannot drive, and – Improved availability and convenience for medical trips. • Benefits to transit providers: – Improved cost-effectiveness and use of resources, – Expansion of service area and client base, – Improved visibility of transit service in the community, and – Ability to leverage new funding sources. • Benefits to the transportation system: – Congestion relief on major travel corridors, – Reduction in vehicle emissions, and – Additional travel capacity without building more lane miles.

14 Best Practices in Rural Regional Mobility • Benefits to employers and the workforce: – Opportunity to attract new workers, – Reduced need for parking facilities, – Support for ridesharing and transit use offered by the Internal Revenue Service, and – Participation in corporate pollution-reduction programs. Ohio Statewide Transit Needs Study The Ohio DOT and a team of consultants recently completed an extensive inventory of transit needs in the state. The outreach process included meetings with all transit systems in the state, stakeholder interviews, user surveys, and public surveys. One key finding is the need for regional services or connections, which was expressed by riders, stakeholders, and transit system operators. The final recommendations included proposals for funding efforts to incentivize the creation of more regional services, regional service coordination, and new regional systems in areas without any current public services. As part of the study process, a Regional Services and Organizations initiative paper was developed that addressed both the scale and service advantages of regional transit organizations and the need for regional services. It included descriptions of several best practices in both areas, suggesting that this study may be able to identify best practices in rural regional mobility through contacts with the state program staff. PowerPoint Presentations from the TRB Rural and Intercity Bus Conferences Knowing that there are more efforts implementing rural regional mobility services than could be found in the literature search, the study team decided to review the presentations made at TRB’s Rural and Intercity Bus Conferences to see if there were relevant presentations that could help define the topic or provide some preliminary information on state programs or recent best practices in rural regional mobility services. Some of the most relevant presentations follow: The Relationship between Rural Regional Mobility and How Local Transit Is Organized, 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, October 26–29, 2014, Monterey, California This presentation by Kim Johnson of Michigan DOT and Steve Hirschfield of Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT) is extremely relevant to the current study because it presents the concept of rural regional mobility that led to the development of this research project. It includes a review of the ways in which public transit is organized and funded in each state (Michigan and Wisconsin), noting that public transit systems are largely organized and funded through a structure that sup- ports local systems and specialized services. Although both states have mechanisms for develop- ing regional authorities, public transit has a predominantly local focus. At the same time, both states have intercity bus programs as well as commercial intercity bus services (unsubsidized). In both states, there is a perception that there are existing and growing needs for regional services that are not met by either the local systems or the intercity services. This has led to numerous questions about how such needs might be met, what kind of organizational structure is appro- priate for regional services, and how they might be funded. It also led both states to work with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and its Stand- ing Committee on Public Transportation (SCOPT) to support national research to identify best practices by states or rural regional agencies that have the following characteristics: • Meet the FTA definition of “public transportation,” • Meet the FTA definition of “intercity bus,”

Literature Review 15 • Effectively blend these two modes, and • Are supported by a combination of Section 5311 and Section 5311(f) funds. From this presentation, it is clear that rural regional mobility services will be services that are open to and usable by the general public (are not solely human service transportation for eligible clients). It is less clear whether the definition of rural regional mobility should include intercity bus projects that do not address the need to provide a day-time round trip with enough time on site for employment, medical services, and higher education classes. North by Northwest Connector, 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, October 26–29, 2014, Monterey, California This presentation by the Tillamook County Transportation District (TCTD) provides a descrip- tion of an Oregon transit project that has created a regional network in the coastal region of the state. The presentation covers the goals and tasks of the project, which include the development of a network of regionally coordinated routes and services that crosses county lines, meets regional needs, and serves both commuters and visitors while offering connections to key intercity ter- minals. The project includes the development of a distinct branding for the regional network, regional fares, a centralized website, and additional inter-agency coordination. Service improve- ments included improved connectivity between services at connection points (as opposed to forced transfers at county borders). Funding sources include Section 5311(f) funding for some new regional routes; state funds for pedestrian and accessibility improvements, signs and shelters; and planning funds for creating the organizational structure to develop new services and infra- structure and to market and brand them. Much of the network includes services that were already in place, and are now coordinated into a network. Project successes have included significant ridership increases in some corridors. In many ways this project would appear to be a best practice rural regional mobility service. Colorado Intercity and Regional Bus Network Plan—2014 Update, 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, October 26–29, 2014, Monterey, California This presentation provides an overview of a study prepared for Colorado DOT, the Colorado Intercity and Regional Bus Network Plan—2104. This statewide plan updates a 2008 study. The study includes a needs analysis and development of a typology of different services designed to meet different needs: • Intercity Bus Services: Connect rural communities to the national intercity bus network for travel to more distant points. Such services usually have limited frequencies (often once per day) but operate every day of the week. • Interregional Express Services: Connect urbanized areas that in most cases have existing local or sub-regional public transit services. These are focused on commuters, providing mul- tiple weekday frequencies, often with a morning and evening peak. • Regional Bus Services: Connect rural areas and urban areas, have moderate frequency, and operate at least every weekday. Schedules allow passengers to complete a round trip in a day, and could accommodate employment trips (morning in, evening out). • Other Essential Regional Services: Generally operate on a fixed route and fixed schedule with flexible routing at the ends of the route to serve multiple destinations. Service may be less than daily, depending on demand, but schedules are designed to allow for a same day trip with 4 to 5 hours at the destination for appointments or personal business. The plan combines existing and proposed services in these categories to create a statewide network plan, with estimated operating and capital costs. The identified intercity bus network is

16 Best Practices in Rural Regional Mobility generally in place, with portions provided by private carriers without subsidy, and some routes that are funded with Section 5311(f) funds. The plan includes a significant planning effort addressing the interregional express needs, focusing on long-distance commuter services into Denver. This service is due to be implemented in summer 2015. Colorado DOT is conducting more detailed planning to address the proposed needs for some regional bus services and essential regional services, with the type of service to be a function of the likely pattern and level of demand in the proposed corridors. State funding for demonstration regional bus services is possible. Vermont Intercity Bus Program—Reconnecting Rural Vermont, 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, October 26–29, 2014, Monterey, California This presentation, by David Peletier of the Vermont Agency of Transportation, presents the recent development of a Section 5311(f) funded intercity bus program. It describes the recent his- tory of the decline of Vermont’s rural intercity network and the planning process used to develop alternatives, prioritize services, find an operator, implement services, develop a brand, and pub- licize the new services. Of particular interest was a reference to the analysis of regional transit services as potential intercity feeder services and the degree of change in regional services needed to provide acceptable intercity connections. The regional service development in Vermont had been described in presentations at previous Rural and Intercity Bus Conferences. In 2010, Chris Cole, then General Manager of the Chittenden County Transit Authority (CCTA) in Vermont, gave a presentation entitled Regional Service in a Local Environment that covered the develop- ment of regional services connecting Burlington, Vermont, with Montpelier, Middlebury, and St. Albans—all in different counties. This presentation includes information on the demand (primarily daily commuter), the development of a more regional organizational structure, and the funding requirements—including the role of the state in promoting such services and pro- viding start-up funding. At the same conference, Aaron Frank, then a planner at CCTA, gave a presentation entitled Succeeding with Commuters after Intercity Failure that focused on the development of these regional commuter services in the wake of the withdrawal of most Vermont Transit intercity routes. The Peletier presentation provides us with the latest chapter in the development of a full range of transit services, because Vermont added back some rural intercity routes to the regional routes originally developed in the wake of intercity bus service losses. This illustrates that at least one state found a need for both regional and intercity services, and has developed a process of organizational development and state support to implement both. MassDOT BusPlus Program, 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, October 26–29, 2014, Monterey, California This presentation by Kyle Emge of the Massachusetts DOT presents the development of a regional bus program in Massachusetts. A comprehensive study of bus services in that state resulted in a new definition of regional bus services. It combines the definition of intercity bus services from the Section 5311(f) program guidance with a definition of commuter bus service. The program uses state funds to provide bus capital to private firms in return for additional services—either new routes or additional frequencies or stops. The program has created regional coordination among the states in New England for potential regional bus service improvements, and MassDOT has developed a detailed regional bus and rail service map and a smart phone ticketing system available to multiple bus operators. In the future, operating subsidies will be used to initiate services on more new routes. This program is of interest because of its combined focus on intercity and daily commuter services, the development of regional (multi-state) con- nectivity, and the important role of the state in supporting such services.

Literature Review 17 Other Presentations A number of other presentations at the Rural and Intercity Bus Conferences in the recent past have addressed state and carrier efforts to develop and implement Section 5311(f) rural intercity bus services. Those are not summarized herein because of their exclusive focus on intercity service; however, they are included in the bibliography of this chapter. The presentations described in Chapter 2 are distinct in their relevance to this study because they have in some way addressed the development of regional as well as intercity services, suggesting further analysis of the programs and projects as potential best practices. Conclusions Drawn from the Literature Review The literature review suggests three basic considerations for this study: • The existing research generally focuses on regional organizations rather than on regional services. • The literature suggests that regional services can be classified based on service characteristics, and these services can be seen as one category of services that is distinct from, but may also share characteristics with intercity bus services, commuter bus services, local public transit, and human service transportation. • Some states and regions have addressed rural regional mobility issues in recent times, includ- ing a number that have documented their efforts through presentations at national confer- ences. This suggests that there may be more examples that can be discovered, and that it is possible to identify policies and practices that can support rural regional mobility. Literature Review Bibliography Abernathy, S., Lagerberg, B., and Hammond, P. Intercity Bus in Washington State Four Years and Counting. Presented at the 20th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT, October 2012. Ballard, L. Challenges of an Intercity Connection Crisis in Montana and North Dakota. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014. Bubel, S. Connecting the National Intercity Bus Passenger Network. Presented at the 20th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT, October 2012. Cole, C. Regional Service in a Local Environment. Presented at the 19th National Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation Conference, Burlington, VT, October 2010. Conley, C. GoBus: An Intercity Bus Success Story. Presented at the 20th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT, October 2012. Cook, T. Recent Evolution of the North Carolina Intercity Bus Program. Presented at the 21st National Confer- ence on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014. Cook, T. Regionalizing Public Transportation Services. Performed by Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State University, for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, North Carolina, 2002. Emge, K. MassDOT BusPlus Program. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014. Frank, A. Succeeding with Commuters after Intercity Failure. Presented at the 19th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Burlington, VT, October 2010. Fravel, F., and O’Neill, S. Colorado Intercity and Regional Bus Network Plan—2014 Update. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014. Fravel, F., and Green, J. Rural Intercity Transit Program Development for Utah. Presented at the 20th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT, October 2012. Hamby, B. NCHRP Research Results Digest 376: Data Needs for Assessing Rural Transit Needs, Benefits, and Levels of Service. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012. Johnson, K., and Hirschfield, S. The Relationship between Rural Regional Mobility and How Local Transit Is Organized. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014.

18 Best Practices in Rural Regional Mobility Kack, D. Montana Intercity Bus Service Study. Presented at the 20th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT, October 2012. KFH Group, Inc. Statewide Regionalization Study. Final Report, North Carolina Department of Transportation, May 1, 2012. https://www.ncdot.gov/download/transit/nctransit/StatewideRegionalizationStudy.pdf Kittelson & Associates et al. TCRP Report 165: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013. Lazaro, L. North by Northwest Connector. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014. Lewis, C.A., et al. Regional Transit Coordination Guidebook. Performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, Center for Transportation Training and Research, Texas Southern University, Houston, TX, and Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, 2009. Lynott, J. Weaving It Together: A Tapestry of Innovative Funding Sources for Rural and Intercity Transit. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014. Morrell, S. Growing Up, Not Out: Minnesota’s Next Phase for Intercity Bus Development. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 2014. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. Ohio Statewide Transit Needs Study. Human Service and Public Transportation Coordination. Final Report, Ohio Department of Transportation, January 2015. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. Ohio Statewide Transit Needs Study. Regional Services and Organi- zations. Final Report, Ohio Department of Transportation, January 2015. Peletier, D. Vermont Intercity Bus Program—Reconnecting Rural Vermont. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014. Peterson, D. Improving Veteran Mobility in Small Urban and Rural Areas. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014. Reuter, C., and Ruestman, J. Intercity Bus Transportation: A New Role for States. Presented at the 21st National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation, Monterey, CA, October 26–29, 2014. Ripplinger, D. G. Organizing Transit in Small Urban and Rural Communities. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, July 2012. University of Florida, Department of Urban and Regional Planning. Regional Cooperation in Transportation Planning. Final Report, prepared for Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, February 2012.