Caring for Carless Households: Rethinking Rural American Transportation
COVID-19 has exhibited how a world without traffic would appear. We've seen a world of empty roadways and city centers devoid of noise and congestion and many of us have accepted inescapable truths of life over the last year. We've seen the environmental advantages of not having to drive to work every day. We've also witnessed how better life could be if our roadways were redesigned to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists.
“Imagine what could happen if we made a concerted effort to make it easier for people to live their lives without having to spend so much time and effort looking for a car”
The automobile is the heart of America's transportation system, developed, built, and focused around it. Every year, traffic-related air pollution claims the lives of an estimated 58,000 Americans, causing or aggravating critical illnesses such as juvenile asthma, lung cancer, strokes, heart disease, and dementia. Excessive driving, particularly commuting over longer durations harms our mental health, interpersonal relationships, and quality of life. That's not to mention the thousands of casualties in car accidents each year.
To make matters worse, many of us are unable to avoid driving, especially due to age or disability factors. Services should be sensitive to various needs of users while providing especially when the necessities are recurring and vital. Where walking, cycling and other active means of transportation are available, our streets' auto-centric design can make these modes of transportation undesirable at best, and deadly at worst.
Usual situations turn worse in non-urban locations. Rural transit services, particularly demand-response services, which allow individuals to arrange a ride to and from specific locations rather than operating on a fixed route, are critical for families and older residents who have no other way of getting to healthcare, groceries, and other essential services.
In rural America, more than a million households do not have access to a car, time to rethink transportation.
According to the most recent ACS statistics, more than one million rural families do not have access to a car. On a national level, the majority of households without a car live in urban counties, But since the fares aren’t as high as compared to rural counties, the urban passengers spend a lesser expenditure on transportation. On average, about 9% of households in urban counties lack access to a car, compared to approximately 6% of households in primarily rural counties.
This highlights some of the major flaws in our national surface transportation program, which treats rural transit as an afterthought rather than a well-designed program designed to fulfill distinct demands than city transit. People in rural America must drive longer distances to obtain basic essentials such as groceries, banking, schools, and (most importantly) medical care. Due to fluctuating services at rural hospitals, going to a hospital for a job or medical care takes an even longer trip. This makes operating rural transit more difficult, especially on financial constraints.
Many people believe that the only Americans who use public transportation to get to jobs and services live in big cities. Despite this, rural counties account for the majority of counties with high rates of zero-car households. In fact, more than one million households in primarily rural areas lack access to a vehicle. Rural Americans without automobiles face particular challenges, and rather than assuming they can or will drive everywhere, they deserve a personalized approach to their transportation needs.
The COVID-19 problem has wreaked havoc on transit agencies, and rural transit providers are no exception. Most were already running on razor-thin margins before the outbreak, relying on shaky support from municipal tax revenues that are rapidly diminishing. With a limited crew of part-time drivers, many of these providers were already stretched thin, serving many counties across wide geographic areas.
Despite the numerous challenges, experts believe that autonomous, on-demand trips would eventually replace personal automobile ownership and that the difference in usage between urban and rural areas is primarily due to market penetration. In other words, it's not geographical disparities in income and internet connectivity that are preventing market giants like Uber and Lyft from expanding into rural areas; it's just the differences in availability of technology (ride-hailing apps).
In rural areas, one of the most significant difficulties is technological infrastructure. Both Uber and Lyft rely on reliable cell coverage, which can be difficult to come by in small areas. The technology has to be altered and reconfigured for the rural areas specifically to tackle the inconsistent rural connectivity.
Rural and Small-town driving is substantially less profitable for many Ride-Hailing MNCs. The Drivers earn less comparatively for longer drives. As a result, not only is expanding to rural areas financially risky for giants such as Uber and Lyft, but it may also provide little benefit to drivers.
Informal travel arrangements can be risky and inconvenient. Formal public transportation provides a consistent, professional service with fixed schedules and amenities like accessible lifts and bike racks. Non-drivers frequently prefer to pay for public transportation rather than relying solely on family or friends for transportation. The need for more formal public transportation is growing, and rural community organizations are realizing that they can't meet it with just volunteers.
The routes that drivers take in rural areas earn when the distance is small and the parking fees are high, rideshares are the most cost-effective. Hence, rural transport needs reliable transport that understands this sensitively.
Where are the alternatives?
Dedicated rural-friendly ride-hailing alternatives have developed in the gaps left by public transportation systems. Liberty Mobility Now, a Nebraska-based ride-hailing service, attempted to meet the needs of rural cities in Ohio, Texas, and Nebraska where Uber and Lyft were not yet available. It was distinct from Uber and Lyft in that it had a call center so that people who didn't have access to smartphones could still get a ride. Through the app, drivers were also encouraged to establish relationships with their passengers, something that isn't always the case with other established providers’ apps. With A Neighborly Atmosphere, It's Like Uber but more homely.
KVCAP - Kennebec Valley Community Action Program, of Somerset and Kennebec Counties in Maine, is another perfect example of those barriers, as they cover over 4.8K sq. miles of rural area (together with their sister organization PENQUIS, of Penobscot, Piscataquis, and Knox counties).
The 93-person volunteer driver pool does the majority of KVCAP's driving. They plan, schedule, and safely transport over 1,100 people per day to medical and social service appointments across the enormous state during Pandemic situations. The program utilizes QRyde to develop a dedicated rural transport app and that also reduced operational costs by 15% in just one year.
In this country, transportation is a well-known barrier to health care, particularly in rural areas where distances are vast and resources are scarce (1–3). Kennebec Valley Community Action Program (KVCAP) also provides safe and dependable transportation to residents of Kennebec and Somerset counties. KVCAP has continuing collaborations with local communities and social service agencies to provide a variety of transportation services to local residents and maintain a familiarity with the locals. Many clients would not be able to attend appointments if they did not have access to volunteer drivers. Volunteer driving networks in rural areas are a realistic option for meeting the population's transportation needs.
Read more at “A Volunteer Program in Maine to Transport Community Members to Health Care Appointments”
For more information check our website qryde.com or drop us an inquiry at [email protected]
