Paving the Way: Strengthening Rural Transportation Networks

Maryland Governor’s Summer Internship Program August 2017

Carrie Cook University of Maryland, Baltimore County Maryland Higher Education Commission

Daniel Griffin

University of Delaware Department of the Environment

Olivia Healey

Pennsylvania State University, University Park Department of Housing and Community Development

Jane Lyons

University of Maryland, College Park Department of Housing and Community Development

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following individuals for their contributions to this policy

analysis and our fellowship experience. Their respective leadership and knowledge helped to

shape our research process and professional development.

The Honorable Larry Hogan Governor

State of Maryland

The Honorable Boyd Rutherford Lieutenant Governor

State of Maryland

Heather Barthel Assistant Director, Water and Science

Administration Maryland Department of the Environment

Kevin Baynes

Director of Statewide Revitalization Maryland Department of Housing and

Community Development

Stuart Campbell Director of Community Service Programs

Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development

Meredith Donaho

Program Administrator Rural Maryland Council

Stephen Holt

Project Manager Maryland Department of Housing and

Community Development

Laura Hussey, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Political Science University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Mary Kendall

Program Officer Maryland Department of Housing and

Community Development

Hannah Schmitz Public Service Scholars Coordinator The Shriver Center at University of

Maryland, Baltimore County

Lee Towers Executive Director, Office of External and

Government Relations Maryland Higher Education Commission

James Fielder, Ph.D.

Secretary of Higher Education Maryland Higher Education Commission

1

Executive Summary

Maryland’s rural transportation systems lack development. Lack of connectivity to

essential local amenities has led to a general decrease in quality of life for rural citizens. The

most rural counties in Maryland consistently have lower health and economic outcomes than

Maryland’s most urban counties. To alleviate these discrepancies, the state should support

policies which increase availability of transportation and enhance community connectivity in

rural areas. Improving rural transportation systems allows people to access public and private

services, such as health care providers, local employers, healthy food, recreational venues, and

social services. Connecting residents within their communities will stimulate local economic

development and improve quality of life.

Through the exploration of three different policy alternatives, we seek innovative and

sustainable solutions to combat a societal divide. We provide a deep analysis into vanpool

systems, incentives to private rideshare companies, and rural transit-oriented development

designations. In sum, this analysis recommends the State to create rural transit-oriented

development designations within a half-mile of rural bus stops, giving local transit agencies the

authority to acquire land and bid it out for mixed-use development. This solution will address the

underlying causes of the issue and provide long-term economic development opportunities as

well as expanded access to transportation for rural Marylanders.

Introduction

The demographics of rural and urban areas vary dramatically, including health outcomes,

educational attainment, and income. In the United States, the distinction between rural and urban

2

areas is based off of population parameters established by the U.S. Census Bureau. “Urbanized

areas are areas with 50,000 or more people. Urban clusters are areas with at least 2,500 but fewer

than 50,000 people.” Therefore, rural communities are any given tract that contains less than 1

2,500 people. Within the state of Maryland, 18 out of the 24 counties are deemed rural by the

Rural Maryland Council. Rural counties mainly contribute to the agriculture industry, which

contributes $8.25 billion in output and nearly $3 billion in value added to Maryland’s economy . 2

Despite rural areas’ economic contributions, rural communities are often left behind; they often

have a lack of economic diversity and few infrastructure investments. The main and most

prominent infrastructure investment that rural communities lack is access to is transportation.

Policymakers overlook the needs of rural communities because of their low-density

populations, minimal tax base, and geographic isolation from urban centers. However, research

shows that the benefits of rural and small urban transportation networks outweigh the costs.

According to a report prepared by the National Center for Transit Research for the U.S.

Department of Transportation, the benefit-cost ratio for transportation systems was 2.16 and 1.20

in small urban areas and rural areas, respectively. There are many ways the state can help to 3

build financially sustainable rural transit networks while focusing on individual community

needs. This paper narrows these options to viable three policy alternatives: a dual-purpose

vanpool system that operates for the purpose of the working and aging populations, designating

1 Ratcliffe, M., Burd, C., Holder, K., & Fields, A. (n.d.). Defining Rural at the U.S. Census Bureau(Rep.). Retrieved July 14, 2017, from U.S. Census Bureau website: https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/ua/Defining_Rural.pdf 2 Ferris, J., & Lynch, L. (2013). The Impact of Agriculture on Maryland's Economy. University of Maryland, Center for Agricultural & Natural Resource Policy. Retrieved July 2017, from http://agresearch.umd.edu/sites/agresearch.umd.edu/files/_docs/programs/canrp/Value%20of%20Ag%20Report%20.pdf 3 Godavarthy, R., Mattson, J., & Ndembe, E. (2014). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rural and Small Urban Transit. National Center for Transit Research . Tampa: University Transportation Center. Retrieved 2017, from https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/77060-NCTR-NDSU03-508.pdf

3

rural transit-oriented development zones where local transit agencies can acquire and develop

land around already existing transit infrastructure, and a public-private partnership between local

governments and rideshare companies. Utilizing innovative policy solutions to solve rural transit

issues will catalyze mass economic and social improvements within rural Maryland counties.

Defining the Problem

Examining local case studies illustrates how rural counties in Maryland are being left

behind. People in rural areas experience a diminished quality of life including lower economic

and health outcomes. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the counties with the highest land

area of rural classification were Garrett (83.9), Caroline (76.0), Kent (72.6), and Dorchester

(56.2) in 2010. The least rural counties were Baltimore (6.5), Anne Arundel (5.3), Montgomery

(2.4), and Prince George’s (2.0). 4

RuralStat, a project of the Rural Maryland Council (RMC), measures levels of income,

health issues, lifestyle choices, and other facts for each county in Maryland. Maryland’s most

rural counties (Figure 1) consistently fall behind on health and economic measures. They have

higher levels of death by heart disease, smokers, chronic drinkers, and obesity; they also have

higher levels of poverty and unemployment than the most urban counties (Figure 2). 5

4 United States Census Bureau (2012, September 01). Urban and Rural. Retrieved July 2017, from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html 5 Baltimore City is omitted from the data tables. While considered a county-equivalent for many administrative purposes, Baltimore City’s health and economic outcomes have many varying factors, many of which do not apply to many counties, which are not covered in this paper. Additionally, Baltimore City has unique transportation options that are not available in the vast majority of Maryland counties.

4

Figure 1: Health and Economic Outcomes for Maryland’s Most Rural Counties

Residents over 65 (2012)

Below Poverty Level (2012)

Death Rates: Heart Disease (per 100,000 deaths) (2011)

Obesity (2010)

Smoking (2010)

Unemployment (2013)

Garrett .1864 15.1 .1963 64.1 19 .083

Caroline .1443 13 .2243 59.1 29.8 .08

Kent .2326 14.2 .2772 75.2 25.4 .076

Dorchester .1878 16.2 .2911 74.5 13.9 .105

Maryland .1297 9.9 .1813 66.1 15.2 .066

Yellow boxes indicate a higher rate than the state average. All figures are percentage of the total population unless otherwise indicated. Source: Rural Maryland Council

Figure 2: Health and Economic Outcomes for Maryland’s Most Urban Counties

Residents over 65

Below Poverty Level

Death Rates: Heart Disease (per 100,000 deaths)

Obesity Smoking Unemployment

Baltimore .1511 8.2 .2274 68.5 15.6 .071

Montgomery .1290 7.5 .1331 54.3 7.8 .049

Anne Arundel

.1270 6.6 .1620 66.8 15.3 .059

Prince George’s

.1027 9.4 .1458 74.6 13.6 .065

Maryland .1297 9.9 .1813 66.1 15.2 .066

Yellow boxes indicate a higher rate than the state average. All figures are percentage of the total population unless otherwise indicated. Source: Rural Maryland Council

This low quality of life for rural residents is partially attributed to their lack of

connectivity within their communities. Without reliable and safe transportation, individuals

living in rural areas do not have access to vital amenities including healthy food retailers, health

5

care professionals, recreation centers, and other establishments. This issue is most acute for

elderly residents who are more likely to not own a car or restrict their driving, especially in rural

areas where populations are aging and the vehicle trips are longer on average. According to a

2009 AARP telephone survey of 1,000 adults aged 50 and over, “21 percent stated that they

frequently or occasionally miss out on activities they like to do because of driving limitations”. 6

Understandably, this isolation leads to many negative outcomes including depression, economic

hardship, and preventable disease or health concerns.

Improving rural health and infrastructure are two of the five legislative priorities

identified by the RMC for 2017. “Rural Maryland currently experiences a shortage of health care

providers, particularly in specialty areas, mental, health, and dental care. Moreover, rural

populations are also overall older and in worse health than their suburban counterparts…

Infrastructure improvements remain a key piece of place-making strategies in creating and

retaining vibrancy in our rural communities. RMC supports: Expansion of rural broadband,

transportation funding for local governments, and expansion of heavy rail for commerce, transit,

and tourism-related purposes.” 7

Local transportation agencies for rural areas are not extensive enough to provide the

needed connectivity for rural residents. Rather than invest more in these important services,

Maryland’s service for rural transit vehicles has declined from 2011 to 2014 (Figure 3).

6 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2014). Housing America's Older Adults. Retrieved July 2017, from Joint Center for Housing Studies website: http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/jchs-housing_americas_older_adults_2014.pdf 7 Rural Maryland Council. (2016). Rural Maryland Council 2017 Legislative Priorities. Annapolis: Rural Maryland Council. Retrieved July 2017, from http://rural.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/12/RMC-2017-Draft-Legislative-Priorities-FINAL.pdf

6

Figure 3: Rural Transit Vehicle Miles of Service in Maryland, 2011-2014

Year 2011 2012 2013 2014

Miles (in millions) 7.0 4.0 3.9 3.7

Source: Rural Transit Fact Book.

Unfortunately, the lack of rural transportation options is not limited to Maryland; it is

prevalent across our geographic region. According to the 2016 Rural Transit Fact Book, FTA

Region 3, which includes Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania,

serves the lowest percentage of counties with rural transit at a mere 54%. Throughout the region,

there are 41 fixed-route agencies and 39 demand-response agencies. In other regions in the 8

country, 67-90% of counties are served by their respective rural transit agencies. 9

Meredith Donaho, Program Administrator at RMC, recognizes the importance of

transportation (personal communication, June 30, 2017): “Rural communities absolutely lack

transportation options throughout the State. We receive a lot of feedback that transportation is a

priority and a challenge for many rural residents.”

Problem Origins

Development patterns dictate the capacity of transportation systems. Due to rural areas’

low building density and low population density, it is more expensive to build and operate the

infrastructure that well-connected, multi-modal transportation systems rely on. For example, a

bus route through an urban area traveling one mile will provide access to more amenities than a

rural bus route traveling the same distance because urban areas concentrate commercial centers.

8 “Fixed-route” systems operated on a consistent schedule with pre-determined stops. “Demand-response” agencies respond to the local demand for transportation and shape their services around the needs of individuals or the community. 9 Mattson, J. (2016). Rural Transit Factbook 2016. North Dakota State University, Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute. Fargo: North Dakota State University. Retrieved July 2017, from http://www.surtc.org/transitfactbook/downloads/2016-rural-transit-fact-book.pdf

7

Additionally, the higher population concentration of urban areas (≥2,500 people per square mile)

means that there is a larger consumer base for a smaller land area, which puts areas with a low 10

population density and wide service area at an economic disadvantage. Nationally, fare revenues

cover approximately 17% of operating costs for small urban transit agencies, but only 8% for

rural transit agencies. 11

This problem will only be exacerbated by recent trends in urbanization. In this context,

the term “urban” includes both highly urban and suburban areas. Between 1990 and 2010,

Maryland’s urban population percentage increased from 81.3% to 87.2%, while its rural

population percentage decreased from 18.7% to 12.8%. Some traditionally rural-majority 12

counties’ urban populations increased as much as 50% over the 20-year period. Residents are

interested in the amenities and job opportunities that suburban and urban areas offer, leaving

behind a dwindling tax base. Those who stay in rural areas are typically elderly or do not have

the economic resources to move to higher opportunity areas. These are the populations who are

most at-risk when unable to travel to doctor’s appointments, well-stocked grocery stores, and

employment centers.

Maryland’s two most rural geographic areas, Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore,

both have distinct histories, but their economic growth was grounded in the agriculture and

mining industries. The first towns developed in the 17th to 19th centuries as a result of trading

10 U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2017, May 1). What is Rural? Retrieved 7 2017, from U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-classifications/what-is-rural/ 11 Godavarthy, R., Mattson, J., & Ndembe, E. (2014). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rural and Small Urban Transit. National Center for Transit Research . Tampa: University Transportation Center. Retrieved 2017, from https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/77060-NCTR-NDSU03-508.pdf 12 Maryland Department of Planning. (2010). Maryland Urban and Rural Population by Jurisdiction: 2010, 2000, 1990. Maryland Department of Planning, Data Analysis and Projections/State Data Center. Maryland Department of Planning. Retrieved July 2017, from http://planning.maryland.gov/msdc/census/cen2010/Urban_rural/PctUrbanRural_County_region_r2.pdf

8

posts. Towns with access to railways, canals, and roads economically flourished in the decades

before the automobile. As a result, even towns in remote areas developed walkable, vibrant main

streets where residents could live and shop with ease. Those downtown cores are still visible

today, although many residents and businesses have left in favor of single-family homes on large

land plots and strip malls or office parks. This shift has resulted in sprawl, which makes

transportation systems more expensive to operate. But rural transit agencies can still utilize

historical main street infrastructure and modern commercial centers to build innovative, modern,

multi-modal transit networks and promote a built environment that better serves its residents.

Current Efforts

Both current and past administrations have demonstrated a commitment to finding a

solution to rural Maryland’s transportation problems by diverting more funding to projects that

target rural communities. The state’s most comprehensive program for developing transportation

projects, the Consolidated Transportation Plan (CTP), received $430.6 million in FY 2016 to

complete fifteen major projects, many of them in areas considered to be rural by the RMC. 13

Along with a commitment to road and bridge repairs, state commuters also saw a decrease in toll

prices along major highways such the Bay Bridge in July 2015, due to Governor Hogan’s efforts.

This shift in policy disproportionately benefits rural drivers who must go through more toll

booths on their commute to urban centers.

13 Maryland Department of Transportation.(n.d.). Consolidated Transportation Program. Retrieved July 2017, from Maryland Department of Transportation: http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Office_of_Planning_and_Capital_Programming/CTP/CTP_11_16/2011_2016_Final_CTP.pdf

9

Other initiatives that exist to benefit rural Marylanders include the Maryland Agricultural

Education and Rural Development Assistance Fund (MAERDAF), along with Rural Maryland

Property Investment Fund (RMPIF), which provide financial support, usually in the form of

grants, to promote increased regional planning and community and economic development.

Transportation projects, while not receiving a huge portion of the funding from these programs,

are eligible.

Numerous regional councils help coordinate these local efforts. Tri-county councils

facilitate development in their regions, which often happen to be among the most in need and

most rural, such as those along Maryland’s Eastern Shore and in Western Maryland. Partnerships

such as the one Tri-County Council for the Lower Eastern Shore has with U.S. Department of

Commerce and USDA Rural Development allow them to apply directly to the Economic

Development Administration (EDA) for federal funding.

Other federal policy initiatives that seek to benefit rural populations such as those in

Maryland are the National Rural Transit Assistance Program (NRTAP), developed in 1987, and

the Formula Program for Rural Areas, which spun off from NRTAP and the former section 5311

program. Both of these programs are developed and monitored by the Federal Transit

Administration (FTA). Grants from national programs like these are the reason that most small

public transit options exist. They are effective in identifying rural areas around the country in

need of alternative transportation solutions to help improve quality of life in underserved areas.

Most of the Locally Operated Transit Systems (LOTS) in Maryland survive by applying to and

10

receiving grants from related programs like the Statewide Specialized Transportation Assistance

Program (SSTAP). 14

Current Transportation Options for Rural Maryland Counties

Maryland Upper Shore Transit (MUST), which serves Caroline, Dorchester, Kent, Queen

Anne’s and Talbot Counties, aims to provide fluidity among transit systems within these

counties. MUST provides both “fixed-route and deviated fixed-route services to the general

public throughout Maryland’s Mid-and-Upper Eastern Shore.” Additionally, based on special 15

conditions, individuals are able to request additional services based on availability. These

services include door-to-door service for any senior citizen who is 60, provided they provide

24-hour notice.

Delmarva Community Transit, in addition to Queen Anne’s County, County Ride,

counties such as Caroline, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne’s, and Talbot Counties, are serviced

during the workweek through fixed-routes. The ridership fees are relatively low and are further

reduced based off monthly passes. For connectivity to the Lower Shore and Queen Anne’s

County, one switches to the use of County Ride.

Garrett Transit Bus System provides rides within and outside of the county through a

demand-response system. This system requires individuals to call in to reserve a ride and is on a

first-come basis that aims to assist all those enroute. The fee structure for this system is based on

income, which presents an advantage for low-income citizens. Additionally, there are privately

14 Maryland Transit Administration. (n.d.). Locally Operated Transit Systems. Retrieved July 2017 from Maryland Transit Administration: https://mta.maryland.gov/content/lots 15 Maryland Upper Shore Transit. (n.d.)Retrieved July 2017, from Maryland Upper Shore Transit: http://www.mustbus.org/index

11

owned transportation services that run through the county and provide transportation alternatives

from the northern end of the county to Baltimore with several stops in between.

Policy Alternatives

The following section describes three different policy alternatives to address the gaps in

rural transportation systems. These alternatives were chosen based on common best practices in

rural areas across the country and Maryland’s existing administrative assets. Each alternative has

been tailored to fit the specific needs of rural Maryland.

Dual-Purpose Vanpool

One policy alternative to improve rural transportation is the development of vanpool

systems within the community to help break down the lack of community transit options.

Vanpool systems are structured around who controls the van, who collects the dues, and who

pays the maintenance and operating fees of the van. Based on the research conducted, there are

three distinct system types: owner-operated, employer-sponsored, or third-party investor.

Owner-operated vanpool systems are often the most effective channel for organizing and

presenting the most efficient system for both the riders and operators. Owner-operated 16

vanpools are owned by the group members, which allows for the involved individuals to be in

charge of the maintenance/ operation cost associated with the van. Placing the control in a

smaller number of individuals is more effective and efficient. 17

A case study that depicts the success of an owner-operated vanpool system stems from a

very small rural community in Cantua Creek, California. The community was able to purchase a

16 Community Transportation Association of America. (January 2012). Innovative Rural Vanpool Programs. Retrieved July 2017, from Community Transportation Association of America: http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/articlefiles/Profiles_of_Innovative_Rural%20Vanpool_Programs.pdf 17 New Jersey Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Vanpools. Retrieved July 2017, from New Jersey Department of Transportation: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/rideshare/vanpool.shtm

12

seven-person van for their community after winning the Just Transit Challenge. The award

presented the community with sufficient funding for the purchase of the van, along with the

operation cost of the vanpool for one year of operation. The financial support helped to promote

the feasibility of the program while also providing a channel of support to a small rural

community that had not seen programs like this before. The program also tackled another

challenge that smaller isolated communities face in today’s age, by presenting alternatives to

today’s modern technology. The program has an established hotline that can assist users in

addition to the internet-based organization of the carpool system. Access to transportation within

this community has the possibility of increasing the overall well-being of the constituents by

granting them access to a wide variety of today’s amenities. 18

Employer-sponsored vanpool systems eliminate a lot of the economic burden that is

placed on the rider within the vanpool system. In this system, an employer covers the costs and

organization of their employees’ transportation to and from work. This system is effective in

rural communities where there is generally more unified employment hubs for the community,

rather than widespread employment in the county. Placing the employer in charge of eliminating

the transportation burden in rural communities helps to promote a more unified work culture.

Enterprise has recently established Rideshare, which partners with employers by organizing

vanpool services for the employees. Enterprise strengthens their argument for riders by pointing

towards monthly savings in comparison to individual commuting cost. Additionally, there are

18 Delgadillo, Natalie. (June 7, 2017). How an Eco-Friendly Rideshare Is Changing Life in a Tiny Rural Town. Retrieved July 2017, from Governing: http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-eco-friendly-rideshare-cantua-creek-rural-california-unincoporated.html

13

some tax incentives established for citizens who commute through vanpools in certain local and

statewide jurisdictions.

Third-party vendors provide a service to a community based on a model that makes

profit, and has been successful in other similar communities. Third-party vendors can include the

use/establishment of transit authorities which establish themselves in the community. These

vendors often have institutional knowledge and staff capacity to organize and develop a

successful operation system, which is an important consideration. Currently in the rural counties

of Maryland there are some vendors established, yet the current operating capacity in bound by

economic and social realms of the system. The generated revenue from the authorities prevents

the expansion of current program hours, along with the expansion of travel routes.

The vanpool recommendation requires widespread coordination among all of the

different systems established within each community and county. The coordination is essential to

make the program fully effective and efficient. In each of the rural counties in Maryland, there

are two main populations suffering from lack of transportation: the working population and the

aging population. The working population needs are centered around specific hours of use (shift

based transportation, “regular” work hour transportation) and points of access (different

employment hubs). This population needs access on a daily basis and the transportation source

must be reliable and efficient. Monitoring typical commuting routes and having coordination of

programs based off of community knowledge will help aid in the success of the program.The

aging population requires more of a self-demand transit access that provides the opportunity to

reach medical providers, food and recreational stores, and other social services. The aging

population required transit locations that are centered around a quality of life destination request,

14

which inherently varies on an individual basis. Having the ridership fees based off of income will

help consistently supply users to the transport system, along with providing a funding source for

the program.

We are proposing a tax incentive for vanpool commuting to the working population, as a

means of increasing ridership for the pre existing transit authorities.With addition to the tax

incentives, the state will require the authorities to implement community wide surveys that assess

current system failures can help establish the needed corrections and map out recommendations

As ridership increases the revenues of the authorities, they can begin to implement the

established recommendations. Additionally, we propose that the state should buy two vans for

each predefined community, as long as they can provide proof of funding for one year of

operation. The community owned vanpool system would better support the older population and

ridership fees would be based off income, helping to keep demand and usage high.

Public-Private Rideshare Partnership

A third policy alternative to consider is creating incentives for private ride-sharing

companies to serve those in rural Maryland. Two of the most popular private ride-sharing

companies are Uber and Lyft. Incentivizing expanding their services would allow rural

Marylanders with unfulfilled transportation needs to get rides when they need them. This

alternative would particularly benefit the elderly population, which likely does not require

consistent transportation as those with a full-time job might, but would use the services on an

as-needed basis.

According to its website, Uber service is available all across Maryland excluding the

Eastern shore. Their region, called Baltimore-Maryland, excludes Cecil County and southward.

15

Service in Maryland on the Lyft platform is broken into four regions: Eastern Maryland, Western

Maryland, Washington, and Baltimore. The Western Maryland Lyft region includes the majority

of north-central Maryland, but it excludes the western tip of the state beyond Hagerstown, which

excludes Garrett, Allegany, and part of Washington counties. Unsurprisingly, the most rural

counties in the state are not serviced by these ride-sharing platforms. Garrett County is excluded

from Lyft’s service area, and Caroline, Kent, and Dorchester Counties are excluded from Uber’s

service area.

While these ride-sharing programs are often designed for urban areas, not rural ones,

partnering with an existing company, rather than creating a state-sponsored program, eliminates

the potential for competition. State-sponsored programs have limited resources by definition and

often have trouble competing with private companies that provide similar services (The United

States Postal Service, for example, has several competitors including UPS and Fed-Ex.) Private

companies also have fewer regulations and less “red tape” to navigate, generally making their

policy changes and disbursement of services more efficient.

The State of Maryland could offer incentives for ride-sharing companies to expand their

ride areas and increase availability rides in rural areas by offering a corporate tax credit for

qualifying companies. To qualify, companies would need to provide a certain amount of service

in areas that are designated to be underserved in transportation. These transportation-needy areas

would be determined by the Rural Maryland Council, as they have much of the appropriate

research and connections with Marylanders to find out exactly where additional help is needed.

Maintenance of rider statistics and administration of the tax credit for companies who qualify

would be overseen by the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT).

16

Rural Transit-Oriented Development Designations

Another policy alternative is to address the underlying development patterns by

establishing rural transit-oriented development designations that would strengthen existing

networks by stimulating transit hubs. Transit-oriented development (TOD), as defined by the

Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), is “a dense, mixed-use deliberately-planned

development within a half-mile of transit stations that is designed to increase transit ridership." 19

Traditionally, TOD is a policy tool used by local governments in urban areas with

comprehensive train networks, but recently TOD has expanded to be applied in suburban areas.

In Maryland, official designation of TOD areas was enabled under statute in 2008. Under this 20

statute, TODs are automatically included in the Sustainable Communities designation, which

allows for eligibility and prioritization for “several state discretionary programs and expanded

scope for local use of Tax Increment Finance (TIF) for related projects.” These designations 21

also receive a variety of assistance from MDOT, including but not limited to: pre-development

planning; property and infrastructure resources; and coordination with state, local, and private

sector partners.

Currently, TODs only exist in central Maryland, extending from the Washington, DC and

Baltimore regions to Montgomery, Frederick, Prince George’s, Anne Arundel, Howard,

Baltimore, and Harford counties. It is recommended that the State of Maryland create rural

transit-oriented development (RTOD) designations which would build off the successes and

19 Maryland Department of Transportation. (n.d.). What is TOD? Retrieved July 2017, from Maryland Department of Transportation: http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/TOD/index.html 20 Maryland Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Maryland TOD Retrieved July 2017, from Maryland Department of Transportation: http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/TOD/TOD_Maryland.html 21 Maryland Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Maryland TOD Retrieved July 2017, from Maryland Department of Transportation: http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/TOD/TOD_Maryland.html

17

existing administrative capacity of TODs. RTODs would be similar to TODs in concept and

benefits, with a few exceptions. RTODs would only be allowed in the 18 counties defined as

rural under the Annotated Code of Maryland and, for them, the meaning of “transit station” as

only railway stations would be expanded to include bus stops.

Additionally, areas designated as RTODs would authorize local transit agencies to

acquire land within that half-mile zone. If needed, the state could provide matching funds for

land acquisitions in areas that are of particular need, which would leverage local assets. After

acquiring the land, local transit agencies could then release a request for proposal to develop

parcels of the RTOD. As more parcels were developed, land value would increase, thus creating

a revolving fund for the local transit agency to acquire more land and improve transit

infrastructure. Both mixed-use development and improved transit options would feed into each

other, bringing amenities closer to people and making it easier for people to get to amenities.

Although this exact model has not been enacted, two Maryland counties are already

pioneering creative development in TODs that RTODs could build off of. Prince George’s

County has a Redevelopment Authority whose primary objective is to “decrease the number of

blighted commercial and residential structures within a 1/2 mile radius of existing transit centers

and improve the quality of life for the residents of Prince George's County.” To do this, the 22

Redevelopment Authority acquires vacant or underutilized commercial and residential property

and ensures the necessary project financing, approvals, and partnerships. Rural governments

might lack the capacity to establish their own Redevelopment Authority, so local transit agencies

22 Prince George's County. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved July 2017, from Prince George's County: http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/1300/About-Us

18

would be given the authority to acquire land and, with the support of MDOT, secure the

necessary components of development.

Montgomery Council pioneered the Transportation Management District (TMD) model,

which could be applied to already existing businesses in RTODs. In TMDs, “employers with 50+

employees within the TMD are required to submit a Transportation Management Plan (TMP),

which outlines the efforts that they are taking to reduce the number of trips made by

single-occupancy vehicle drivers.” Through this model, TMDs have been able to create new 23

shuttle services and carpool options. This model could be adjusted to better suit a rural

environment where often businesses are smaller and have fewer employees.

Because much of the RTOD land is likely currently unattractive to real estate developers,

it is inevitable that the first few parcels would be sold at a loss until the property value increases.

It is recommended that the first few parcels be used to build affordable housing. Existing public

subsidies and tax credits for affordable housing could help cover the potential losses of the first

parcels while still ensuring property values would increase after their development. Affordable

housing would ensure that the RTODs are both serving the populations that are in the most need

and the transit systems have the consumer base needed to successfully grow.

In conclusion, this policy alternative addresses the underlying cause of the problem:

development patterns. Rural TOD designations would allow local transit agencies to cut through

red tape and stimulate rural economic development by utilizing already existing infrastructure.

23 Holt, S. (2015). Project EmpowerTrans: Transportation Options for Connecting Affordable Housing and Growing Job Center. Citizens Planning and Housing Association. Retrieved July 2017, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_2B9BajutOSM29EVlRGQkxHQWs/view?ts=595d08d3

19

Analysis and Recommendation

To choose one specific policy recommendation, we have created a set of criteria to

compare the three alternative. The criteria are: cost to state, political feasibility, administrative

feasibility, efficiency, service to community, and collaboration needed. These have been chosen

in order to best measure the overall effectiveness of each alternative. In order to quantify the

analysis, numeric values have been assigned to the ratings of each alternative, with higher values

signifying the more desirable outcome. Desirable outcomes (low cost, high feasibility, etc.) were

given a score of three, moderate outcomes were given a score of two, and undesirable outcomes

were given a score of one. More weight was placed on important criteria, including cost to state,

administrative feasibility, and service to community. These criteria are designated with an

asterisk. After comparing the numeric outcomes, it was concluded that rural transit-oriented

development (RTOD) designations would most efficiently serve the rural residents of Maryland.

Figure 4: Policy Alternative by Evaluative Criterion

Vanpool Rural TOD Private Incentive

Cost to State* Moderate (2) Low (3) Moderate (2)

Political Feasibility Moderate (2) Moderate (2) High (3)

Administrative Feasibility*

Moderate (2) High (3) Low (1)

Efficiency High (3) High (3) High (3)

Service to Community*

High (3) High (3) Moderate (2)

Collaboration Needed

High (1) High (1) High (1)

Total Points 20 24 17

20

For a multi-modal vanpool system there are direct costs to the state to begin to implement

the unified program. The state would first see a loss of tax revenues from the tax incentive for

using vanpool as a commuting mechanism. Additionally, the state would have to pay for the

vehicles for each county as a means of removing the economic burden these communities would

face if they were to implement on their own. However, after the initial purchase there is no

continued cost to the state. The constituents that reside within these communities would be very

supportive of the implementation of this policy as it benefits them at no cost. The administrative

feasibility for this policy scored moderately since it can be easily implemented, but the cost and

justification of project is for a subset of the entire state population. This multi-modal system is

very efficient for the communities this is constructed for, resulting in very impactful change that

will improve the lives of the individuals. This impact serves the community by providing as

system that is shaped around their direct usage patterns and given feedback. However, this

results in a very high level of collaboration between all of the pre existing transit groups within

these communities, and reallocation of the communities services into an efficient program.

The rural transit-oriented development designation (RTODs) alternative is both ambitious

and based on precedent. The cost to the state is low since the state would only need to enable

RTODs and give land acquisition authority to local transit agencies. Any costs to the state will

come from expanding existing administrative resources, especially in the initial, and if local

transit authorities decide to use state affordable housing tax credits or apply for state grants.

Eventually, RTODs would rely on their own return on investment. This alternative would save

counties money in the long-term and, when parcels were sold for either commercial or residential

purposes, the state would receive money based on increased property taxes. However, because

21

this model initially requires risk and change, it may have a difficult political feasibility in order

to get counties and their local transit agencies to adjust to this system. In the long-run,

municipalities and politicians would likely be in favor of the powerful economic development

opportunity that RTODs present. Due to the current administrative resources located at MDOT,

RTODs present an extremely high administrative feasibility. Additionally, this contributes to the

RTODs efficiency. Because the solution is low cost but targets the underlying issues, RTOD has

a high efficiency and high cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, due to this, there is a high level of

service to the surrounding communities; especially when incorporating affordable housing into

the equation, RTODs will directly serve the population most in-need of increased rural transit

capacity. Finally, RTODs require a high level of collaboration between the State, local transit

agencies, and private developers. In order to combat community members who are adverse to

development, the local transit agencies will need to engage with the community from the

beginning of the RTOD process.

The private company incentive option requires a moderate cost to the state in the form of

corporate tax cuts. The state would not need to cover operational costs of the service itself, as

that would be covered by the private company. Constituents would likely favor the move, as it

does not increase their taxes and encourages companies to expand their services. This solution,

however, would be difficult to implement, earning it an undesirable score for administrative

feasibility. Effective implementation of this program requires adding in tax credits to the state

budget, working with the RMC to determine areas of high transportation needs, publicizing the

available tax credits to private companies, and monitoring the amount of service provided by the

companies to the designated needy areas to determine those who will be awarded the credit.

22

Assuming everything is properly set up, the program itself would be highly efficient since the

service itself is outsourced to the private sector. While it would provide a significant service to

the community, extensive collaboration is required (with MDOT, RMC, private companies, and

others) to make this policy alternative work.

Implementing this policy alternative requires the cooperation of the Rural Maryland

Council and their ability to accurately determine the areas that would benefit the most from this

program. Policymakers would also need to set a maximum for tax credit allowances.

Policymakers must also must determine what threshold of service provided will qualify a

company for the credit, or delegate this task to MDOT. This could be done in conjunction with

the RMC as well, since increased transportation options is one of their policy priorities. This

alternative will likely only be possible with full cooperation of MDOT, the RMC, their research

partners, and other subject-matter experts.

Conclusion

With swift and comprehensive action taken by the state of Maryland, problems faced by

rural counties can be mitigated and quality of life can be improved. We have provided three

policy alternatives, each with its own benefits and drawbacks, that we think will improve factors

such as unemployment rate, health outcomes, economic development, and provide a safety net

for rural elderly and disabled populations.

After performing a cost-benefit analysis, it was determined that rural transit-oriented

development (RTOD) designations are best suited to solve these issues. Benefits include a low

cost to the state, high administrative feasibility, high efficiency, and high service to the

23

community. Ultimately, we believe that RTODs will provide crucial economic gains and provide

hope in struggling communities, in addition to alleviating existing problems.

All projects expanding multi-modal transit networks, including RTODs, serve to benefit

the communities that they target and improve the way in which neighbors and residents feel

connected to their surroundings. Although transportation development can be costly and require

planning, Maryland’s leaders should consider transit expansion an investment in the future of

rural communities.

24