1. National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Transportation October 21, 2008

2. Findings of Initial Tasks (general agreement) Need = number of persons likely to require service Demand = Use of service at given level of quality and cost Both are required; need may be more important to build support It may be more useful to forecast demand related to changes from a base condition

3. Findings of Initial Tasks (some disagreement) Maintain “program/non-program” distinction Quality of service may not be an essential factor Some areas want models to forecast commuter travel to urban centers Some want models to include fare policies

4. Need (Potential Approaches) Number of persons in key population segments (elderly, low income, with disabilities, in social service program) Maximum or 85 th percentile per capita use for peer systems (Minnesota approach) Mobility Gap based on ACS

5. Demand (Possible approaches) Default rates based on: National experience State experience Nearby systems Peer systems Full demand model Market based methods

6. Data Sources Demographic data – ACS (and PUMS) – will be available at the tract level – only source for disability data National Household Travel Survey – valid data only for large geographic areas Rural NTD – service areas not clearly identified – patronage by market not specified – some questions about data quality – general public services only

7. Data Sources (continued) Public Transportation-Human Service Coordination Plans Do not contain detailed data One product may be recommendations on data collection to support need/demand analysis Operating agencies Best source for detailed data Obtaining data requires substantial effort

8. Demand Frameworks Market based similar to B-3 Keyed to demographic data with adjustment for service quality – Commuter to central city element added based on Census – Program vs. Non-program stratification retained Little data available to develop improved model 2000 Census could provide data for commuter model

9. Addresses only demand for Section 5311 funded services Rural NTD coupled with Census/ACS provides data Difficult to define “area served” Depends on quality of NTD reporting Permits analysis of regional variation Possible Demand Frameworks Market based – limited to public transportation

10. Possible Demand Frameworks Peer Group Forecast demand based on state experience Models can be developed only for states having data Project report would describe process for states to adopt Could be integrated with coordination plans

11. Need Framework Based on population segments Mobility Gap by region

12. Demand Framework Service Stratified Section 5311 recipients and similar systems based on Rural NTD Program (sponsored) trips based on B-3 Small city fixed route based analysis of trips/capita vs. service/capita Commuters to urban centers based on Census Journey-to-work

13. Use of Methodology (User comments sought) How will you use this methodology? What problems would you have with the proposed approach?

14. Model Structure (User comments sought) Is the distinction between program (sponsored-trips) and non-program trips useful? What are types of program trips should be addressed? B-3 categories: Developmental ServicesMental Health Services Group HomeNursing Home HeadstartSenior Nutrition HomelessShelter Workshop Job Training

15. Model Structure (user comments sought) Are there key markets we are omitting? Are the data sources we have overlooked?

16. Presentation Formats (user comment sought) Workbook – as for Project B-3 Detailed report explaining methodology Excel spreadsheet On-line application