4. Conclusions and RecommendationsThe disadvantaged make up a significant portion of the North Dakota population. The demographics of the survey group were compared to the demographics of the disadvantaged at large and found that females and the elderly were represented by a higher percent in the survey responses than in the general population. It was discovered that requiring a lift to access a vehicle did not seem to hinder the ability to drive a vehicle. The ability to drive a vehicle did have significant influence on earned income potential. Education also plays a role here, as the average educational attainment for the disadvantaged is lower than the average educational attainment of the general population. Mobility or the ability to go to school, to work, to medical appointments, go shopping and/or visit friends plays an important role in feeling and being included in society for the individuals that are at a disadvantage to the rest of the population. Some of the disadvantaged do not want to ride public transportation. Others would like to ride if it were available to them. North Dakota is striving to make public transportation available to all disadvantaged with the help of federal dollars. However, a higher percentage of North Dakota disadvantaged (36 percent) reported problems with transportation than the national average (30 percent). There still may be some negative stigma associated with riding public transit, or the other choices may be more convenient, as is evidenced by the fact that public transportation is the third ranked mode of choice. There is a need for increased transportation for weekends and holidays when the general population wants to be away from work and spending time with their families. During these times the disadvantaged are neglected. Service on weekends and holidays were the two services that the disadvantaged most desired improvements. By contrast, waiting at bus stops and the training of the drivers were the two services the disadvantaged thought were most ideal. Timing and scheduling needs some increased focus to work out differences between what the transportation providers can accomplish and the needs of the disadvantaged. Fares are always an issue, because customers want them to be lower and operators want them to be higher to cover their ever-increasing cost of doing business. In North Dakota most demand response systems are subsidized by federal funding. Only six systems operating in the state do not get federal dollars to assist with operating costs. When comparing the disadvantaged population as a percent of the total population (15.23 percent), North Dakota ranks 43rd in the nation, but only the section 5311 apportionment for 2002 was North Dakota ranked 43rd; the 5311 for 2003 and 5310 for 2002 and 2003 were less than 43rd in ranking. Coordination by all government agencies that assist in providing transportation to the disadvantaged may be the best and cheapest solution to the need for extended hours of services. Coordination also may help with scheduling and increase the number of trips transportation providers can make for any given time. Maximum use of federal dollars, coordination among government agencies, and discovering innovative funding by transportation providers will be the best means of increasing mobility to the disadvantaged population in North Dakota. References
End Notes1 There is a body of literature specific to transportation of the elderly. However, for this survey we have combined the elderly with the total (five and older) population who have disabilities. 2 U.S. Census: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. State and County Quick Facts, June 16, 2003. <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/38/38001.html> From all North Dakota counties 3 U.S. Census: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. State and County Quick Facts, Washington DC. 21 July 2003 <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html> 4 North Dakota State Data Center. The Population Bulletin, Vol 19 No. 1 January 2003 5 U.S. Census: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. QT-P24. Employment Status by Sex: 2000. Summary Files 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data. Washington DC. 21 July 2003 <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_ts=76842470452> 6 See Appendix B for a copy of the questionnaire. 7 U.S. Census: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. QT-P24. Employment Status by Sex: 2000. Summary Files 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data. Washington DC. 21 July 2003 <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_ts=76843114218> 8 Bommelman, Julie telephone interview. May 2003. 9 U.S. Census: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. P6. Race [8] - Universe: Total Population, Census 2000 Summary Files 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data. Washington DC. 21 July 2003 <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_ts=76840671295> 10 The Harris Poll #56 October 14, 1998; Harris Interactive, Rochester, NY 14623-1457. 11 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration Guide for Rural Programs 2002. Federal Transit Administration, Washington DC. 12 Federal Register: January 2, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 1)] [Notices] [Page 125-184] 13 Harris Poll #56, October 14, 1998, Harris Interactive, Rochester, NY |