Authors : J. Oluwoye and E. Gooding
Abstract: Impacts of rural transit system can be viewed from at least two of perspectives. They can be analyzed from the transit users (users’ impacts) or that of the transit providers (public impacts). From the viewpoint of transit providers, rural transit systems will have impacts on overall economic development and on fiscal revenue. If rural transit operations have measurable impacts on their local economies, one should be able to observe and measure those impacts by looking at similar sets of counties whose chief distinction is that one set of counties has rural public transportation services and the other set of counties does not. The aim of this study is to determine the local share of county expenditures. This study considers the relative concentration of retail sale and service industry in the county to the state average. Specifically, the objective is to estimate the portion of local expenditure. The main research method employed in this study is the use of secondary data. The study focuses on extraction of information from U.S. Census Bureau and County Business Patterns (NAIS), etc. The data analysis reveals that the impact of rural transit service depends on county resident flow. The theoretical model behind the county flow: If P is > than 1 it means that the county resident flow is outside the county and their expenditure are assumed to be expended outside the county boundary, but if P is < than 1 it suggests that the county residents flow is within the county and their expenditure will be spent locally. The study concludes that some counties resident flow is within the counties and their expenditure were spent locally. In overall the hypothesis for this study was confirmed that the county employees in retail and service industry per thousand populations and the expenditures of local residents are more likely to be spent locally.
Oluwoye, J. and E. Gooding , 2006. Measuring the Impact of Rural Transit Operations on Their Local Economies: A Case Study of Alabama. The Social Sciences, 1: 216-222.