Conclusions

The rural states in the Midwest are characterized by large geographic regions, low population densities, and a large number of road miles to maintain. Further, the road structures are aging and the limited resources are not adequate to maintain or improve the road structures. Decision makers are responsible for the rural road infrastructure but have not always utilized public input in the decision-making process. Transportation legislation, ISTEA (1991) and TEA21 (1998), strongly encouraged public input so that decision makers would better understand the needs of the residents in their service area. Organizing rural input is challenging for rural states. The Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, with the help of county engineers and road supervisors, developed a questionnaire survey to measure differences in perception of maintenance between decision makers and users (users to represent the general public).

This study took into consideration several road factors, including roadway elements, operational conditions, maintenance, and funding. The survey instrument was used to collect data to measure differences in perceptions of road users and decision makers in three states, including Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. This study found statistically significant differences in these perceptions for many of the road factors considered. In the majority of the factors, perceptions of the decision makers were more positive about the condition of the road system than the rural road users' perceptions. The statistical significance varied by state.

We found less statistical significance in Montana, revealing that the decision makers may be more aware of the needs of rural road users. There were statistically significant differences in perceptions of road users and decision makers for road maintenance and snow removal, indicating a need for decision makers to pay closer attention to maintenance activities and snow removal. Overall, decision makers' perceptions were more positive than the users, but not statistically, with the exception of "adequate emergency services" on paved roads.

North Dakota had the greatest amount of statistical significance in perceptions between decision makers and users. We do not know why there was such a high level of statistical significance between the groups. Three possible explanations are: 1) poor communications between decision makers and users; 2) decision makers are not aware of user demands; or 3) unrealistic expectations by the users.

South Dakota had limited statistically significant differences between the perceptions of decision makers and users. Although decision makers tended to have a more positive perception of the road system than users, it appears that decision makers are aware of the users' needs.

Surprisingly, several respondents were supportive of increasing certain taxes to improve the condition of the roads. We could conclude that decision makers in each of the three states have some avenues to consider for increasing rural road funding. Based on the survey responses, Montana decision makers may want to consider implementing a sales tax; North Dakota and South Dakota decision makers may want to consider increasing the fuel tax to pay for road improvements.

This study found significant differences in the perceptions of rural road users and decision makers regarding the rural road system. The perceived needs of the rural road users may always outweigh the available funding to improve or even maintain rural roads. The large geographic areas coupled with sparse populations will likely continue to plague rural areas and further challenge the decision makers, who already make difficult choices with the rural road system. The results of this study provide decision makers with a perspective of how users perceive the quality of rural roads. The findings validate the importance of good communication between decision makers and rural road users.

Bibliography

Freier, Tom D., North Dakota Surface Transportation Fact Book. North Dakota Department of Transportation, Bismarck ND. December 2000.

Hough, Jill, ed. Proceedings of the TEL 8 Low Volume Road Conference. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo North Dakota. November 21, 1995.

Hough, Jill A., Smadi, Ayman G., Bitzan, John D., Innovative Financing Methods for local Roads in the Midwest and Mountain-Plains States. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo, North Dakota, July 1997.

Leftwich, David. North Dakota Department of Transportation, Local Government Engineer. Phone conversation, December 2002.

McClure, Scott, Quick Facts About your National Bridge Inventory, Sandia Analytics, Daytona Beach, Florida, 2002.

Policy Analysis and Statistics Department. Nationwide and State-by-State Motor Fuel Taxes. American Petroleum Institute. Washington, D. C, March 2001.

Texas Department of Transportation. Roadway Design Manual. October 2002. Available online http://manuals.dot.state.tx.us. December 2002.

http://www.mdt.state.mt.us/departments/maintenance/goals_objectives.html, December 2002.

http://www.state.sd.us/factpage.htm, December 2002.

http://www.sddot.com/geninfo_facts.asp, December 2002.

¹ Phone conversation with Mr. David Leftwich, North Dakota Department of Transportation, Local Government Engineer, December 2002.

² Texas Department of Transportation. Roadway Design Manual. October 2002. Available online http://manuals.dot.state.tx.us.

³ http://www.mdt.state.mt.us/departments/maintenance/goals_objectives.html

⁴ McClure, Scott, Quick Facts About your National Bridge Inventory, (2002) Sandia Analytics, Daytona Beach, Florida.

⁵ Freier, Tom D., North Dakota Surface Transportation Fact book, December 2000, North Dakota Department of Transportation, Bismarck ND.

⁶ Hough, Jill, Proceedings of the TEL 8 Low Volume Road Conference.(November 21, 1995) Upper great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo North Dakota. Pg23.

⁷ McClure, Scott, Quick Facts About your National Bridge Inventory, (2002) Sandia Analytics, Daytona Beach, Florida.

⁸ http://www.state.sd.us/factpage.htm

⁹ McClure, Scott, Quick Facts About your National Bridge Inventory, (2002) Sandia Analytics, Daytona Beach, Florida.

¹⁰ http://www.sddot.com/geninfo_facts.asp

¹¹ Hough, Jill A., Smadi, Aymen G., Bitzan, John D., Innovative Financing Methods for local Roads in the Midwest and Mountain-Plains States. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo, North Dakota, July 1997.

¹² Policy Analysis and Statistics Department. Nationwide and State-by-State Motor Fuel Taxes. March 2001, American Petroleum Institute. Washington, D. C.

¹³ Hough, Jill A., Smadi, Ayman G., Bitzan, John D., Innovative Financing Methods for local Roads in the Midwest and Mountain-Plains States. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo, North Dakota, July 1997.

¹⁴ Policy Analysis and Statistics Department, Nationwide and State-by-State Motor Fuel Taxes. March 2001, American Petroleum Institute, Washington D. C.

¹⁵ Hough, Jill A., Smadi, Ayman G., Bitzan, John D., Innovative Financing Methods for local Roads in the Midwest and Mountain-Plains States. Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo, North Dakota, July 1997.

¹⁶ Policy Analysis and Statistics Department, Nationwide and State-by-State Motor Fuel Taxes. March 2001, American Petroleum Institute, Washington D. C.

| Table of Contents | < Prev |