Chapter 3

How Freight 

Transportati on 

Supports Rural 

America
115

Chapter 3: How Freight Transportation Supports 

Rural America 

The focus of this study is freight transportation, with an emphasis on agricultural 

transportation. This chapter places freight transportation in a larger context; it examines how 

freight transportation supports a strong rural America, including rural manufacturing, and how 

it sustains economic development and provides adequate and efficient services for rural 

America. 

An efficient transportation system supports rural economic development. In an efficient rural 

economy, the cost of inputs to agriculture and the cost of living for inhabitants of rural areas 

decreases, the net price to producers and manufacturers increases, market access and 

competitiveness increases, and job opportunities are increased. Successful businesses and 

producers contribute to the quality of life and increase opportunities for rural residents. 

In brief, this chapter shows that an efficient system of freight transportation is an important 

foundation for a vibrant rural economy, including rural manufacturing. Transportation, 

however, does not stand alone, but is one of several key elements that contribute to a strong 

rural economy. Many other factors also help create and support a high quality of life in rural 

communities. In this chapter, we compare some crucial economic and demographic attributes 

of rural America with metropolitan areas. We also describe variations of rural areas along 

several other dimensions, in order to explore the implications for the needs, successes, and 

benefits of freight transportation. The requirements for freight transportation vary. 

Figure 3-1: People often 

choose to live in rural 

areas for a more relaxed 

quality of life and 

closeness to nature. 

Source: Wikimedia 

Commons 

 
116

The economic institutions in rural communities are interconnected. Providing efficient freight 

transportation for a rural region has positive effects on the businesses served, and indirectly 

affects most of the other institutions and aspects of the community. The served businesses, 

whether in agricultural, manufacturing, or other sectors, are able to ship goods and receive 

inputs more quickly and more cheaply, allowing them to expand operations and add jobs and 

make purchases from the local economy. 

Rural America 

One widely accepted and straightforward definition of “rural” is “any county outside a 

metropolitan area.” Using this definition, 2,052 U.S. counties are non-metropolitan, or rural. 

Rural America constitutes about 75 percent of the nation’s land area and 17 percent of its 

population.53 See Figure 3-2 for the location of these rural counties. 

Figure 3-2: Rural and metropolitan counties 

Source: Prepared by ERS using data from the Census Bureau 

The defining difference between rural and metropolitan areas is population density. Rural 

populations are sparse (because land is the major resource of agriculture, economies of scale 

have caused consolidation of farms and a thinning of population), and metropolitan 

populations are dense. 
117

The stereotype of the rural economy focuses on agriculture but, in reality, the picture is more 

complex. As shown in Figure 3-4, agriculture is far from the largest employer in rural America. 

Four other economic sectors—services, government, retail and wholesale trade, and 

manufacturing—comprise 80 percent of rural employment. Agriculture is responsible for less 

than one in ten rural jobs. However, because agriculture is so capital intensive, the economic 

activity generated by it is greater than the job opportunities it creates. The interaction of 

agriculture and the off-farm jobs it supports provides a solid base for many rural communities. 

A solid transportation system is a critical foundation for success in all the economic sectors of 

rural America. 

Figure 3-3: Rural America depends on trucks to move its products. 

Source: USDA 

Rural transportation serves a continuum from the countryside of isolated settlements to the 

urban fringe. Rural production requires farm-to-market or mine-to-power plant movements at 

one end of the continuum, and the urban fringe requires local distribution of medicines, food, 

and clothing similar to core urban areas. Rural transportation is becoming more complex all the 

time. 

 
118

Figure 3-4: Composition of rural employment*

 

Source: BEA, 2006 

The defining difference between rural and metropolitan areas is population density. 

Metropolitan America has, on average, fifteen times as many persons per square mile as rural 

America. Many additional differences exist along economic and demographic dimensions. 

Some key differences are the higher poverty and unemployment rates in rural areas. Rural 

America also experiences lower income and lower high school and college graduation rates. 

Table 3-1 presents these comparisons. 

 

 

*

 Employment can be measured by either the residence or the workplace of the employee. The American 

Community Survey (ACS) uses the residence; the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses the workplace. In 

areas where many employees commute to work from rural to metropolitan areas or vice versa, the rural 

employment information can be substantially different depending on the approach. 
119

Table 3-1: Comparison of economic and demographic indicators in metropolitan and rural 

America 

Demographic Category Rural Metropolitan U.S. Total 

Population Density (per square mile) 18.94 280.45 85.26 

Population Change 2.2% 6% 5.3% 

Median Household Income $40,532 $53,066 $51,658 

Poverty Rate 15.7% 12.4% 13.0% 

Unemployment Rate 5.4% 5.0% 5.1% 

High School Graduation Rate 82.0% 85.1% 84.5% 

College Graduation Rate 17.7% 29.5% 27.5% 

Sources: Population data: U.S. Census Bureau, April 2000-July 2005; Income, poverty and graduation rates: 2007 

American Community Survey; Unemployment data: BLS, 2005 

Rural America is not homogeneous, so the transportation needs vary, with wide variations 

occurring across the nation. Rural areas vary along many dimensions. Table 3-2 shows Stateto-State comparisons and reveals some of these variations. 

Population densities in rural areas differ widely among states. Rural counties in five States (AK, 

MT, NV, UT, and WY) have fewer than five people per square mile. On the other end of the 

spectrum, rural areas in three States (CT, DE, and MA) have more than 170 people per square 

mile. Some rural areas are growing; others are losing population. For instance, the rural areas 

of three States (DE, FL, and NV) had a growth rate of over 10 percent from 2000 to 2005, while 

11 States lost rural population over that same period. 

Income differences also vary widely. Four States (CT, DE, MD, and WY) have a recent rural 

median household income exceeding $50,000, while in five States (AR, KY, LA, MS, and WV) it is 

less than $35,000. Poverty rates, too, vary widely. In five States (AR, KY, LA, MS, and NM), 20 

percent or more of the rural population is below the poverty level; in contrast, in seven States, 

less than 10 percent of the rural population is below the poverty level. 

Local unemployment rates also vary. In December 2005, five States (HI, MA, NE, NH, and WY) 

had rural unemployment rates of 3.5 percent or less, and three States (AK, MS, and SC) had 

rates of eight percent or higher. 

Education levels also vary across rural America. In Wyoming, over 90 percent of the adult 

population holds a high school diploma, but six States (GA, KY, LA, NV, TN, and TX) have a rate 

of less than 75 percent. 

Note that, as striking as these differences across rural America are, the differences would be 

even more dramatic if we were comparing rural counties instead of the rural portions of states. 
120

Table 3-2: Key economic and demographic indicators for nonmetropolitan America, State-by 

State Breakdown 

State 

Non-metro 

Population 

Density 

Non-metro 

Population 

Change3

Non-metro 

Median 

Household 

Income4 

Non-metro 

Poverty 

Rate5

Non-metro 

Unemployme

nt Rate6

Non-metro 

High School 

Graduation 

Rate7

Non-metro 

College 

Graduation 

Rate8

Units Per square 

mile Percent Dollars Percent Percent Percent Percent 

AL 43.1 0.9 35,012 19.16 4.4 75.10 15.12 

AK1 0.4 -0.2 - 12.24 8.9 87.18 21.53 

AZ 11.5 9.1 39,311 19.45 6.1 79.31 15.51 

AR 30.1 -0.5 32,694 20.00 5.9 77.24 13.39 

CA 14.8 5.3 43,789 14.29 6.5 85.38 20.67 

CO 8.4 4.8 47,814 13.24 4.6 87.04 28.56 

CT 213.1 4.8 63,023 6.10 4.9 88.90 28.30 

DE 196.6 12.5 50,976 9.20 3.7 83.50 19.90 

FL 56.5 10.7 39,464 15.88 4 77.43 13.80 

GE 52.5 5.1 35,936 19.57 5.7 74.91 13.94 

HI1 64.9 9.9 - 8.80 2.9 88.60 26.50 

ID 8.3 4.2 42,372 14.13 4.3 86.03 21.20 

IL 47.8 -1.3 41,114 13.81 5.4 84.95 16.52 

IN 79.1 0.3 43,567 12.34 5.9 82.74 13.95 

IA 30.1 -1.7 43,657 10.92 4.8 88.25 17.51 

KS 14.3 -3.0 40,368 12.72 4.5 86.67 21.33 

KY 62.2 2.1 32,553 21.81 6.7 73.64 13.71 

LA 46.1 -0.6 33,652 23.88 7.8 74.36 13.29 

ME 22.0 2.4 39,934 14.24 5.8 88.29 22.40 

MD 103.2 6.5 58,430 9.40 4.5 84.89 24.36 

MA1 171.6 4.8 - - 3.3 - - 

MI 45.9 2.0 40,975 14.49 7.1 86.84 18.68 

MN 23.1 1.7 45,091 10.58 4.5 87.98 19.90 

MS 44.5 -0.8 31,262 24.62 8.4 75.60 15.42 

MO 31.4 2.2 36,403 16.45 5.7 80.01 15.06 

Source: American Community Survey, 2007 

Table Notes: 

1 Some data are not reported due to small percentage of nonmetropolitan population; 2 NJ and RI 

have no nonmetropolitan counties; 3 population percent change in non-metro portions, April 2000-July 2005, U.S. 

Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (metropolitan status as of 2005 was used): 4

 Median household 

income in the past 12 months by metropolitan, U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, Micropolitan Statistical Area Status and 

State, 2007, or American Community Survey, 2007; 5

 percent of people below poverty level in the past 12 months 

(for whom poverty status is determined), Universe: population for whom poverty status is determined, Data Set: 

2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Survey: American Community Survey; 6

 Non-metro 

Unemployment Rates, 2005, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics; 7 Percent of People 25 

Years and Over Who Have Completed High School (includes equivalency), Universe: population 25 years and over, 

Data Set: 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Survey: American Community Survey; 8

 Percent of 

people 25 years and over who have completed a Bachelor's Degree, Universe: population 25 years and over, Data 

Set: 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Survey: American Community Survey. 

 
121

State 

Non-metro 

Population 

Density 

Non-metro 

Population 

Change3

Non-metro 

Median 

Household 

Income4 

Non-metro 

Poverty 

Rate5

Non-metro 

Unemployme

nt Rate6

Non-metro 

High School 

Graduation 

Rate7

Non-metro 

College 

Graduation 

Rate8

Units Per square 

mile Percent Dollars Percent Percent Percent Percent 

MT 4.6 3.7 42,512 14.96 4.3 89.51 25.83 

NE 10.3 -1.4 41,107 12.04 3.5 87.55 19.04 

NV1 2.8 11.5 - 9.36 4.6 69.12 13.60 

NH1 70.5 6 - 7.07 3.2 79.63 26.48 

NJ2 - - - - - - 

NM 6.7 0.1 36,227 20.68 5.8 79.77 18.56 

NY 59.6 0.1 43,056 13.85 5.2 85.60 19.55 

NC 95.7 4.3 38,860 16.85 6 78.16 16.23 

ND 5.3 -5.2 42,482 11.93 4 86.19 19.86 

OH 96.8 0.8 42,138 13.57 6.4 84.61 13.75 

OK 24.5 0.6 36,545 18.78 4.4 81.88 18.24 

OR 10.6 3.4 40,620 14.75 7.3 85.75 17.90 

PA 81.7 1.3 40,955 12.33 5.3 84.54 16.36 

RI2 - - - - - - 

SC 70.8 2.6 36,787 19.25 8.5 77.55 17.48 

SD 6.5 -1.5 39,722 16.46 4.2 85.74 22.58 

TN 64.9 3.7 35,231 18.41 6.9 74.48 11.87 

TX 15.4 2.5 37,208 18.52 5.5 74.78 14.36 

UT 4.7 5.9 43,980 14.16 4.5 87.87 19.02 

VT 51.8 1.8 46,822 11.14 3.6 89.61 31.30 

VA 60.2 2.2 39,585 14.85 4.5 76.24 15.92 

WA 21.1 6.2 42,952 15.46 6.5 86.47 21.42 

WV 48.4 -1.2 33,285 19.33 5.4 77.81 14.16 

WI 40.1 2.4 46,041 10.61 5 87.94 18.13 

WY 4.1 2.5 53,905 9.43 3.5 ` 24.07 

U.S. Total 18.9 5.3 40,532 15.68 5.4 81.98 17.75 

Source: American Community Survey, 2007 

Table Notes: 

1 Some data are not reported due to small percentage of nonmetropolitan population; 2 NJ and RI 

have no nonmetropolitan counties; 3 population percent change in non-metro portions, April 2000-July 2005, U.S. 

Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (metropolitan status as of 2005 was used): 4

 Median household 

income in the past 12 months by metropolitan, U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, Micropolitan Statistical Area Status and 

State, 2007, or American Community Survey, 2007; 5

 percent of people below poverty level in the past 12 months 

(for whom poverty status is determined), Universe: population for whom poverty status is determined, Data Set: 

2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Survey: American Community Survey; 6

 Non-metro 

Unemployment Rates, 2005, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics; 7 Percent of People 25 

Years and Over Who Have Completed High School (includes equivalency), Universe: population 25 years and over, 

Data Set: 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Survey: American Community Survey; 8

 Percent of 

people 25 years and over who have completed a Bachelor's Degree, Universe: population 25 years and over, Data 

Set: 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Survey: American Community Survey. 

Figure 3-5 presents a different perspective on a key variation across rural America. The income 

gap between the rural portion of the state and the metropolitan portion varies widely. In 

Massachusetts, the rural per-capita income exceeds the metropolitan. On the other hand, in 13 

States the rural per capita income is less than 75 percent of the metropolitan income. As 

policymakers strive to decrease this gap, transportation access to jobs and markets is critical. 
122

Figure 3-5: Per-capita income gap 

Rural Vitality 

When asked why they live in rural America, residents give a variety of reasons. For example, 

the responses might be: 

“It’s a great place to raise my kids!” 

“I love living close to the land!” 

“The outdoor opportunities are wonderful—fishing, canoeing, and so on!” 

“I love the small town atmosphere!” 

What remarks like this indicate is that rural quality of life goes well beyond the economy, 

covering a broad range of factors. The rural economy is critical because it allows people to 

choose where to live, enabling them to consider other factors that contribute to a high quality 

of life. 

 
123

A vital rural community offers more than good jobs and income. Beyond—but part 

of—economic development, a vital rural community offers personal security for residents, 

enhances their skills and knowledge, provides adequate income, a good setting, and a strong 

civic foundation. 

A strong economy is a base that allows a successful rural area—one with a high quality of 

life—to thrive in other qualities, such as a low crime rate, good health care, significant 

educational opportunities, information access, high environmental quality, and strong civic 

participation. One of the key qualities is accessibility, reflected in convenient and affordable 

transportation. See the Rural Quality of Life Index in Appendix 3-1 for more information about 

aspects of a vital rural community. 

Many rural communities find that using a community development process helps improve their 

conditions or maintain a high quality of life. Community development addresses three key 

questions: 

1. Where are we now? 

2. Where do we want to go? 

3. How are we going to get there? 

Components of community development include community assessment, visioning, and 

strategic planning. Communities can use their scarce resources more effectively if these 

resources are all considered in a single coherent plan, and all are aimed at the same target for 

an improved community. Freight transportation should be an integral component of such a 

plan. 

Rural Manufacturing 

The transportation system that contributes to the long-term success of rural agriculture is the 

same system that supports rural manufacturing. Although the stereotypical view of rural 

America is dominated by agriculture, it is, in fact, manufacturing that is critical. Manufacturing 

employs 15 percent of the rural workforce. As a share of total employment, manufacturing is 

42 percent more important in rural America than in metropolitan America (Table 3-3). 

Table 3-3: Population employed in manufacturing 

Area of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector’s Share of Employment 

Rural 15.0% 

Metropolitan 10.6% 

U.S. Total 11.3% 

Source: 2007 ACS*

 

*

 Employment can be measured by either the residence or the workplace of the employee. The American 

Community Survey (ACS) uses the residence; the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses the workplace. 
124

The importance of manufacturing to the local economy varies from place to place. In six States 

(AZ, CO, MT, NV, NM, and WY) manufacturing’s share of rural employment is less than 5 

percent; in five States (AL, IN, OH, TN, and WI) the percentage in manufacturing exceeds 20 

percent (Table 3-4). 

Table 3-4: Rural population employed in manufacturing by State 

State Percent of Rural Employed in 

Manufacturing* State Percent of Rural Employed in Manufacturing 

Alabama 20.44 Montana 4.96 

Alaska 9.82 Nebraska 13.38 

Arizona 4.11 Nevada 4.64 

Arkansas 19.46 New Hampshire 10.47 

California 5.22 New Jerseyb - 

Colorado 4.56 New Mexico 4.31 

Connecticut 15.30 New York 12.53 

Delaware 10.50 North Carolina 17.08 

Florida 6.01 North Dakota 8.11 

Georgia 15.82 Ohio 23.03 

Hawaii 3.30 Oklahoma 11.23 

Idaho 9.79 Oregon 11.72 

Illinois 15.82 Pennsylvania 17.39 

Indiana 29.04 Rhode Islandb - 

Iowa 19.39 South Carolina 17.73 

Kansas 14.64 South Dakota 9.89 

Kentucky 15.41 Tennessee 22.14 

Louisiana 10.07 Texas 10.92 

Maine 11.47 Utah 8.76 

Maryland 6.02 Vermont 10.61 

Massachusetts† - Virginia 13.42 

Michigan 17.77 Washington 8.96 

Minnesota 16.73 West Virginia 9.53 

Mississippi 17.61 Wisconsin 21.44 

Missouri 15.03 Wyoming 4.68 

U.S. Total 14.99 

Source: 2007 ACS*

 

*

 GCT2404. Percent of Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over in the Manufacturing Industry 

Universe: Civilian employed population 16 years and over 

Data Set: 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 

Survey: American Community Survey †

 Data are not reported due to small percentage of rural population. 
125

The composition of the manufacturing sector also varies across rural America. For instance, 

textile and apparel firms provide about 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs in the South, but 

less than 10 percent in each of the other regions (Table 3-5). Such differences result in 

different demands for freight transportation. Studies have shown that the availability of rail, 

air, and highway services is one of the most commonly cited requirements of manufacturing 

and commercial establishments. 

One of the benefits of transportation is that it enables specialization in the production and 

manufacture of goods. Since communities and regions vary in characteristics, the ability to 

produce or manufacture items will also vary. A region that specializes in one type of product 

can often produce it at a lower cost, giving it a competitive advantage. 

Even more dramatic place-to-place differences in composition of the local manufacturing sector 

would be shown if comparisons were made across States or counties. 

Table 3-5: Rural manufacturing employment by sector in 1996 

 *

 Employment can be measured by either the residence or the workplace of the employee. The American 

Community Survey (ACS) uses the residence; the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses the workplace. 
126

Manufacturing’s Contribution to Rural Vitality 

Manufacturing wages and benefits are generally higher than 

wages and benefits in other economic sectors. Average weekly 

earnings in manufacturing are more than 20 percent higher 

than in other non-farm private economic sectors.54 Income 

and benefits are a key foundation for a strong rural community, 

so manufacturing jobs created by access to markets from rural 

areas are major contributors to sustained development and 

quality of life. It is not just another job; it is a particularly 

attractive job.

As manufacturing moves from region to region, the demands 

on the transportation system shift from region to region as 

well, either before the shift, or to support the shift. Without 

adequate transportation, such shifts will not occur or, if they 

do occur, the shift will be constrained. 

Table 3-6 shows results from a study conducted in 1996 that 

found “quality of available labor” was listed as the most 

pressing problem of rural manufacturers, with 34 percent 

describing it as a “major problem.” Other problems identified 

as major by more than 20 percent of rural manufacturers were 

“State and local taxes” and “environmental regulations.” Four 

transportation factors were cited, but each was identified as a 

“major problem” by fewer than 10 percent of rural 

manufacturers, suggesting the current system was providing 

adequate service. 

A substantial example of the effect of transportation on 

economic opportunity and development is the impact of the 

Appalachian Regional Commission, whose charge was to foster 

and promote the economic and social development of the 

Appalachian Region. A study by Wilbur Smith and Associates 

found economic efficiency increased by the planned and 

partially implemented, 3,440-mile network of highways.55 The 

constant dollar economic return was 7.87 percent and the 

benefit cost ratio was 1.18. For economic development results, 

the economic return was 8.29 percent and the benefit cost 

ratio was 1.32 percent. This study projected that the 

investment will yield 16,279 jobs in 1995 and 42,190 in 2015. 

Wilbur Smith states, “These jobs occurred because the new 

highway system had made the Region a better place to invest, 

live, and work.” 

The location strategy of 

manufacturing plants has 

evolved over recent decades 

Manufacturing has traditionally 

located in rural areas to take 

advantage of lower labor and 

land costs. Since the late 

1980’s, some manufacturers, 

competing based on low-cost 

production, shifted their 

production overseas. Other 

manufacturers took advantage 

of new technologies and 

management practices and 

began to compete based on 

product quality. This shift 

resulted in a need for more 

highly skilled labor, so 

manufacturing moved to rural 

areas with better schools and 

fewer high school dropouts. 

Such changes in strategy were 

reflected in a shift in the 

location of manufacturing 

employment. Manufacturing 

jobs grew by about 7 percent in 

low-education counties during 

the 1980’s, reflecting the search 

for lower labor costs. In the 

1990’s, the pattern reversed 

and low-education areas lost 

jobs, as manufacturers sought a 

more highly skilled labor pool. 

Areas with high rates of high 

school completion are found 

largely in the Great Plains and 

parts of the rural West and 

these areas have been most 

attractive to employers. Areas 

with the lowest rates of high 

school completion are found 

throughout the rural South.*

 

*

 ERS, Amber Waves, Feb 2003. 
127

Table 3-6: Major factors affecting rural manufacturers 

Wide variations occur even within regions. A study of rural counties in the South found that 

counties with substantial manufacturing employment are less likely to have high poverty 

rates.56 

Freight Transportation’s Role in Supporting Rural Vitality 

As has been discussed previously, freight transportation plays a significant role in supporting 

the vitality of rural communities, but the economic core varies across rural America. In some 

places, agriculture is the primary economic sector. Elsewhere, manufacturing or services may 

be central, so freight transportation’s role varies from place to place. Manufacturing and 

agriculture both need transportation—for inputs, to move output, and to find and access 

markets. The same transportation system can serve both, thus increasing the development 

possibilities and opportunities. 
128

Even in places that appear to be similar, the freight transportation situation may turn out to be 

different. For instance, just knowing that an area’s economy is heavily dependent on 

agriculture is not sufficient. An agricultural county in the Midwest may concentrate on 

producing grain, perhaps with a heavy dependence upon barge and rail transport to ship the 

product. Another county in the same state may focus almost exclusively on the production of 

corn for ethanol, with truck transportation needed for assembly of the corn feedstock for a 

nearby ethanol plant. Another agricultural county (perhaps in California or Pennsylvania) may 

concentrate on high-value perishable fruits and vegetables, relying largely upon air transport 

and overnight trucking to ship to domestic, European, and Japanese metropolitan markets. 

It is worth noting that a strong freight transportation system is able to serve changing 

economies. Thus, an agricultural region served effectively and efficiently by truck and rail 

transport will be able to make a smooth transition to more manufacturing, since the 

transportation infrastructure is in place and ready to accommodate the new composition of the 

local economy. 

The manufacturing process, just like production agriculture, takes inputs and then transforms 

them, using labor and machinery, to produce an output. Freight transportation plays a critical 

role in getting the inputs to the manufacturing facility and in moving the outputs from the 

manufacturing plant to their next destination. Strong transportation facilities make a rural area 

more attractive for manufacturing plants, but a range of other community attributes that 

contribute to a high quality of life and business success also influence manufacturing location. 

A rural community interested in retaining or attracting manufacturing will consider its ability to 

serve the freight transportation needs of these manufacturers but also pay careful attention to 

these other factors.

Freight transportation requirements vary from one manufacturer to the next. Smaller, lighter, 

more perishable or more expensive inputs and outputs are likely to require air transportation; 

larger, heavier, less perishable, and less expensive inputs and outputs are likely to require 

ground transportation. In most instances, having more than one transport mode readily 

available will result in better service and rates; rural development is often enhanced by the 

availability of competitive and complementary transportation modes. 

Given the variations in community characteristics and manufacturing plants, there is no 

universal answer to the question of what freight transportation infrastructure is required to 

support rural manufacturing effectively. 

 
129

Regardless of its economic composition, a rural community will do better by integrating its 

consideration of freight transportation into the larger picture, thinking about how freight 

transportation, in conjunction with other aspects of the community, can best support the 

community’s overall strategic plan. For example, truck transportation requires a highway with 

sufficient capacity; but if this is the same highway that will be used by tourists coming into 

town, then the community will need to think about tourism as well as freight transportation 

needs in deciding preferences for the route and design specifications of the state highway into 

town. The wide, straight road best for big trucks is not the scenic, winding road most attractive 

to tourists. 

Transportation infrastructure is largely regional rather than local. For instance, the rail line that 

links western Nebraska with Denver serves many communities, not just one. Single 

communities or rural counties will be more successful if they join other communities in a 

regional approach to freight transportation. 

Combining these two principles (thinking broadly and thinking regionally), the most effective 

way for a rural community to approach freight transportation’s role in supporting rural vitality 

is via a regional and comprehensive approach. 

Conclusions 

An efficient transportation system supports rural economic development. In an efficient rural 

economy, the cost of inputs to agriculture and the cost of living for inhabitants of rural areas 

decreases, the net price to producers and manufacturers increases, market access and 

competitiveness increases, and job opportunities are increased. Successful businesses and 

farmers contribute to the quality of life and increase opportunities for rural residents. 

The economic institutions in rural communities are interconnected. An efficient system of 

freight transportation is an important foundation for a vibrant rural economy, including rural 

manufacturing. Transportation does not stand alone but is one of several key elements that 

contribute to a strong rural economy; many other elements work with transportation to 

support a high quality of life in rural communities. 

Rural communities are unique and different from one another, and their needs for freight 

transportation vary. An efficient transportation system is defined by the needs of each 

community. 
130

Appendix 3-1 

Rural Quality of Life Index 

Economy 

Economic vitality: The community can generate revenue from several economic sectors. 

Entrepreneurship: Business creation and expansion is widespread, supported, and celebrated. 

Business ownership: The community’s economy is substantially under local ownership. 

Natural resources: Natural resources are valued and effectively managed to assure the community’s continuing 

economic well-being. 

Income: Most workers in the community earn enough to sustain a family and receive good benefits, and most nonworkers have enough income to live above the poverty level. 

Personal Security 

Food: Almost everyone has easy access to sufficient nutritious food. 

Shelter: Almost everyone lives in safe, clean, uncrowded, and affordable housing with basic utilities. 

Crime: Persons and property are safe. 

Health: Almost everyone is in good health, and those that aren’t have access to good health care. 

Safety net: Effective services are available for those in personal or financial jeopardy. 

Dependent care: The vulnerable (children and dependent adults) have access to high-quality, affordable care. 

Skills and Knowledge 

Education: Community schools provide high-quality K-12 education for all children. 

Skills development: Job and skills training is up-to-date, supports viable economic development strategies, and is 

readily available. 

Information access: Most persons have access to a variety of modern, rapid, and affordable information sources. 

Setting 

Accessibility: Important services are easily reached regardless of a person’s mobility or income, either by being 

nearby or by use of convenient and affordable transportation. 

Environmental quality: The air is clean, the ground is uncontaminated, drinking water is pure, and waterways can 

be used for recreational purposes. 

Appearance: The community looks good, and almost everyone helps keep it attractive. 

Civic Foundation 

Civic participation: Social, artistic, cultural, religious, and recreational opportunities are readily available, and most 

persons have the time and resources to participate in them regularly. 

Decisions: Decisions on key community issues generally reflect a consensus, arrived at through serious and open 

discussion of new and time-tested ideas, and involving a broad spectrum of participants. 

Can-do attitude: Discussions focus on opportunities, not problems, with the belief that the community’s future is 

largely in its own hands. 

Reality check: Most key institutions regularly conduct both internal and external assessments. 

Diversity: All persons are accepted and well integrated into the community, including in leadership positions. 

Gathering places: The community has easily accessible and frequently used gathering places where key 

community activities and events occur. 

Migration choice: Most persons live in the community by choice; they feel it is a good place and is moving in the 

right direction. 

Regional integration: The community acts as part of a larger region, generally collaborating with nearby 

communities. 

Source: USDA, presentation to International Society of Quality of Life Studies, Annual Conference, November 

2004.