Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 13
DATA COMPILATION program of rural public transportation assistance. The BRRA resulted in the loss of service to approximately The data from the surveys, the scan of state pro- 1,500 communities in the first year following enact- gram web information, and the telephone interview ment, with additional service reductions in subsequent data were all compiled into master matrices, and years. It was estimated that the number of points written information such as program guidance, grant served declined from 11,820 in 1987 to 3,690 by applications, or any studies or plans was filed (elec- November 1991.3 Most of these places losing service tronic if down-loadable and paper copies as well). were small towns and rural communities. Several All of this information has been utilized in the sub- states already had intercity bus programs that were sequent sections of this report. For each study area, state funded to address these issues. Michigan, Penn- there is a table or series of tables that includes the sylvania, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin survey responses. developed programs during this period. The rural transit program, Section 18, could be used for inter- CHAPTER 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS: city bus service if a state elected to use it for that pur- INTERCITY SERVICES IDENTIFIED BY STATES pose, and some did or attempted to--Wisconsin and North Carolina are two examples. STATE RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY A broader response to the loss of rural service This chapter summarizes the survey responses re- came in a demonstration project jointly developed by lated to the state agency's knowledge of the existing Greyhound and the Community Transportation Asso- condition of intercity bus services. This part of the ciation of America (CTAA). This project, the Rural survey inquired about the existing intercity bus ser- Connection program, was designed to provide tech- vices, major origins and destinations, connectivity nical assistance, marketing materials, and service (major hubs), the impact of the national intercity bus coordination to enable rural transit operators to link services restructuring, gaps in the network, condition unserved rural points to the national intercity bus net- of terminal facilities (including both private and in- work. These services were distinctively branded and termodal facilities), and significant changes to the marketed through the national intercity bus infor- intercity bus network in the state since 2005. First, mation systems (including the national timetable events leading up to 2005 that impacted rural intercity book, Russell's Official National Motorcoach Guide, bus services on a national level are summarized. and Greyhound's telephone and schedule informa- tion systems). Many offered joint ticketing as well. Other intercity carriers, such as Jefferson Lines, Background on Existing Conditions also participated. The response of the state program managers to Services began in 1989, and by 1990 there were the Section 5311(f) program is to some degree con- 74 rural operators providing rural connection link- ditioned by their perception of the overall condition ages. Although the marketing demonstration and of intercity bus service in their states, particularly the evaluation was funded by the federal transit pro- rural services. The survey included questions about gram, then called the Urban Mass Transportation their view of the service that is provided in their state, Administration, the rural operators provided the op- and changes in that service that potentially affect the erating and capital funds for the services themselves. programmatic responses. Many rural operators had hoped that these services However, it is important to consider these re- would generate sufficient revenues to pay the incre- sponses in light of a longer history of change in the mental costs of the service, but in general they needed level and coverage of rural intercity bus service, and subsidizing just like other rural transit service, and the state transit program responses. Rural services there was no dedicated or set-aside source of federal were already in decline when the federal bus deregu- funds for such services. lation, the Bus Regulatory Reform Act (BRRA), was The Rural Connection was still developing when enacted in 1982. Rural public transportation pro- events intervened. Greyhound Lines faced a national grams involving federal funds were a recent develop- ment at that point in time, as the Federal Highway Administration's Section 147 rural public demonstra- 3United States General Accounting Office, Availability of Inter- tion program had only recently become the Section 18 city Bus Service Continues to Decline, June 1992, pp. 19­20. 13

OCR for page 13
strike. Although management made efforts to oper- managers dropped most of the Section 5311(f) funded ate replacement service during the strike, schedules service that was being operated, and virtually every were disrupted, revenues declined, and bus package state lost some service--and some states lost a great express customers shifted to other providers. The deal. Nearly a thousand service points were elimi- firm faced financial problems and filed for Chapter 11 nated during this period, and remaining services bankruptcy in 1990. When it emerged from bank- were often restructured to provide more express ser- ruptcy protection in 1993, Greyhound did not resume vice between larger population centers. Although all services, and again rural service declined. Greyhound still provides service to over 1,700 points, These events coincided with the passage of there are many fewer non-urbanized stops than ISTEA, a new federal transportation reauthorization formerly, and most remaining services utilize the bill. This legislation expanded funding for the rural interstate routes and so are more remote from small public transportation program, Section 18, and it communities and rural areas that are not adjacent to included a new program, Section 18i, to provide the interstate highway network. assistance for rural intercity bus services. Initially Greyhound's policy on Section 5311(f) and rural 5% of a state's Section 18 formula allocation was set services changed as a result, with a corporate em- aside for rural intercity bus service, with 10% in a phasis on encouraging states to fund rural transit second year, and 15% each year after that. A state operators to provide feeder service to the Greyhound could certify to the FTA that there were no unmet routes. Greyhound and the other bus carriers worked rural intercity needs, and then roll the intercity por- through the National Bus Traffic Association (NBTA) tion into the overall Section 18 program. Sub- to develop systems to allow rural public carriers to sequently this program was codified as the Section sell interline tickets and have schedules quoted by the 5311(f) program of rural intercity bus assistance, intercity carriers. which is in place today. Significantly, the major barrier of local operating Although a source of federal funding was now in match for the rural intercity carriers was addressed by place to allow states to maintain or replace lost in- the new FTA Pilot Project funding, allowing project tercity bus service, reduction of rural intercity bus definitions to include both the subsidized and unsub- service by the major regular-route carriers contin- sidized segments, with the in-kind value of the capital ued. During the period following the Greyhound used on the unsubsidized service used as operating bankruptcy in 1990, many of Greyhound's regional match. This generally allows the federal share to cover interline partners reduced scheduled services. Grey- all the net operating costs of the subsidized segment. hound itself began to apply for Section 5311(f) fund- This most recent round of industry restructuring ing in many states, and by 2003 a number of routes was identified by a number of state program man- were operated with this funding. Because the Sec- agers as the most significant change in intercity bus tion 5311(f) operating funding requires a local match services. In some states the most significant recent equal to 50% of the net operating deficit, a private change was identified as the implementation of new carrier using the operating program continues to or replacement rural intercity services, which is per- face a loss even on subsidized routes. A major car- haps the more positive way of looking at the impacts rier might accept this loss if the combination of sub- of the restructuring. sidy, fares, and revenue from passengers routed onto the network covered the variable costs of the service. State Program Understanding However, for many smaller regional firms, the poten- of Existing Conditions tial benefits of a rural route in terms of feeding traffic to the rest of the system are minimal, and so they did The following sections and tables present state re- not take advantage of the Section 5311(f) program for sponses to the questions about existing conditions, in- operating assistance. cluding key connection points, major corridors, and Greyhound's corporate parent, Laidlaw, Inc., changes in service. Of note is the fact that many state entered bankruptcy in 2001, emerging in June of program managers (particularly those in states with 2003. A new executive management team took over ongoing intercity bus programs or who have recently with a goal of re-establishing profitability. Beginning completed studies) are able to provide information in 2004, the entire network was restructured, region about key stops, service providers, and changes in ser- by region, over a 2 year period. The new Greyhound vice, as can be seen in the tables. States that are not 14

OCR for page 13
shown at all in the tables did not respond to these tions are grouped into a single table (Table 4-4), questions, and in some cases the answers may reflect because for several states the responses to one of a misunderstanding of the question. Some answers these questions referenced the other. suggest that the state respondent is referring only to Section 5311(f) funded services--for example in Illi- Terminals and Their Condition nois, which reports only Section 5311 operators as major intercity bus operators. Of more concern are A total of 39 states identified major intercity bus cases in which a state has intercity bus service, but the facilities. Of these, 32 states indicated the condition state program staff is apparently unaware--for ex- of the terminal, with conditions mostly fair or good. ample, there was one state that reported having no in- One state indicated the condition, but did not iden- tercity bus service, despite the fact that there was ser- tify a particular facility. vice at that time provided by four different intercity operators. Intermodal Terminals A total of 33 states identified at least one facility KEY INTERCITY OPERATORS or city that contains an intermodal facility. Table 4-1 presents the responses to the question, "Who are the key intercity operators in your state?" RECENT CHANGES IN THE NETWORK Most states identified a variety of key intercity opera- tors, including national carriers, regional carriers, and Table 4-5 provides the responses to "Have there rural public transit systems. Four states (Delaware, been any significant changes to the intercity bus net- New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon) identified work in your state since 2005? If `Yes,' please de- themselves as operators, and one state (Indiana) scribe." Eighteen states indicated that there has been identified no intercity operators. no change in their intercity bus network. The 22 states that indicated that there has been a change in the net- work provided some description. Of these, 11 specif- SERVICE AREAS ically identified the national carrier reduction in Destinations service as impacting the network. One state initiated a program to support services in specific corridors, In response to "What are the major intercity bus and one state was able to use other federal funds to origins and destinations? For example, a city, air- support services. port, or college" (Table 4-2), most respondents pro- The tables in this chapter generally reveal that vided specific urbanized areas, small-urban areas, many state program staff do have a perspective on the and other destinations. intercity services in their state, and many are aware of the impact of industry restructuring. Of the 44 states Major Corridors that responded to some or all of these questions, 20 re- sponded that there had been significant changes in In response to "What are the major intercity bus the intercity bus network in that state since 2005. corridors in your state?" (Table 4-3), most states Twelve states reported loss of Greyhound service identified the interstate highway system within their during this period, focusing on the loss of service state. Several states responded that some services to most rural places. Nine states reported new or make use of state and U.S. routes to access more replacement services, and two reported adoption of rural areas. intercity bus network program policies as significant developments. Chapter 5 presents additional information about FACILITIES the national intercity bus network that is not derived The next set of questions was "What are the from the survey of state programs, but is included to major intercity bus terminals? What is their condi- provide a comprehensive basis for consideration of tion?" and "What are the intermodal terminals that the the current status of intercity bus services, including intercity bus service stops at to allow connections to service changes and industry trends over the past other services?" The responses to both sets of ques- several years. 15

OCR for page 13
Table 4-1 Key intercity operators. State Who are the key intercity operators in your state? (Open-Ended Response) AL Greyhound, Trailways AR Greyhound, Jefferson Lines, Kerrville AZ Navajo Transit System, RPTA/Valley Metro, Pima County Tucson, City of Maricopa, The Hopi Tribe, City of Show Low, City of Douglas CA Public Governmental Agencies, Tribal Governments funded under the S.5311(f) program, Greyhound Lines, Orange Belt CO Burlington Trailways, Black Hills Stage Lines, Greyhound, Americanos CT Peter Pan Bus Lines and Greyhound Lines, Inc. DE Delaware Transit Corporation GA Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Southeastern Stages, Inc. IA Greyhound Lines, Jefferson Lines, Burlington Trailways, Royal Charters ID Northwest Stage Lines and Salt Lake Express IL Section 5311 rural transit providers IN There are no intercity operators in Indiana KS Greyhound, Jefferson Lines, OCCK MA Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. and Plymouth & Brockton Street Railway Company MI Indian Trails, Greyhound, Megabus MN Jefferson Lines and Greyhound Lines MO Greyhound, Jefferson Lines, Burlington Trailways, Megabus MS Greyhound and Delta Bus Lines MT Greyhound Lines, Inc.; Rimrock Stages/Trailways; Amtrak; Salt Lake Express; Jefferson Lines; Black Hills Stage Lines ND Jefferson, Rimrock Stage, Newtown & Standing Rock NE Dashabout Shuttle, K&S Express, Blue Rivers AAA, Arrow Stage Lines, Burlington Trailways NH C&J, Concord Coach, Dartmouth Coach, Boston Express (S.5307 recipient) NJ NJ TRANSIT, TransBridge, Greyhound, Shortline-Coach USA NM NMDOT Park and Ride, Navajo, TNMO NV Northern Nevada Transit Coalition, Southern Nevada Transit Coalition, Churchill Area Regional Transit NY Adirondack, Pine Hill-Kingston, New York, Capitol, Fullington & Lake Front Trailways, Greyhound, Coach USA, Megabus, and First Transit OH Greyhound, Megabus and Lakefront Trailways OR Greyhound, ODOT, Valley Retriever, Central Oregon Breeze, Porter Stage, Estrella Blanca, Curry County Transit, Tillamook County Transportation District, Columbia County Transit, Sunset-Empire Transit PA Greyhound, Capitol Bus Company, Carl R. Bieber, Inc., Fullington Auto Bus Co., Susquehanna Transit Co., Myers Coach Lines RI Greyhound, Peter Pan, and Fung Wah SC Southeastern Stages, Greyhound & Lancaster tours TN Private Interline Bus Companies and Smaller Private Transportation Companies and Public Rural Transit Operators TX Greyhound Lines, Kerrville Bus (CUSA), All Aboard America, Americanos USA, and Valley Transit UT Greyhound provides the majority of service connecting to the nationwide network. There are a number of smaller operators who also play a key role in connecting rural areas to the urban Wasatch Front. VA Greyhound Bus Lines WA Greyhound, Northwestern Trailways, Olympic Bus Lines, Travel Washington Apple Line, Travel Washington Dungeness Line, Travel Washington Grape Line, Wheatland Express, Bellair, MTR, Cantrail WI Lamers, Jefferson, Van Galder/Coach USA, Badger Bus, Megabus, Indian Trails, Greyhound, Wisconsin Coach Lines/Coach USA WV Greyhound and Lakefront Lines (Trailways) and Mountain Line Transit Authority WY Black Hills Stage Lines 16

OCR for page 13
Table 4-2 Destinations. What are the major intercity bus origins and destinations? For example, a city, airport, or college. State (Open-Ended Response) AL Mobile, Montgomery, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Huntsville AR Pine Bluff, Little Rock, Fort Smith, Texarkana AZ To Phoenix airport, malls, college, To City of Sierra Vista, Mall, medical, college, To Tucson, To Flagstaff CA Usually an urbanized area with stops at National Bus System Terminals (i.e. Greyhound), some airports, medical and shopping facilities CO Denver metro, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Fort Collins (college), Greeley (college), Gunnison (college) CT New York, NY, Boston, MA, and Providence, RI DE Wilmington, Newark, Christiana Mall, Concord Mall, Amtrak Station, Walmart, Rehoboth, Dover GA City to City IA Des Moines, Ames, Iowa City, Cedar Falls ID CDA, Moscow, Lewiston, Boise, Twin Falls, Pocatello, Idaho Falls IL Springfield, Peoria, Champaign, Rockford, Bloomington, Chicago IN None KS Cross-state routes include Kansas City Metro, Lawrence, Topeka, Salina, Hays, Wichita, Southeast Kansas MA Boston, Springfield, Hyannis, Logan Airport, New York City MI Grand Rapids to St. Ignace (city to city), Lansing to Boyne Falls (city to city), Bay City to St Ignace (city to city), St. Ignace to Ironwood (city to city), Calumet to Milwaukee (city to city) MN The Cities of Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Duluth, and Saint Cloud. In Duluth the service also includes two colleges, in Saint Cloud one college. MO Kansas City, St. Louis MS Urbanized areas (Jackson, Hattiesburg, Gulfport) and County seats (e.g., Greenville, Vicksburg, Brookhaven, Meridian ) MT Billings, Missoula, Great Falls, Butte ND Cities NE McCook, Norfolk, Omaha, Lincoln, Columbus NH Destination: Boston (South Station and Logan Airport), Origins: Portsmouth, Concord, Manchester, Nashua NJ Atlantic City, Philadelphia, New York City, Newark NM Santa Fe government center NV Employment, Medical, Senior Services NY Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Albany, Plattsburgh, Binghamton, Ithaca, Kingston, New York City OH Urban: Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo; Rural: Athens, Marion, Zanesville OR Ontario, Bend, Medford, Grants Pass, PDX (airport), Eugene, Salem, Portland, Oregon Coast PA Harrisburg-State College, Harrisburg-Pittsburgh, Reading-Philadelphia, Pottsville-Philadelphia, Williamsport-Philadelphia RI Origins Providence and Newport Destinations Boston City and Logan Airport and New York SC Charleston, Columbia, Florence, and Greenville TN Jackson, Nashville, Chattanooga and Johnson City; Nashville International Airport, Middle Tennessee State University and Austin Peay College, Nashville, Ethridge, Johnson City and Chattanooga Greyhound bus depots, and Murfreesboro and Nashville Veterans Hospital; and various other destinations in which Greyhound and Urban Transit Carriers can transport them TX Major cities UT Not certain. A study is currently being conducted to identify this. VA Norfolk, Roanoke, Richmond WA Seattle, Olympia, Port Angeles, Port Townsend, Edmonds, Pasco, Walla Walla, Ellensburg, Wenatchee, Omak, SeaTac International Airport, Walla Walla College, Whitman College, Walla Walla Airport, Tri- Cities Airport WI Stevens Point; Milwaukee, O'Hare Airport-Chicago, Mitchell Airport-Milwaukee, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Minneapolis/St Paul, Green Bay, La Crosse, Wausau, Eau Claire, Janesville, Beloit, Sheboygan, Appleton, Oshkosh WV West Virginia University - Morgantown; Pittsburgh, PA - Greyhound and Pittsburgh International Airport; City of Charleston; City of Clarksburg; City of Fairmont; City of Huntington; City of Beckley; City of Bluefield; City of Wheeling; and, City of Parkersburg WY Billings, Montana to Cheyenne, Wyoming 17

OCR for page 13
Table 4-3 Major corridors. State What are the major intercity bus corridors in your state? (Open-Ended Response) AL I-65, US-231, US-331, US-431 AR I-30, I-40, US-71 AZ State Route (SR)-90, SR- 60, SR- 77, SR-85, SR-86, and I-40 CA National Bus System (i.e. Greyhound) uses major Interstates or U.S. Highways, such as US-101, I-5, some agencies funded under the S.5311(f) program also use these routes, i.e. US-395, SR-14, SR-199, SR-299, etc. CO I-25, I-70, I-76 (Denver to Omaha), US-50 and US-285, US-550 CT Hartford, CT to/from New York, NY DE Market Street, Kirkwood Hwy, US-13 Dupont Hwy, I-95, Philadelphia Pike, Concord Pike, DE-24, US-40 - Pulaski Hwy GA I-75, I-16, I-85, I-20 IA I-80, I-35, I-29, I-380, Avenue of the Saints ID Between locations in #2 IL Interstates I-80, I-88, I-55, I-57 IN None KS I-70, I-35 MA Provincetown and Hyannis to Boston; Springfield and Worcester to Boston MI Detroit to Benton Harbor, Detroit to Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids to St. Ignace, Grand Rapids to St. Ignace (city to city), Lansing to Boyne Falls (city to city), Bay City to St. Ignace (city to city), St. Ignace to Ironwood (city to city), Calumet to Milwaukee (city to city) MN I-35 Twin Cities to Duluth, I-35 Twin Cities to Iowa, I-94 Twin Cities to Fargo ND MO I-70, I-44, I-55 MS Interstates: 55, 20, 59, and10. State Routes: 49, 61, 78, 45, and 845 MT I-90, I-94, I-15, US-310 ND I-94, I-29, US-83, US-2, ND-1806 NE I-80, US-6 & US-34, US-30 NH I-95 & I-93 NJ Philadelphia to NYC, Philadelphia to Atlantic City, eastern PA to NYC NM I-25, I-40 NV I-80, US-50, Mesquite Blvd, Laughlin Blvd. NY NYC to Montreal, NYC to Buffalo/Toronto, Albany to Buffalo OH I-71, I-70, I-75, I-90 & US Rts. 23/33 OR Hwy 101, I-5, Hwy 97, I-84, Hwy 20 PA Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, State College, Philadelphia, Allentown, Reading RI I-95 is the major corridor SC Greenville to Columbia and Columbia to Charleston TN Western, Middle and Eastern Regions TX Dallas/Ft Worth to Austin, Houston, El Paso, and San Antonio UT I-15, I-80, I-70, I-84, US-6 VA I-95 and the southern part of I-81 WA US-101, I-5, I-90, US-97, US-12, US-195, SR-270 WI I-94, I-90, I-43, US-41, US-29, I-39 WV Clarksburg-Fairmont-Morgantown, WV-Waynesburg-Pittsburgh, PA; Huntington-Charleston- Beckley-Bluefield, WV; Parkersburg-Charleston, WV; and, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, PA WY I-25 and Highway 20 18

OCR for page 13
Table 4-4 Intercity and intermodal facilities. What are the intermodal terminals that the What are the major intercity bus terminals? intercity bus service stops at to allow What is their condition? (Open-Ended connections to other services? (Open-Ended State Response) Response) AL Greyhound None of record at this time AR North Little Rock, a 1956 building None AZ None Phx Central Station, Tucson Bus Terminal CA Greyhound Lines maintains terminals in most These may vary by location, the authority who major cities in California. Their condition is operates/maintains the facility. Examples may unknown to Caltrans, as we are not the include the City of Lodi, and the City of operator/owner of these facilities. Oceanside, and the City of Arcata. CO Denver Greyhound Station, Colo. Springs, Denver Union Station, Frisco, Durango Transit Pueblo, Frisco Center (coming soon) CT Hartford, CT and New Haven, CT (good) Hartford, CT, Bridgeport, CT, New Haven, CT DE Rodney Square, Amtrak Station, Water Street Amtrak Station, Fairplay Station, Greyhound Transfer Center, Rehoboth Park & Ride all in good condition GA Atlanta - adequate (need new terminal), Macon - Currently intercity bus terminal provides good, Savannah - good, Columbus - good, other opportunity to transfer to MARTA (Atlanta) and cities are adequate taxi service in other cities IA Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Iowa City Davenport, Iowa City ID Only one in Boise and was refurbished within Only one in Idaho Falls last 10 years IL Chicago ­ Good IN Indianapolis, Evansville, South Bend, Ft. Wayne South Bend KS Wichita, Topeka - unsure of condition Unsure MA South Station, Boston - excellent condition; South Station, Boston; Hyannis, MA; Springfield, Hyannis, MA - excellent condition; Springfield, MA; Lowell, MA; New York, NY; Hartford, CT MA - old facility, recent upgrades MI Detroit, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, East Lansing, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, East Lansing, Pontiac, ­ (All good to very good); St. Ignace - Flint, Pontiac, St. Ignace New (under construction) - Marquette (Good), Cadillac (Fair), Traverse City (Fair), Bay City (Fair) MN The major terminal in Minnesota is in The Twin Cities International Airport Downtown Minneapolis. This is the major hub in the Twin Cities, condition is good. There are smaller terminals in Saint Paul, Saint Cloud, Rochester, Burnsville, and Duluth. Condition of the Burnsville terminal is good, the others are fair. MO Kansas City - condition unknown, St. Louis - Unknown condition unknown MS Jackson; Gullfport/Biloxi; Meridian. All in very Same as above good condition MT Missoula (excellent), Billings (excellent), Great Great Falls International Airport Falls (good) ND Bismarck (relatively new, good), Fargo (good) Connect with other intercity & public transit NE Omaha, Norfolk, Lincoln - good condition NH New - excellent bus terminals: Concord, North Dover, Portsmouth & Concord terminals all Londonderry, Londonderry, Salem along I-93 connect with local S.5311 or S.5307 providers and Dover & Portsmouth along NH seacoast I-95 area NJ Atlantic City - excellent, Newark ­good Atlantic City, Newark NM Las Cruces ok, Albuquerque good, Santa Fe Santa Fe South Capitol Station, Albuquerque good Alvarado Transportation Center, Las Cruces NV In Southern Nevada they work in an old jail. Don't understand question They have a new building currently under construction. Churchill and Northern Nevada occupy space in the Sr. Centers and they have both requested new facilities. NY PABT in NYC (good), Kingston (fair), Albany Same as #4 (previous response) (fair), Syracuse (excellent), Utica (excellent), Buffalo (good), Rochester (fair), Binghamton (fair) (continued on next page) 19

OCR for page 13
Table 4-4 (Continued) What are the intermodal terminals that the What are the major intercity bus terminals? intercity bus service stops at to allow What is their condition? (Open-Ended connections to other services? (Open-Ended State Response) Response) OH All the urban and rural areas listed above. In the Zanesville's terminal was built as an intermodal rural areas, only Zanesville has a newer facility. facility. Athens is a community center. Marion's Marion's is in bad shape and Athens is out of a facility is an old bank where they run the rural community center regular bus service also that doubles as intercity. OR Portland Greyhound Station - good, Portland All of above Amtrak Station - good, Medford Greyhound Station - new, Grants Pass Greyhound Station - good, Eugene Greyhound Station - fair, Eugene Amtrak station, good, Salem Greyhound station - fair, Greyhound Amtrak Station - good, La Grande Station ­ new PA Altoona, Erie, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, 30th Street Rail Station in Philadelphia, Berks Reading, Allentown, Lancaster, Williamsport, Transportation Center in Reading, Pittsburgh Hazleton International Airport, Amtrak, Butler Transit Authority in Butler RI RIPTA shares its Providence and Newport Providence and Newport transit hubs with Peter Pan and Greyhound. These hubs are in good condition. SC Greenville, Columbia and Charleston Columbia, Greenville, and Charleston TN Fair to Good Nashville Music City and Johnson City Intermodal Terminals TX Dallas/FT Worth, Houston, San Antonio- Same terminals as in Question 4 renovated largely with S.5311(f) funds UT Salt Lake City (excellent condition), Ogden Salt Lake City, Ogden (excellent condition), Provo (unknown condition) VA Richmond, VA--it's ok Fredericksburg, VA WA Greyhound Terminal in Seattle: Fair; Gateway King Street Station, Seattle; Gateway Transportation Center in Port Angeles: New; Transportation Center, Port Angeles; Edmonds Columbia Station in Wenatchee: Good; Valley Station & Ferry Terminal, Edmonds; Kingston Transit Center in Walla Walla: Good; Ferry Terminal, Kingston; Columbia Station, Greyhound Station in Ellensburg: Good Wenatchee; Pasco Intermodal Center, Pasco; Walla Walla Transit Center, Walla Walla WI Badger Bus terminal in Madison - poor Milwaukee Intermodal; Amtrak in La Crosse condition; Milwaukee Intermodal-excellent; Green Bay Greyhound-unsure; La Crosse Transit - under construction, Amtrak Depot in La Crosse - excellent; Janesville ­ good WV Greyhound Bus Terminal, Charleston (owned Downtown Bus Depot owned and operated by the and operated by the City of Charleston). Mountain Line Transit Authority in Morgantown, Condition is good WV; TTA Center operated by the Tri-State Transit Authority in Huntington, WV; and, Robert C. Byrd Intermodal Center operated by the Ohio Valley Regional Transportation Authority in Wheeling, WV WY Cheyenne, Casper . . . good condition Cheyenne and Casper 20

OCR for page 13
Table 4-5 Recent changes in the network. State Have there been any significant changes to the intercity bus network in your state since 2005? Yes No If "Yes," please describe AL No AR No AZ No CA Yes An Intercity Bus Study was conducted between 2006 and 2008, which offered recommendations for change and improvement to the California S.5311(f) Program. A very significant change involved the creation of the California Intercity Bus Network. CO Yes Elimination of service on US-50 (Pueblo-Montrose-Grand Junction), addition of service on I-76 (Denver-Omaha), addition of service on US50/285 (Gunnison-Salida-Denver), change in operator of Denver-Cheyenne-Casper (changed from Powder River to Black Hills Stage Lines) CT No DE No GA No IA Yes Greyhound pulled out of most routes - taken over by Jefferson and Trailways; Royal Charters is a new route carrier this year ID No IL Yes Greyhound has closed most of their depots IN No KS No MA No MI Yes The addition of a new route called Straits from East Lansing to Boyne Falls, as well as Greyhound removing service to the rural sections of the state MN No MO Yes Routes have been abandoned MS Yes Network coverage has shrunk MT Yes Greyhound dropped its service from Billings to Minneapolis/St. Paul and Billings to Great Falls ND Yes Addition of a new carrier and route NE No NH Yes Boston Express bus service began in 2008 and added significant service along I-93 corridor to Boston. This was funded out of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) transferred into S.5307 and was not administered with S.5311(f) funds. NJ No NM Yes Addition of NMDOT Park and Ride intercity Service www.nmparkandride.com NV No NY Yes Addition of Megabus services OH Yes Yes services by Greyhound have been reduced significantly. They no longer stop at any rural stops other than Marion and Zanesville. Mostly urban areas are served. OR No PA No RI Yes Fung Wah began service in Providence in the last 18 months SC No TN Yes In 2006, TDOT conducted a study of intercity bus service in the state in order to make sure that the Governor's Certification was being adequately reported. The study found that there was a reduction in Greyhound intercity bus service prior to 2005, from 52 stops prior to 2005 down to 17 in 2005. These significant service changes by Tennessee's traditional sole intercity bus service provider, Greyhound, created a significant number of gaps in service for rural Tennesseans. The study also found that the majority of rural transit operators did not offer scheduled regular route services and that most agencies operated on a "demand response" basis versus a fixed route basis. TX No UT Yes Greyhound eliminated service in 2005. Several new hybrid airport shuttle/ICB type services have been developed along the US-40 route. Several small operators have tried to pick up old Greyhound routes with varied success. VA Yes Greyhound has reduced services WA Yes Implemented the Travel Washington Intercity Bus network of rural intercity bus service in three corridors throughout the state WI Yes Greyhound made cuts in 2004 and 2006, which impacted intercity bus service statewide. New route established under SAFETLU pilot program to fund service from Minn/St Paul to Eau Claire, Wausau, Green Bay to Milwaukee. Jefferson Lines eliminated route from La Crosse to Madison, serving communities along Hwy 14 in SW Wisconsin. Megabus began service in Wisconsin: Chicago to Minneapolis with stops in Madison and Milwaukee WV Yes The abandonment of the Morgantown, WV-Pittsburgh, PA route by Greyhound and the assumption of the route by Mountain Line Transit Authority WY Yes Change of operators from Powder River to Black Hills 21