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 54
Table 7-13 (Continued) Please describe your consultation process. If it is evolving, describe the most recent efforts and State discuss planned changes. (Open-Ended Response) None. We utilize all of our 5311(f) funds in applicable rural areas through 5311 subgrantees as well NM and NMDOT Park-and-Ride service. Long before SAFETEA-LU, NYSDOT has had great coordination and consultation processes with NY operators through meetings, conferences, program applications, safety inspections, etc. We have completed all of the above as indicated. We currently have a consultant that is in the process of developing a proposal process to bid out intercity services to local rural providers to administer intercity services that will then bid out to the private intercity bus operators. We have identified 3 OH intercity routes which we are working on first. (1) Keep statewide transit information site up to date (http://www.tripcheck.com/rtp- to/cityCounty/cityCountySearch.aspx); (2) email notification of grant and contracting opportunities; OR (3) Ongoing assessment of state intercity priorities. PA Annual meeting with all intercity bus carriers. RIPTA identifies all intercity carriers that serve Rhode Island and contacts them to offer the RI opportunity to discuss intercity bus issues. SC Invited all known intercity providers in state to a meeting to discuss intercity bus issues. Tennessee is in the first year of an Intercity Bus Demonstration Program. Applications were sent out to over 114 agencies and private carriers. There was an open grant period from June 26, 2009, until August 21, 2009, at 4:30 p.m. Consultation Process requirements were met by allowing private TN carriers to be a part of the competitive application process. (Consultation list is available.) TX Face meetings, conference calls, emails. UT Inventory of transportation providers, telephone interviews, workshop. VA Hire a consultant to do process. Quarterly meetings with existing contracted intercity bus providers. Initiated discussions with WA Oregon DOT about partnership service between SE Washington and NE Oregon. Intercity bus carriers who operate in and around Wisconsin are contacted by letter each fall. The letter describes the amount of 5311(f) funding available and the process for applying for such funding in Wisconsin. As requested, we meet with intercity bus providers. Some intercity providers attend WI statewide transit conferences. West Virginia has taken several steps to obtain input. In the development of local public transit- human services transportation plans, WV gathered input from public and private operators. Meetings were conducted around the state, which were attended by numerous groups. Additional opportunities were afforded through the TIP and STIP processes. A notice was published soliciting projects and input concerning intercity bus service and needs in the state. Copies of the notice were sent to ABA, UMA, and Greyhound. The state also surveyed current S. 5311 subrecipients regarding possible connections to existing intercity services. WV also surveyed the contiguous states of OH, WV PA, VA, MD, and KY. The state also held numerous conference calls with Greyhound. potentially unlike the typical S.5311 program, with by states. In Chapter 6 of this report, Figure 6-1 different goals and objectives, a different set of poten- presented a map of states that have implemented tial operators, and different types of service. Some S.5311(f) programs as of December 2009. The states are recognizing that the goals of the program survey responses in this chapter come from those and the requirement for a consultation process (poten- states. tially including a needs study as well as a solicitation of input) are leading them to take a stronger role in SUCCESSFUL ASPECTS OF THE defining an appropriate statewide intercity bus (or SECTION 5311(F) PROGRAM even intermodal) network, and targeting the lim- ited available funds to fill the gaps in that network. The survey asked states to identify aspects of their S.5311(f) program implementation that they regarded as particularly successful. The responses to CHAPTER 8 PROGRAM EVALUATION this question are presented in Table 8-1. This chapter presents an evaluation of the Twenty-four states responded to this question, S.5311(f) program from the perspective of the states, and 21 states identified a successful aspect (or proj- as well as in terms of program outcomes reported ect) of their program. Eleven states are providing 54
OCR for page 55
Table 8-1 Successful aspects and projects of state programs. What aspects of your S.5311(f) program implementation do you regard as particularly State successful? (Open-Ended Response) AL The Selma to Montgomery intercity connector described above AR Our consultation process New applications, project evaluation and scoring, development of State Intercity Bus CA Network The new in-kind match pilot program has been successfully used to initiate a route that CO otherwise would not have occurred GA The Capital Program of procuring new MCI Buses IA Getting other carriers to take over after Greyhound abandonments ID It does meet the basic intercity needs IL Replacement vehicles IN INDOT doesn't have a demand for intercity service here in Indiana MA Ability to provide operating assistance to pilot new or innovative services The addition of a new route and the continuation of current services. Availability of federal MI funding for capital projects. MO Keeping routes that would otherwise have been abandoned Ability to meet the needs documented by the operator/applicants through a simplified MS consultation and application process MT Facility renovation, service enhancement NJ Program is still being developed NM Adapted program to work in New Mexico market NY Preservation of rural intercity services OH The administration of ticketing agents and purchase/construction of two facilities TX Multimodal facilities and facility renovations UT We haven't implemented anything yet VA Not much Providing real, scheduled connections with national intercity bus and rail providers for rural WA residents mobility Support of intercity bus service provided by Mountain Line Transit Authority in the WV Clarksburg-Fairmont-Morgantown, WV-Waynesburg-Pittsburgh, PA corridor WY Keeping route open for public between Billings and Cheyenne. funds to maintain or initiate services, and five states ISSUES WITH THE SECTION 5311(F) are providing funds for capital projects. The imple- PROGRAM mentation of the "Pilot Project" in-kind program Table 8-3 presents the responses to the question, was identified by one state as being a successful "What issues, if any, do you have with the goals, struc- aspect. Other successful aspects identified include ture, or implementation of the S.5311(f) program?" improved connectivity of services, the consulta- Nineteen states replied to this question, and nine tion process, and project evaluation. of these identified that there are no issues. Issues that were identified included difficulty in meeting local AREAS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT match requirements (three states), dependence on adjacent states to provide fair share of interstate ser- Table 8-2 presents state responses to the ques- vice (one state), distinguishing rural intercity pro- tion, "What aspects of your program would you grams from other rural transit services (one state), change?" need for FTA guidance in determining if a private Twenty states replied to this question. Replies company's stated costs are accurate (one state), and referred to improving intercity awareness/relevance the perception that the 15% set-aside should be elimi- within state programs, increasing private carrier par- nated (three states). ticipation, identifying other uses of program funds, program updates, reducing local match requirements, increasing funding to allow increased services, and GAP-FILLING USING SECTION 5311(F) eliminating the 15% set-aside. Seven responses One of the greatest indicators of the success of either indicated "none" or otherwise did not indicate the program is the amount of service being provided. a desire for change. The Rural National Transit Database (NTD) indicates 55
OCR for page 56
Table 8-2 Program aspects states would change. State What aspects of your program would you change? AL Would like to expand to other rural communities CA Continue to develop State Intercity Bus Network CO We need more intercity bus presence in the long-range plan GA Would like to investigate other options such as upgrading intercity bus terminals and providing operating assistance IA None ID Very little coordination with local & regional systems IL More private carrier involvement KS We've just started working on S.5311(f) MA None MI None MS Formalize the program and base it on a more up-to-date assessment NM None NY None OH More staff to dedicate to build a solid program TX Need to develop state-wide plan UT N/A VA Eliminate the entire requirement WA Ability to have more funding to implement more service in other corridors statewide. WI To lower the local match requirement WV None Table 8-3 State issues with the S.5311(f) program. What issues, if any, do you have with the goals, structure or implementation of the State S.5311(f) program? AL Local funding CA None identified CO The 50/50 match makes it difficult to initiate any routes that would not be profitable. The in- kind match mechanism is very useful to address this. It would also be helpful to have FTA guidance on how to determine if a private company's stated costs are accurate. GA None IA None MA None MI None MO It should be a completely separate program and not put intercity bus into competition with rural providers. MS We do not agree that the 15% set-aside is justified MT None NJ Our first outreach, application will be this spring NM The program and 15% target should be dismissed. It's a holdover from requirements from a bygone era. NY None RI RIPTA operates transit service that connects rural areas to the intercity bus hubs, but FTA does not recognize these scheduled services as providing feeder service to intercity bus stops. UT N/A VA Eliminate the entire requirement. WA No issues with structure or implementation of the S.5311(f) program. WI 50% local match is unattainable for most communities. WV The issue we have is the interstate nature of the proposed projects. Our decision to fund a project depends on the willingness of our neighboring states to fund the same projects. 56
OCR for page 57
that the total Annual S.5311(f) Ridership for 2007 · Susquehanna (Williamsport-Easton, PA) was 2,986,037 rural intercity bus passengers. The · Fullington Bus (DuBois-Harrisburg, PA) routes receiving operating assistance that were iden- · Susquehanna (Williamsport-Harrisburg, PA) tified from the state program survey contacts are · Fullington Bus (Bradford-Pittsburgh) listed in Table 8-4. The total ridership on those routes · Kerrville Bus-Eagle Pass to Del Rio, TX is approximately 1.1 million. The difference can be · Bieber Tourways (Reading-Philadelphia) attributed to routes not identified in the survey and · West Bus Service (Calais-Bangor, ME) to inclusion of ridership on routes and services that · Dungeness Line-Olympic Bus Lines (Port received only capital assistance. Angeles-Seattle, WA) The following is a partial list indicating S.5311(f)- · SC Arkansas Transit (Malvern-El Dorado, AR) subsidized services (20072009): · Inyo Mono Transit/CREST Route-(Lancaster, CA-Reno, NV) · Indian Trails (St. Ignace, MI-Bay City) · Sage Stage-Susanville, CA, to Reno, NV · Susquehanna (Williamsport, PA-Philadelphia, · Sage Stage-Alturas/Redding PA) · Sage Stage-Alturas, CA, to Klamath Falls, OR · Jefferson Lines 751 (Pembina, MD-Fargo, ND) · YARTS-Route 140 (Merced, CA to Yosemite) · Rimrock Trailways (Butte, MT-Great Falls, · Kern Regional Transit-Mojave to Ridgecrest MT) · Grape Line-Airporter/Bellair Charter (Walla · Rimrock Trailways (Missoula, MT-White Fish, Walla, WA, to Pasco, WA) MT) · Curry Public Transit-Coastal Express (Coos · Rimrock Trailways (Billings, MT-Missoula, Bay, OR, to Smith River, CA) MT) · Porter Stage (ODOT)-Bend/Ontario, OR · Jefferson Lines 760 (Duluth-Minneapolis, MN) · The Shuttle Inc-Klamath Falls/Medford, OR · Jefferson Lines 757S (Minneapolis-Sioux Falls, · OR Coachways (ODOT)-Portland/Astoria, OR SD) · OR Coachways (ODOT)-Portland/Eugene, OR · Jefferson Lines 758 (Minneapolis-La Crosse) · MLTA Grey Line (Clarksburg/Morgantown, · Fullington (State College, PA-Wilkes-Barre, WV to Pittsburgh, PA) PA) · West Alabama PT (Selma, AL-Montgomery, · Indian Trails (St. Ignace-Grand Rapids, MI) AL) · Lakefront Lines (Athens, OH-Columbus, OH) · Aberdeen Ride Line (Aberdeen, SD-Summit, · Indian Trails (St. Ignace-Ironwood, MI) SD) · Indian Trails (St. Ignace-Lansing, MI) · Salt Lake Express (Boise, ID-Rexburg, ID) · Indian Trails (Calumet-Milwaukee, WI) · Cyr Bus Line (Bangor, ME-Caribou) As described at the end of the preceding chapter, · Northwestern Stage Lines (Moscow-Boise, ID) many states have done or are doing studies to iden- · Burlington Trailways-Julesburg/Denver tify gaps, areas of need, or specific routes--these are · Black Hills SL-Sterling, CO to Denver, CO then used in Requests for Bids for service (including · Jefferson Lines 755 (Fort Smith, AR-Pine Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Kansas) or in Bluff, AR) the grant solicitation (including California, Alabama, · Jefferson Lines 757N (Minneapolis-Sioux Tennessee, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Ohio). Falls, SD) Other states are currently undergoing program devel- · Greyhound (Houston to Fort Worth, TX) opment (including New Hampshire, Wisconsin, · Apple Line-Northwestern Trailways Louisiana, and Kentucky). · Greyhound-Big Spring to Amarillo, TX · Kerville Bus-Midland to Presidio, TX GENERAL COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING · Kerville Bus-San Antonio to Big Spring, TX FOLLOW-UP PHONE INTERVIEWS · Greyhound-El Paso to Lubbock, TX · Fullington Bus-State College to Pittsburgh, PA This section is a compilation of additional · Greyhound-Houston to Texarkana, TX information provided by states during the phone · Greyhound-Lubbock to Abilene, TX interview. In addition to the responses discussed in · Greyhound-Lubbock to Odessa, TX the previous section, other general insights about · Fullington Bus-State College to Harrisburg, PA the program were provided. Several themes were 57
OCR for page 58
Table 8-4 Funded routes. Annual State Route Other Identification Carrier or Operator Riders AL Selma-Montgomery Selma-Mont West Alabama Public Transportation 6,867 AR Fort Smith - Pine Bluff Fort Smith-Pine Bluff Jefferson Lines 29,865 AR Malvern-El Dorado SCAT South Central Arkansas Transit (SCAT) 3,600 CA Alturas-Redding Alturas-Redding Sage Stage 877 CA Alturas-Susanville-Reno Susanville-Reno Sage Stage 2,231 CA Alturas-Klamath Falls Alturas-Klamath Falls Sage Stage 997 CA Escondido-Ramona Route 386 North County Transit District San Diego 43,000 CA Mojave-Ridgecrest Mojave Ridgecrest Express Kern Regional Transit 5,754 CA Pala-Escondido Transit Center Route 388 North County Transit District San Diego 124,564 CA Ridgecrest-Reno CREST Route Inyo-Mono Transit 4,953 CA Route 10: San Luis Obispo-Santa Maria SLO-Santa Maria SLO Regional Transit Authority 106,996 CA Route 20: Smith River-Arcata Smith River-Arcata Redwood Coast Transit Authority 12,480 CA Route 4: Clearlake-Lakeport Clearlake-Lakeport Lake Transit Authority 4,656 CA Route 7: Lakeport-Ukiah Lakeport-Ukiah Lake Transit Authority 6,733 CA Yosemite-Merced (Seasonal) Highway 140 Route Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System 31,075 CO Julesburg - Denver Jules-Den Burlington Trailways 23,960 CO Sterling - Denver Sterl-Den Black Hills Stage Lines 10,779 ID Moscow - Boise Moscow-Boise Boise-Winnemucca/Northwestern Stage Lines 9,877 ID Salt Lake Express Rexburg: Boise - Rexburg Boise-Rex Rocky Mountain Trails 1,451 ME Bangor - Limestone Bangor-Lime Cyr Bus Line 15,571 ME Calais - Bangor (West's Coastal Connection) Calais-Bangor West's Transportation Inc. 3,985 MI Bay City-St. Ignace Michigan Huron Route Indian Trails 9,360 MI Calumet-Milwaukee Superior Route Indian Trails 20,863 MI Grand Rapids-St. Ignace Michigan Sleeping Bear Rte. Indian Trails 24,972 MI Lansing-St. Ignace Michigan Straits Route Indian Trails 10,294 MI St. Ig nace-Ironwood Hiawatha Route Indian Trails 9,578 MN Minneapolis - Billings Fisher-Minn Jefferson Lines 34,342 MN Minneapolis - Duluth Duluth-Minn Jefferson Lines 17,736 MN Minneapolis - La Crosse (Wisconsin) Minn - La Crosse Jefferson Lines 10,854 MN Minneapolis-Fairmont-Sioux Falls Minn-Fair-Sioux Falls Jefferson Lines 19,790 MN Minneapolis-Willmar-Sioux Falls Minn-Will-Sioux Falls Jefferson Lines 8,077 MT Billings - Missoula Bill-Miss Rimrock Trailways 12,177 MT Butte - Great Falls Butte-Great Falls Rimrock Trailways 7,659 MT Missoula - Whitefish Miss-White Rimrock Trailways 3,809 ND Fargo - Pembina (Kansas City - Sioux Falls - Fargo - Fargo-Pem Jefferson Lines 4,544 Winnipeg)
OCR for page 59
Table 8-4 (Continued) Annual State Route Other Identification Carrier or Operator Riders OH Athens - Cleveland (Athens - Columbus segment) Athens-Columbus Lakefront Lines 3,582 OR Amtrak Thruway Bus: Bend - Ontario Bend-Ont Porter Stage Lines 4,788 OR Amtrak Thruway Bus: Portland - Astoria Port-Astoria Oregon Coachways 11,016 OR Amtrak Thruway Bus: Portland - Eugene Port-Eugene Oregon Coachways 41,172 OR Coastal Express [North Bend-Brookings- Brkgs-Smi Riv Curry Public Transit 8,760 Smith River, 2 segments] OR Columbia County Rider: Westport-Clatskanie- CC Rider Columbia County (contracted) 900 Rainier-Longview/Kelso OR Klamath Falls - Lake of the Woods - White City - Medford KF-Medford The Shuttle Inc. 4,104 PA DuBois - Harrisburg Du Bois-Harris Fullington Bus Company 18,880 PA Pittsburgh - Bradford Pitts-Brad Fullington Bus Company 15,659 PA Reading - Philadelphia Read-Phil Bieber Tourways 64,434 PA State College - Harrisburg State Coll-Harris Fullington Bus Company 21,480 PA State College - Pittsburgh State Coll-Pitts Fullington Bus Company 8,417 PA State College - Wilkes Barre State Coll-Wilkes Barr Fullington Bus Company 7,062 PA Williamsport - Easton (to New York) Will-Easton Susquehanna Transit Company 37,383 PA Williamsport - Harrisburg Will-Harr Susquehanna Transit Company 13,772 PA Williamsport - Philadelphia Will-Phil Susquehanna Transit Company 33,035 SD Aberdeen Ride Line: Aberdeen - Summit Aber-Summit City of Aberdeen (contracted) 1,393 TX Big Spring - Amarillo BS-Amar Greyhound 21,286 TX Eagle Pass - Del Rio Eagle-Del Rio Kerrville Bus Lines 2,580 TX El Paso - Lubbock El Paso-Lubb Greyhound 16,962 TX Houston - Fort Worth Hous-Ft Worth Greyhound 16,644 TX Houston - Texarkana Hous-Texar Greyhound 12,592 TX Lubbock - Abilene Lubb-Abi Greyhound 4,726 TX Lubbock - Odessa Lubb-Odessa Greyhound 2,554 TX Midland - Presidio Midland-Pres All Aboard America! 9,600 TX San Antonio - Big Spring SA-BigSpr Kerrville Bus Lines (Greyhound) 9,000 VA Roanoke-Blacksburg The Smartway Bus Valley Metro 63,894 WA Travel Washington Apple Line: Omak - Ellensburg Apple Line Northwestern Trailways, Inc. 5,868 WA Travel Washington Dungeness Line: Port Angeles - Seattle Dungeness Line Olympic Bus Lines 12,972 WA Travel Washington Grape Line: Walla Walla - Pasco Grape Line Airporter Shuttle/Bellair Charters 5,000 WV Grey Line: Clarksburg - Pittsburgh Grey Line Mountain Line Transit Authority 6,709 Total 1,130,550
OCR for page 60
identified, and some insights represent a set of new · There is no need for the Pilot Project in-kind issues that do not necessarily fall within any partic- match program. ular category. They are summarized below. · There is a need to establish an authority that CONCLUSIONS administers the program from a national per- Although most states have some kind of pro- spective and that will take the lead in multi- gram and the number certifying no unmet need has state projects/services. declined, the number of states offering comment · There is a need to establish a separate/distinct on the program was somewhat smaller at around program for rural intercity bus services--not 20 states, depending on the question. In general, a subsection of S.5311. eight of those states thought the program did not · States need assistance/guidance in address- need any changes, several other states identified a ing how changes to the unsubsidized network need for additional guidance, flexibility in funding affect subsidized projects dependent upon (match ratios), more funding, or more staff. Successes them. were generally seen as being able to meet identified · There is a perception that the private sector needs, replacing abandoned service, or improving does not really care about an integrated net- service quality through new buses or improved ter- work through their state. minal facilities. · The 15% set-aside should not be a requirement. A number of states have found ways to utilize · Three states identified their preference for an the current program to support rural routes that RFP solicitation (identifying particular routes would not otherwise be served, replacing aban- or corridors needing service) to address rural doned services or filling gaps in the unsubsidized intercity transit needs. network. · Guidance is needed to assist potential rural The program is being used to provide operat- feeder operators in satisfying the regulatory/ ing assistance in a number of states on specific routes, interlining requirements, and there is a need and the ridership on these is being documented for improved definitions or policies for this under NTD. program--both in terms of defining terms At the same time, there is variation in the eval- used only with regard to S.5311(f) (such uation of the program among the states. There is a as "meaningful connection," etc.), and the way group of states that responded to the survey that does in which overall policies (such as ADA and not use the S.5311(f) funding (or uses it in ways that Drug and Alcohol policies and testing) apply are unique to that state), and the state program man- to S.5311(f) subrecipients or contractors. agers in those states do not support the continuation · More guidance is needed for states in work- of the 15% set-aside of S.5311. The comments sug- ing with the pilot in-kind match program, gest that they do not see a need for this use of the including how to address changes when the funding, or see other uses as a priority, or think that unsubsidized network changes. Under this the guidance is limiting in terms of its definition program changes in unsubsidized connect- of intercity services and its focus on a meaningful ing services used as match can potentially connection with the national intercity network. The affect the available match at any time. structure of the program with a set-aside and certifi- · There is a need for an increase in program cation process allowing a state to shift the funding funds. would seem to allow for flexibility that would per- · There is a need for the program guidance to mit states to use or not use the funding for rural in- consider new markets/providers such as long- tercity needs. However, the requirement for the con- distance airport shuttle services. sultation process is seen by some as mandating use · The operating program should be changed to of the funds for intercity services because it is un- allow more flexibility in the maximum federal likely that such a process would find no need given share limitations, for example to allow the the amount of service that has been discontinued, federal share to be more than 50%. and the need to consult with intercity carriers who · The local match requirement is an obstacle for are likely to identify needs based on their experience potential local providers of service. and services. 60