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
