Analysis of State Rural Intercity Bus Strategies: Requirements for Utilization of S.5311(f) Funding (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 1-99
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
added a requirement that a state seeking to certify must conduct a consultation process involving the intercity bus operators and other stakeholders to determine unmet need. States have a great deal of flexibility in how they administer their Section 5311(f)
|
From page 2... ...
in 1982. Following the loss of substantial amounts of rural intercity bus service subsequent to regulatory reform, there were a number of proposals and policy studies addressing rural intercity bus service, and a number of states began their own state funded intercity bus programs.
|
From page 3... ...
, they also must consider that the FTA regulations cite as a primary goal of the program the provision of meaningful connections to the national network of intercity bus services, specifically focusing on the need for Section 5311(f) funded services to connect at the same stops and with schedules that allow connections to be made.
|
From page 4... ...
RESEARCH SCOPE Task 20 -- Analysis of Rural Intercity Bus Strategy The objective of the Task 20 project was to identify the most successful rural intercity bus program strategies that have been implemented, and to determine the relationship between the demographic, geographic, and funding context of those programs, the current state of the non-subsidized intercity bus services, and the program policies and implementations associated with these successful outcomes. This project was conducted in two phases.
|
From page 5... ...
program, there are two other FTA programs under SAFETEA-LU that support intercity bus service. Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facility Program -- Intermodal Terminals SAFETEA-LU made it clear that the intercity bus portion of an intermodal facility is eligible for Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facility Program funding -- as well as for capital funding under Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Program)
|
From page 6... ...
funded intercity services must take schedule considerations into account to have a meaningful connection with scheduled intercity bus services to points outside the service area, adding the schedule dimension to the definition of a meaningful connection. Furthermore, FTA suggests that services that include a stop at the intercity bus station as one among many stops should not properly be considered for Section 5311(F)
|
From page 7... ...
However, the federal share of any planning assistance for intercity bus not included in the 15% allowed for state administration is limited to 80% of the planning cost. "PILOT PROJECT" USE OF THE VALUE OF CAPITAL ON CONNECTING UNSUBSIDIZED SERVICE AS IN-KIND MATCH FOR OPERATING ASSISTANCE On October 20, 2006, FTA executive management approved a 2-year pilot project allowing states to use the capital costs of unsubsidized service connecting private sector intercity bus service as in-kind match for the operating costs of rural intercity bus feeder service.2 Later guidance has extended the period of the pilot through FFY 2010, as posted in the Federal Register (Vol.
|
From page 8... ...
Based on the precedent of the FTA regulations permitting 50% of the total cost of a turnkey operating contract to be considered as eligible for the 80% capital match ratio, FTA has allowed 50% of the total per-mile cost of the unsubsidized connecting intercity bus service to be considered as the in-kind capital contribution of the intercity bus company to the rural intercity bus project. The schedule of the rural subsidized connecting service is considered in determining if it makes a meaningful connection with the unsubsidized service.
|
From page 9... ...
represents 15% of the total Section 5311 allocation. Table 2-1 Federal funding available for Section 5311 and Section 5311(f)
|
From page 10... ...
4. Certification of No Unmet Rural Intercity Needs and Consultation Process -- actions the state has taken with respect to the consultation process with intercity bus stakeholders, including carriers, to evaluate unmet needs for rural intercity services.
|
From page 11... ...
In total, 39 states provided some form of survey response, although the degree of survey participation varied from only providing contact information to providing a response to most of the questions. TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS Finally, as part of Task 25, the study team developed a list of interview questions to be sure that every state had a chance to comment on the issues about the likelihood of continuing rural intercity bus projects if the Section 5311(f)
|
From page 12... ...
12 State Responded to Web-Based Survey Interviewed by Telephone Participated in Either or Both AL x x x AR x x x AZ x x x CA x x x CO x x x CT x x x DE x x FL x x GA x x HI x x ID x x x IL x x IN x x x IA x x KS x x KY x x LA x x MA x x x ME MD MI x x x MN x x x MS x x x MO x x MT x x NE x x NV x x x NH x x x NJ x x NM x x x NY x x ND x x OH x x OK x x OR x x x PA x x RI x x SC x x SD x x x TN x x x TX x x x UT x x VA x x x WA x x x WV x x x WI x x x WY x x x Total: 40 29 45 Table 3-1 State participation in survey and interview efforts.
|
From page 13... ...
, and significant changes to the intercity bus network in the state since 2005. First, events leading up to 2005 that impacted rural intercity bus services on a national level are summarized.
|
From page 14... ...
This most recent round of industry restructuring was identified by a number of state program managers as the most significant change in intercity bus services. In some states the most significant recent change was identified as the implementation of new or replacement rural intercity services, which is perhaps the more positive way of looking at the impacts of the restructuring.
|
From page 15... ...
Nine states reported new or replacement services, and two reported adoption of intercity bus network program policies as significant developments. Chapter 5 presents additional information about the national intercity bus network that is not derived from the survey of state programs, but is included to provide a comprehensive basis for consideration of the current status of intercity bus services, including service changes and industry trends over the past several years.
|
From page 16... ...
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)
|
From page 17... ...
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)
|
From page 18... ...
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-CharlestonBeckley-Bluefield, WV; Parkersburg-Charleston, WV; and, Wheeling-Pittsburgh, PA WY I-25 and Highway 20 Table 4-3 Major corridors.
|
From page 19... ...
Hartford, CT, Bridgeport, CT, New Haven, CT DE Rodney Square, Amtrak Station, Water Street Transfer Center, Rehoboth Park & Ride all in good condition Amtrak Station, Fairplay Station, Greyhound GA Atlanta - adequate (need new terminal) , Macon - good, Savannah - good, Columbus - good, other cities are adequate Currently intercity bus terminal provides opportunity to transfer to MARTA (Atlanta)
|
From page 20... ...
Salt Lake City, Ogden VA Richmond, VA -- it's ok Fredericksburg, VA WA Greyhound Terminal in Seattle: Fair; Gateway Transportation Center in Port Angeles: New; Columbia Station in Wenatchee: Good; Valley Transit Center in Walla Walla: Good; Greyhound Station in Ellensburg: Good King Street Station, Seattle; Gateway Transportation Center, Port Angeles; Edmonds Station & Ferry Terminal, Edmonds; Kingston Ferry Terminal, Kingston; Columbia Station, Wenatchee; Pasco Intermodal Center, Pasco; Walla Walla Transit Center, Walla Walla WI Badger Bus terminal in Madison - poor condition; Milwaukee Intermodal-excellent; Green Bay Greyhound-unsure; La Crosse Transit - under construction, Amtrak Depot in La Crosse - excellent; Janesville – good Milwaukee Intermodal; Amtrak in La Crosse WV Greyhound Bus Terminal, Charleston (owned and operated by the City of Charleston)
|
From page 21... ...
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.
|
From page 22... ...
In many cases the replacement carriers were regional private for-profit intercity bus firms, but in some cases rural transit programs also sought to initiate service that would connect with the remaining intercity bus service or meet rural intercity needs. During the period following the restructuring, Greyhound did not generally apply for Section 5311(f)
|
From page 23... ...
This list may not be exhaustive or complete, but the point is that there are a number of private intercity bus operators that have worked with state DOTs to fill gaps left by industry restructuring, and that much of this service serves rural stops meeting the requirements of Section 5311(f)
|
From page 24... ...
. Retrieved from http://www.aibra.org/pdf/usmap.pdf Figure 5-1 National intercity bus network.
|
From page 25... ...
25 State Total Stops Stops Served by Amtrak Stops Served Only by Amtrak Alabama 18 3 0 Arizona 39 14 2 Arkansas 28 5 2 California 236 155 73 Colorado 56 13 2 Connecticut 32 13 0 Delaware 4 3 0 District of Columbia 1 1 0 Florida 64 29 9 Georgia 41 5 2 Idaho 40 11 5 Illinois 61 35 16 Indiana 45 11 5 Iowa 54 7 1 Kansas 17 6 4 Kentucky 13 5 3 Louisiana 18 9 3 Maine 46 17 3 Maryland 21 10 1 Massachusetts 55 11 2 Michigan 108 46 12 Minnesota 90 8 0 Mississippi 29 10 4 Missouri 43 12 9 Montana 53 12 11 Nebraska 34 5 3 Nevada 11 4 2 New Hampshire 29 14 3 New Jersey 34 12 7 New Mexico 27 10 4 New York 270 29 10 North Carolina 35 17 4 North Dakota 21 7 2 Ohio 36 7 2 Oklahoma 19 5 1 Oregon 64 39 4 Pennsylvania 154 24 13 Rhode Island 6 3 0 South Carolina 23 11 4 South Dakota 19 0 0 Tennessee 36 2 1 Texas 194 23 5 Utah 23 6 1 Vermont 11 11 6 Virginia 35 20 2 Washington 70 32 4 West Virginia 18 10 8 Wisconsin 52 29 2 Wyoming 30 0 0 Total 2,463 771 257 Table 5-1 Number of points served in each state.
|
From page 26... ...
Long-distance airport providers from small towns to major hub airports are the growth sector in rural areas in many places. These operators are starting to be identified in state plan inventories and through the consultation process, and may be both significant providers of rural intercity service connections, and a source of potential providers to meet identified rural needs.
|
From page 27... ...
; • Do not interline or connect with the national intercity network, but service large airports; and • May be carrying more passengers in a corridor than conventional intercity bus services -- there is very limited actual data because of operator concerns about competition, and there is no reporting requirement. Figure 5-3, also from the AIBRA website, provides a partial inventory of some of the major long distance airport providers, focusing on scheduled services.
|
From page 28... ...
rural intercity bus program? " Six replied negatively, although the research team learned through further investigation in December 2009 that two of these states (Utah and Wisconsin)
|
From page 29... ...
29 State Do you have a S.5311(f) rural intercity bus program?
|
From page 30... ...
• IN • KS • KY • LA • MD • ME • MI • MN • MO • MS • MT • NC • ND • NE • NH • NJ The following states do not currently have Section 5311(f) programs: • CT • HI • RI • SC • VA The implementation status of the following states is unknown based on the available data: • MA Figure 6-1 illustrates which states are known to have implemented Section 5311(f)
|
From page 31... ...
• Certification may be partial if the need identified requires less than the 15% set-aside. • The consultation process, needs assessment, and additional Section 5311 program funding are leading more states to initiate intercity bus programs.
|
From page 32... ...
For which years? AL Yes Every year since program inception until Fiscal Year 2008 AR Yes Partial, all 3 years AZ No CA No The State of California has never certified that there are no unmet rural intercity bus needs CO Yes CDOT has done a partial certification in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
|
From page 33... ...
33 State FY 2007 FY 2008 Letter of Certification Received Intercity Bus Percentage Letter of Certification Required Intercity Bus Percentage AL $ 2,000,000 17% Yes $ - 0% AK $ 1,155,598 22% No $ 1,516,376 26% AZ $ 1,225,011 15% No $ 1,472,904 16% AR 10/15/2007 $ 75,950 1% 5/4/2008 $ 734,066 8% CA $ 2,999,801 15% Yes $ - 0% CO $ 113,906 2% 8/14/2008 $ - 0% CT *
|
From page 34... ...
One of the National Objectives is "to support the connection between non-urbanized areas and the larger regional or national system of intercity bus service." Typically, projects achieving this objective are realized as operations that fill a gap in the network of intercity bus services as identified by the state, the network likely achieved through a statewide needs assessment. Another National Objective is "to support services to meet the intercity travel needs of residents in non-urbanized areas." In this regard, services provide linkages between rural and urban areas, and/or respond to regional or local transit needs.
|
From page 35... ...
MCI buses, reviewing quarterly reports for maintenance and mileage information, overseeing Lease Agreements with the intercity bus providers and overseeing the disposition of aged MCI buses IA Yes .2 FTE Application process, contracts, making payments ID No IL Yes 2.5 Administer the program along with regular 5311 transportation IN No KS No MI Yes 1.5 - 1 FTE - and a percentage of the Bureau of Passenger Transportations Supervisor, Manager, Administrator, and Admin Support totaling 1/2 of an FTE Analyze and oversee intercity bus operations and marketing services related to state-assisted bus routes. Provide technical support to carriers.
|
From page 36... ...
Some states have focused the funding on the longest routes provided by rural transit operators (some of which may have replaced traditional intercity services) , as opposed to funding the traditional private intercity bus services.
|
From page 37... ...
N o fo rm al o r in fo rm al g o al s. Other responses AL X X AR X X X AZ CA X X X X As a result of the California Rural Intercity Bus Study, March 2008, California revised its program guidelines.
|
From page 38... ...
funding in each state: General Transit Application: 13 states General Transit Application with Separate Section for Intercity Bus: 5 states Separate Application Form: 19 states Request for Proposal: 3 states The results reveal that states generally use the grant solicitation process. For this set of responses, it is relatively balanced as to how states present program information to potential applicants -- a general application or incorporating specific goals/objectives for rural intercity needs.
|
From page 39... ...
for Small Urban and Non Urbanized Public Transportation Projects" with section for Intercity Bus proposals. UT yes separate application under development VT unknown unknown VA yes/noc general rural transit application Table 7-3 S.5311(f)
|
From page 40... ...
programs based on the survey response and/or follow-up interview. b "Application Document" -- In this column, the method of solicitation and processing is identified: "general rural transit application, no separate section" indicates that there are not separate criteria/priorities for rural intercity projects; the general S.5311 application is used for rural intercity projects.
|
From page 41... ...
To summarize, as related to the first category, the responses are: All in one rural transit pool: 18 states Rural Intercity Bus projects reviewed in separate batch: 20 states States are split on the method for evaluating projects, with no strong preference noted during the phone interviews. States that evaluate all rural transit projects in one pool have an opportunity to compare proposals directly between rural intercity and other rural transit needs.
|
From page 42... ...
MN Evaluated by statewide committee Preservation of existing service Marketing Capital - vehicle rehab, facilities, new vehicles System expansion MO Percentage of fare recovery Cost per revenue mile Ridership per revenue mile MS Evaluated by committee How do you evaluate and select potential projects? (For example, evaluated by committee, scored using defined criteria, pre-selected by state, etc.)
|
From page 43... ...
(For example, evaluated by committee, scored using defined criteria, pre-selected by state, etc.) Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Table 7-4 (Continued)
|
From page 44... ...
Source: The follow-up interview effort, the web-based survey form, and review of each state DOT website. Table 7-5 State approaches to evaluating proposed S.5311(f)
|
From page 45... ...
Source: The follow-up interview effort, the survey form, and review of each state DOT website. Table 7-6 Type of entity eligible to apply for S.5311(f)
|
From page 46... ...
Responses are shown in Table 7-7. To summarize, responses include: Operating Authority: 21 states Insurance: 17 states History of Service: 8 states Operations Attributes: 16 states 46 State Operating Authority Insurance History of Service Operations Attributes AK AL X X AR X AZ CA X X X CO X X X FL X X X X GA X ID X X IL IN X IA X KS X X X X KY X X X X MA ME MI X X X X MN X X X X MS X MO MT NE NV X NH NJ NM X NY X X NC ND X OH X X X X OK OR X X X PA X SD X X TN X X X TX X X X X VA WA X X X WV X X WY Source: The follow-up interview, the survey form, and review of each state DOT website.
|
From page 47... ...
"PILOT PROJECT" IN-KIND MATCH As described in more depth in Chapter 2 of this report, in October 2006, FTA approved a 2-year pilot project allowing states to use the capital costs of unsubsidized connecting private sector intercity bus service as in-kind match for the operating costs of rural intercity bus feeder service. Later guidance has extended the period of the pilot, and recently has been extended through FY 2010, as posted in the Federal Register (Vol.
|
From page 48... ...
in FY 008 and FY 2009? State Table 7-8 Types of projects funded.
|
From page 49... ...
. Of the 28 states that responded to this question, three indicated that they are utilizing the in-kind "pilot 49 State Requirements that are passed on: Local Match Reporting / Auditing Other Other AL X X FTA AR X X FTA AZ X X Fin Capacity CA X X Criteria FTA CO X FTA FL X FTA GA X X FTA ID X IL X FTA IN X X IA X X X ADA KS X X X MA X X MI X FTA MN X X FTA MS X X ADA X MO X X DBE MT X X FTA NE X FTA NV X X NM X X 5311 ND X X FTA X OH X X FTA OR X X Safety Customer Service PA X X SD ADA TN X X FTA TX X X FTA VA X X FTA WA X X WV X X FTA WY X Source: The follow-up interview effort, the survey form, and review of each state DOT website.
|
From page 50... ...
State Table 7-10 State funding available to match intercity bus projects.
|
From page 51... ...
Table 7-12 "Pilot project" in-kind match utilization by state. Capital- Vehicle Capital- Facilities Capital- Other Operating Planning Admin Marketing CA 88.53/11.57 88.53/11.57 55.33/44.67 88.53/11.57 55.33/44.67 88.53/11.57 IL 80/20/0 80/20/0 50/0/50 80/0/20 MI 0/100/0 80/20/0 0/100/0 50/50/0 50/50/0 MT 86/0/14 86/0/14 54/0/46 80/0/20 70/0/30 70/0/30 NJ 80/10/10 50/25/25 NM 10/90/0 for Park and Ride 50/0/50 for rural 5311s NV 10% NY 80/0/20 50/50/0 PA 80/10/10 80/10/10 50/25/25 TN 83/8.5/8.5 80/10/10 80/10/10 50/0/50 80/10/10 80/10/10 VA 80% percent FTA/ state match changes each year 50% FTA/ state match changes each year Federal/State/Local.
|
From page 52... ...
3. If the state has programmed less than 15% on intercity bus projects, has the governor certified that intercity bus service needs are adequately met in relation to other rural transportation needs?
|
From page 53... ...
AZ CA California consultation process was identified in the California Rural Intercity Bus Study, March 2008; as a result, California adopted this recommendation into its State Management Plan. CO CDOT has conducted a Statewide ICB Study and has held a formal consultation with ICB providers.
|
From page 54... ...
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 intercity routes which we are working on first.
|
From page 55... ...
MO Keeping routes that would otherwise have been abandoned MS Ability to meet the needs documented by the operator/applicants through a simplified 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 WA Providing real, scheduled connections with national intercity bus and rail providers for rural residents mobility WV Support of intercity bus service provided by Mountain Line Transit Authority in the Clarksburg-Fairmont-Morgantown, WV-Waynesburg-Pittsburgh, PA corridor WY Keeping route open for public between Billings and Cheyenne. Table 8-1 Successful aspects and projects of state programs.
|
From page 56... ...
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.
|
From page 57... ...
• Burlington Trailways-Julesburg/Denver • Black Hills SL-Sterling, CO to Denver, CO • Jefferson Lines 755 (Fort Smith, AR-Pine Bluff, AR) • Jefferson Lines 757N (Minneapolis-Sioux Falls, SD)
|
From page 58... ...
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 9,87 7 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.
|
From page 59... ...
9,000 Roanoke-Blacksburg The Smartway Bus Valley Metro 63,894 WA VA 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 WV Travel Washington Grape Line: Walla Walla - Pasco Grape Line Airporter Shuttle/Bellair Charters 5,000 Grey Line: Clarksburg - Pittsburgh Grey Line Mountain Line Transit Authority 6,709 Total 1,130,550 Table 8-4 (Continued)
|
From page 60... ...
• There is a need to establish an authority that administers the program from a national perspective and that will take the lead in multistate projects/services. • There is a need to establish a separate/distinct program for rural intercity bus services -- not a subsection of S.5311.
|
From page 61... ...
The survey effort was extensive and included contact with all 50 states, 44 of which participated. The survey responses were eventually categorized as those state programs that maintain and implement successful strategies, state programs that incorporate some successful strategies to address rural intercity bus needs, and state programs that do not necessarily address the demand for rural intercity bus needs.
|
From page 62... ...
As part of the survey effort and general internet research, 14 states indicated that they have developed separate and distinct rural intercity bus applications. The separate application is helpful for potential operators to identify the requirements and needs of the program.
|
From page 63... ...
funded rural intercity bus routes. The state maintains a 50% federal and 50% local share (pilot in-kind)
|
From page 64... ...
However, as this is a relatively new program and one that is very different from standard S.5311 program regulations, states have requested more program guidance. Awareness of Existing Services and Operators Another important factor in maintaining an effective rural Intercity Bus Program is the staff's level of awareness and knowledge of the existing intercity transportation services in the state.
|
From page 65... ...
was initiated. In 2008, the state conducted the California Statewide Rural Intercity Bus Study, which included an assessment of the program, an inventory of both funded and unfunded services, recommendations for program changes, and identification of gaps in the state's network.
|
From page 66... ...
Reporting Requirements Intercity Bus Program recipients are required to submit quarterly reports of operating data, costs and expenditures, ridership, revenue, and calculated performance measures including farebox recovery. Linkage to Particular Routes or Services The state identified network gaps as part of the statewide intercity bus needs assessment, and these have been included in the application process as routes that the state would like to see served.
|
From page 67... ...
67 Legend* Bus Stops 10-Mile Buffer Kern Regional Transit Inyo Mono Transit Lake Transit Los Angeles County MTS-San Diego Monterey-Salinas Transit Napa County TPA North County Transit District RCTA Sage Stage Sam Trans San Luis Obispo RTA Trinity Transit YARTS Yurok Tribal Gov't *
|
From page 68... ...
These funds may be used for operating, administrative, capital, or planning. The department may make available certain funds for Intercity Bus Services to carry out a program for the development and support of intercity bus transportation, pursuant to federal requirements.
|
From page 69... ...
guidance as regularly scheduled bus service for the general public connecting two or more urban areas not in close proximity to each other over a fixed route with limited stops, making meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant points and providing the capacity for transporting baggage carried by passengers. Eligible Activities Eligible project activities include operating assistance, limited capital for vehicles, and potential statewide and route-specific marketing.
|
From page 70... ...
Linkage to Particular Routes or Services Initially CDOT responded to carrier applications for capital, administrative, and operating assistance, leading to support for the Colorado portion of services from Denver to Omaha. Subsequently, CDOT worked with local communities following the 2005 abandonment of intercity bus service in the US-50 corridor to identify alternatives, estimate costs and ridership, and assist in the selection among potential S.5311(f)
|
From page 71... ...
Black Hills Stage Lines (Alamosa-Denver) Burlington Trailways Greyhound Lines (Denver-SLC, UT)
|
From page 72... ...
program goals, providing funding to support the connection between nonurbanized areas and the larger regional or national system of intercity bus services, to support services that meet the intercity travel needs of residents in nonurbanized areas, and to support the infrastructure of the intercity bus network. The purpose of the Intercity Bus Program is to enhance intercity bus travel for the citizens of Michigan by providing capital and operating assistance to private intercity bus carriers.
|
From page 73... ...
The carrier shall remain ineligible for 2 years from the date of any such penalty being imposed. Eligible Activities Eligible activities include facility improvements for intercity bus use, intercity bus shelters, signage, vehicles, or vehicle-related equipment such as wheelchair lifts for use in intercity service, and operating assistance.
|
From page 74... ...
Service considered for operating assistance will be evaluated by MDOT based on agreed-upon criteria. Proposed routes recommended by MDOT are then presented to the State Transportation Commission Subcommittee on Intercity Bus Service for its information, and after that a competitive bid process is conducted, so it appears that a carrier might apply for assistance on one of its routes, and if the application is accepted, it would then need to bid against other firms to provide the service.
|
From page 75... ...
Indian Trails (Huron Route) Indian Trails (Sleeping Bear)
|
From page 76... ...
Eligible Applicants The eligible applicants include private for-profit intercity bus providers holding the appropriate operating authority, private non-profit organizations providing intercity services, or local public transit providers who provide or propose to provide feeder services to intercity routes, or other public bodies proposing to provide intercity services. (Note: As defined in Minnesota Statutes 174.22, "public transit" or "transit" means general or specific transportation service provided to the public on a regular and continuing basis.
|
From page 77... ...
The study advisory team included intercity carrier representatives. Mn/DOT updated the intercity bus study in 2009 as the Minnesota Intercity Bus Network Study, and as part of the study a more formal consultation process was conducted involving identification of potential carriers and a survey of those operators, regional planning agencies, and local rural transit operators.
|
From page 78... ...
Issues The Minnesota program has benefited from having a regional intercity bus carrier headquartered in the state that has been willing to participate in the program, despite the fact that it must provide the 50% local match for operating assistance. The issue is that if that carrier were no longer able or willing to provide the match, there is no other source of local match from state or local sources, and it would likely result in a substantial loss of service.
|
From page 79... ...
Jefferson Lines 757 (Minneapolis-Willmar-Sioux Falls) Jefferson Lines 758 (Minneapolis-LaCrosse, WI)
|
From page 80... ...
Eligible applicants for Oregon's Intercity Bus Program funding include: • Private providers, and • Any other public entity providing service supporting and developing intercity service. Eligible projects for Intercity Bus Program funding include the following: • Discretionary Grants are available for the following types of projects: – Planning such as needs assessments and feasibility studies; – Capital including vehicles, facilities, shelters, computers, and capitalized maintenance; – Operating assistance to preserve or expand current services or fill gaps; and – Marketing.
|
From page 81... ...
Pennsylvania Act 44 of 2007 amended the state's earlier program from 1991. The Act identifies intercity bus service as a program of statewide significance and authorizes operating assistance.
|
From page 82... ...
Bend Burns Salem Eugene Albany Tigard Medford Ontario Chemult Sisters Newport Gresham Seaside Astoria Coos Bay Oakridge Florence Portland Corvallis Beaverton Tillamook Clatskanie Springfield McMinnville Klamath Falls Legend* Bus Stops 10-Mile Buffer Cascades POINT Central Oregon BREEZE Columbia County Rider CPT Coastal Express Eastern POINT High Desert POINT LTD Diamond Express North West POINT Porter Stage Lines South West POINT Tillamook Bus Valley Retriever 0 20 40 10 Miles *
|
From page 83... ...
Capital projects making ADA improvements (such as incremental costs of installing accessibility features on vehicles and making intercity bus terminal facilities accessible) are funded with 90% federal funds and a 10% local match.
|
From page 84... ...
Fullington (Pitt-State College) Fullington (StateCollege-Harrisburg)
|
From page 85... ...
The primary goals of the Washington State Intercity Bus Program are as follows: • Fill gaps in intercity network, • Provide linkages between rural and urban areas, and • Ensure accessibility of services. The goals for the Pilot Project, as indicated in the RFP criteria, include: • Realistic schedule connections with interstate, regional, and local providers; • Sound business plan; • ADA compliance; • Interline agreements with Greyhound, Amtrak, and other intercity carriers; • Appropriate Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
|
From page 86... ...
Kent Omak Colfax Yakima Tacoma Renton Spokane Seattle Everett Chewelah Kennewick Vancouver Wenatchee Shoreline Ellensburg Bellingham Walla Walla Federal Way Kettle Falls Port Angeles Port Townsend Legend* Bus Stops 10-Mile Buffer Apple Line Dungeness Line Gold Line Grape Line 0 20 40 10 Miles P a c i f i c O c e a n OR ID *
|
From page 87... ...
Linkage to Particular Routes or Services A separate RFP is issued for each corridor, tied to particular routes or services. The recommended route corridors and general service level were developed as part of the statewide rural intercity bus plan.
|
From page 88... ...
Often this information is used together with input from the consultation process. Consultation FTA now requires a consultation process involving intercity bus operators as well as rural transit programs and other community participation.
|
From page 89... ...
These are all relevant measures, but if an intercity project is evaluated against local transit projects in terms of the number of trips provided without adjusting for trip length or considering farebox recovery, they may not be given fair consideration. Policy Guidance Many of the state intercity programs have a separate policy guidance document that presents and defines program goals (such as a meaningful connection to the intercity network)
|
From page 90... ...
Open to Alternative Carriers/Services S.5311(f) program guidance from FTA does not limit assistance for intercity bus service to particular types of organizations.
|
From page 91... ...
. VALUE OF INTERCITY BUS SERVICE One of the objectives of this project was to develop and present a methodology for determining the value of rural intercity trips, presumably in a context in which rural intercity projects are being evaluated for funding in competition with other types of rural transit projects.
|
From page 92... ...
For intercity bus, ask likely carriers their average trip length, or make an assumption based on the location of population centers along the route.
|
From page 93... ...
As noted, this methodology basically assumes that there are no other weights or policy considerations involved in valuing intercity bus services as compared to other transit projects. Based on local or program goals there might well be other factors involved in the overall valuation of different types of transit services.
|
From page 94... ...
Source: All data in this table are the result of the follow-up survey effort, the web-based survey form, and review of each state DOT website. Table 10-1 Likely state continuation of program without set-aside.
|
From page 95... ...
• There is a need to establish a separate/distinct program for rural intercity bus services -- not a subsection of S.5311. • There is a need for assistance/guidance in addressing how changes to the unsubsidized network affect subsidized projects dependent upon them.
|
From page 96... ...
This has increased interest in intercity bus services and made program staff more aware of this option. Lack of Local Operating Match The fundamental problem with the program has been and continues to be the need for local operating match.
|
From page 97... ...
This change in the state role fits well with the limited amount of funding, and with current federal policy, which does not define intercity bus transportation between urbanized areas as public transportation that is eligible for funding under transit programs. Need for Guidance and Information From a state program perspective those states that have successful programs are less likely to see a need for program changes, but rather want to ensure that the aspects they rely on are carried forward.
|
From page 98... ...
Similarly, efforts to improve airport ground transportation as a lower-cost alternative to subsidized air service may also lead to consideration of program changes beyond the S.5311(f) framework.
|
From page 99... ...
. Persons wanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth should contact the CRP Staff, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.