Toolkit for Estimating Demand for Rural Intercity Bus Services (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

18 This task formed a major part of the work activity of the study team. It was decided to perform the inventory of rural intercity services first, in order to have data to serve as a basis for devel- oping the typology. Preliminary thoughts on the typology were developed at this point, though the study team found some differences as the inventory was completed. The inventory involved four major elements: developing a survey form and methodology; identifying rural intercity operating projects; surveying the operators; and compiling the data (including both the data from the operators regarding service characteristics and ridership, and demographic data on the places served). Data Requirements Based on the information obtained from the literature review and the team’s industry experience, several factors were identified. The literature review also assisted in validating the relevance of these factors. These factors, aside from the contact information, were determined as the best potential variables that contributed to an estimation of demand model for rural intercity services: • Contact information—operator • Type of operator—public for-profit, private non-profit, regional carrier, etc. • Service characteristics: – Vehicle type – Fixed route/fixed schedule – Demand-response feeder – Reservation requirements – Route type—dead-end, bridge, parallel to Interstate – Frequency of service – Seasonal variations • Points served • Ticketing arrangements—interlining, mechanisms (Internet, cash to driver, etc.) • Fares—flat, zone, per mile • Information (schedule, how is it made available to the public?) • Connectivity: – With other intercity bus services – With other intercity modes (rail passenger, air) – With local transit—urban and rural • Characteristics of stops: (Is there one of the following at a stop?) – Military base – College or university – Job corps center – Regional medical facility – Tourism destination – Commercial airport • Ridership – By route (fiscal year, calendar year, monthly) – By stop (on-off) if available • Projections made prior to start of service • How long service has been in operation • How long to achieve ridership levels These factors were used in the survey effort and were also used in developing the database. The study team determined that responses about these factors would provide the best data from the operator to allow for the development of a demand model, assuming, of course, that the study team would receive responses to all questions asked. Development of a Survey Tool The initial activity in this task was the development of a survey tool that (1) could be used for consistent data collection of the elements to permit the development of a typology and (2) would likely provide the data needed for various modeling approaches. Based on the factors in the project proposal, a questionnaire was developed to collect data from rural intercity operators C H A P T E R 3 Inventory of Existing Rural Intercity Routes and Ridership

on the characteristics of the service they provide, the service area, and the ridership. This initial data collection tool is presented in Appendix A. When a survey was completed, the survey form and its data were archived. The responses were then coded onto the summary table for each participating state. The summary table allowed for a quick review of route information and allowed for descriptive text to accompany some of the responses. This descriptive text is especially needed when addressing frequency, fare, vehicle types, or schedule information. Based on feedback during preliminary survey efforts, in which several operators expressed concerns that the survey form was rather long, the study team decided to make minor adjustments to the survey form. The number of questions was reduced to address the basic route characteristics: schedule, stops, vehicle type, ridership, route length, fares, connectivity, and trip generators along the route. This new set of questions was then incorporated into the text of the introductory email submitted to operators, as shown in Appendix B. As a result, there seemed to be less apprehension on the part of service providers and a relatively high participation rate was achieved. Identification of Potential Survey Respondents The second step was addressed in part by identifying providers from industry association contacts, but in gen- eral provider lists were already known to the study team or were provided by the Section 5311(f ) program manager in each state department of transportation. Because the study team was chosen to perform NCHRP Project 20-65(20), “Analysis of Rural Intercity Bus Strategy,” it held back await- ing Notice to Proceed on that project so that it could combine efforts, which allowed it to contact every state (which was more than contemplated for TCRP B-37). Also, in order to focus the efforts on the states known to have operating programs, the FTA listing of Section 5311(f) program expenditures by category (the latest available list was FY 2006) was used to identify those states with significant operating assistance programs for rural intercity services. Preliminary rural National Transit Database (NTD) data for the rural intercity question for FY 2006 and FY 2007 was obtained. The rural NTD asks the states for the name of the provider, the ridership, and the annual bus miles. The NTD data did not provide separate data on intercity services operated by rural public transit operators, who apparently reported such ridership as part of their overall rural ridership. By using these sources, all the Section 5311(f ) rural operating programs were identified. The study team contacted the state programs in states with these services and asked for the names and addresses of carrier contacts and whether the state had collected any data as part of its monitoring or reporting efforts. Table 3-1 presents a list of the contacts for the state programs. Several of the other operators did not have data by route, or could not provide it. The study team had several discussions with New York State Department of Transportation about its substantial intercity bus program and how to approach it. New York funds nine carriers with a mixture of Section 5311(f) and a substantial amount of state funding, combined in a Statewide Operating Assistance Program that funds rural intercity services in upstate New York. The funding is pro- vided on a set amount per bus-mile and per passenger rate, so it is not tied to the net deficit on a route. The study team worked with New York to obtain data from the carrier reporting, but it was not possible to obtain data on a route/schedule level for this substantial program. Iowa also funds rural intercity services with a per-mile subsidy for all rural intercity routes. Both of these “network” support programs pose issues in obtaining rural intercity ridership for specific routes or schedules In addition, Jefferson Lines provided stop-by-stop and route-level ridership data for all of its rural routes, including the Section 5311(f) projects it operates in Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa. Stop-by- stop data could be used to develop point demand models, if combined with service attributes at those points and basic fare levels. Survey The study team contacted operators and agencies and populated the survey with as much information as was made available. The study team did not wish to set an arbitrary number of interview/case study sites to meet this budget cap, because the model or method needed as many responses as possible to provide an adequate level of robustness. At the outset, as contacts were established, an email message was submitted to them containing a brief project description, a request to schedule an appointment, and the survey form as an attachment. The actual survey was administered over the telephone with most operators and state program administrators providing most of the information in the initial call. In some cases, follow-up phone calls were required, but, generally, most information was obtained within the first telephone conver- sation. Most of the information provided during the phone call was route characteristic information with an occasional follow-up call to obtain ridership/funding information. As a result of the survey effort, several items were revealed that were not necessarily anticipated at the outset: • Ridership data—The availability of data varied greatly between states and operators. In some cases data was readily 19

State Name Title Unit sserddAenohPliamE AK Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities - Alaska Community Transit Program, Division of Program Development State Transit SectionState Transit CoordinatorDebbi Howard debbi.howard@alaska.gov 907.465.2883 3132 Channel Drive, PO Box 112500, Juneau, AK 99811-2500 AL Alabama Department of Transportation - Bureau of Multimodal Transportation Transit SectionManagerJoecephys Nix nixj@dot.state.al.us 334-353-6421 1100 John Overton Drive, Montgomery, AL 36110 AR Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department - Planning & Research Division Public TransportationAdministrative Officer IIISteven Alexander Steven.Alexander@arkansashighways.com 501.569.2561 P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203 Public TransportationTransportation SpecialistPatricia Slater patricia.slater@arkansashighways.com 501.569.2472 AZ Arizona Department of Transportation - Multimodal Planning Division Public TransportationProgram ManagerSam Chavez schavez@azdot.gov 602.712.7465 206 South 17th Avenue, MD 310 B, Phoenix, AZ 85007 CA California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) - Division of Mass Transportation Fred Lenhart Associate Transportation Planner Rural Transit & Procurement fred_lenhart@dot.ca.gov 916.654.7601 MS #39, P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 CO Colorado Department of Transportation - Division of Transportation Development John Valerio Transit Planner Transit Unit John.Valerio@dot.state.co.us 303.757.9769 4201 E. Arkansas Ave., Shumate Building, Denver, CO 80222 CT Connecticut Department of Transportation - Bureau of Public Transportation Joanna Juskowiak Transportation Planner Joanna.Juskowiak@po.state.ct.us 860.594.2835 P.O. Box 317456, Newington, CT 06131-7546 DE Delaware Department of Transportation - Delaware Transit Corporation Lisa J. Collins lisa.collins@state.de.us 302.576.6067 119 Lower Beach St, Ste 100, Wilmington, DE 19805 FL Florida Department of Transportation - Public Transportation and Modal Administration Elizabeth “Liz” Stutts Grants Program Administrator Public Transit Office elizabeth.stutts@dot.state.fl.us 850.414.4530 605 Suwannee Street (MS 26), Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 GA Georgia Department of Transportation - Division of Intermodal Programs Transit SectionTransit Program ManagerSteve Kish skish@dot.ga.gov 404.631.1237 276 Memorial Drive SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3743 HI Hawaii Department of Transportation - Statewide Transportation Planning Office Ryan Fujii Programming Section Manager ryan.fujii@hawaii.gov 808.587.2028 869 Punchbowl Street, Room 404, Honolulu, HI 96813 ID Transportation Department - Public Transportation Division Randy Kyrias Administrator, Div. of Public Transportation Randy.Kyrias@itd.idaho.gov 208-334-8281 3311 W. State Street · P.O. Box 7129, Boise, ID 83707-1129 IL Illinois Department of Transportation - Division of Public and Intermodal Transportation David Spacek Bureau Chief Downstate Area Programs david.spacek@illinois.gov 312.793.2154 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, IL 62764 Gary DeLeo Chief Non-Metro Program Section gary.deleo@illinois.gov 312.793.6043 IN Indiana Department of Transportation - Office of Transit James English Program Manager jenglish@indot.in.gov 317.232.1483 100 North Senate Avenue, Suite N901, Indianapolis, IN 46204-2228 IA Department of Transportation - Office of Public Transit Michelle McEnany Director michelle.mcenany@dot.iowa.gov 515.239.1659 800 Lincoln Way, Ames, IA 50010 Gary Houston Grants Management/Intercity Bus/DBE/Interim D&A gary.houston@dot.iowa.gov 515.239.1806 KS Department of Transportation - Bureau of Transportation Planning Lisa Koch Public Transportation Manager lisak@ksdot.org 785.296.4907 Dwight D. Eisenhower State Office Building, 700 SW Harrison Street, Topeka, KS 66603-3754 KY Kentucky Transportation Cabinet - Office of Transportation Delivery Vickie Bourne Executive Director vickie.bourne@ky.gov 502.564.7433 200 Mero St., 3rd Floor, Frankfort, KY 40622 Eric Perez Executive Staff Advisor eric.perez@ky.gov 502.564.7433 Table 3-1. State DOT contacts for Section 5311(f) management.

State Name Title Unit sserddAenohPliamE Michelle Horne Program Manager - Urban & Transit Planner MichelleHorne@dotd.la.gov 225.274.4309 MA Massachussets Department of Transportation - Executive Office of Transportation Joanne Champa Program Coordinator joanne.champa@state.ma.us 617.973.7062 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116 MD Maryland Transit Administration - Office of Statewide Planning Lenny Howard Manager of Statewide Planning lhoward1@mtamaryland.com 410.767.0029 6 St. Paul St., Baltimore, MD 21202- 1614 ME Maine Department of Transportation - Office of Passenger Transportation Barbara Donovan Manager barbara.donovan@maine.gov 207.624.3245 16 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0016 Cindy Farrin Non-Urbanized Program Administrator cindy.farrin@maine.gov 207.624.3241 MI Michigan Department of Transportation - Bureau of Passenger Transportation Rob Pearson Project Manager/Department Analyst pearsonr1@michigan.gov 517.335.2572 State Transportation Building, 425 W. Ottawa St., P.O. Box 30050, Lansing, MI 48909 MN Minnesotta Department of Transportation - Office of Transit Tom Gottfried Section Director tom.gottfried@dot.state.mn.us 651.366.4171 395 John Ireland Blvd, Mail Stop 430, Saint Paul, MN 55155 Gery Weiss 5311(f) Project Manager gerald.weiss@dot.state.mn.us 651.296.1612 MS Mississippi Department of Transportation - Office of Intermodal Planning Charles Carr Public Transit AdministratorPublic Transit Division ccarr@mdot.state.ms.us 601.359.7800 401 N. West Street, 9th Floor, P.O. Box 1830, Jackson, MS 39215-1850 MO Missouri Department of Transportation - Transit Section State Operating Assistance - RuralProgram AdministratorShirley Tarwater shirley.tarwater@modot.mo.gov 573.751.7481 P.O. Box 270, Jefferson City, MO 65102 MT Montana Department of Transportation - Rail, Transit, and Planning Division Tom Stuber Regional / Transit Planner tstuber@mt.gov 406.444.9216 2701 Prospect Avenue, PO Box 201001, Helena, MT 59620-1001 NE Nebraska Department of Transportation - Public Transportation Section Jerry Wray Manager jerry.wray@nebraska.gov 402.479.4694 1500 Nebraska Highway 2, P.O. Box 94759, Lincoln, NE 68509 NV Nevada Department of Transportation - Multimodal Systems Michelle Gardner-Lilley Manager mgardner-lilley@dot.state.nv.us 775.888.7312 1263 South Stewart Street, Carson City, NV 89712 NH New Hampshire Department of Transportation - Bureau of Rail and Transit Shelley Winters Public Transportation Administrator Swinters@dot.state.nh.us 603.271.3497 John O. Morton Building, Room G25, 7 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03302 NJ New Jersey Department of Transportation Robert “Bob” Koska Director, Local Program rkoska@njtransit.com 973.491.7376 1 Penn Plaza East, Newark, NJ 07105 NM New Mexico Department of Transportation - Transit and Rail Division David Harris Transit Manager DavidC.Harris@state.nm.us 505.827.5420 604 West San Mateo Road, Santa Fe, NM 87505 NY New York Department of Transportation - Policy and Planning Division Bill Telovsky RTAP, Intercity Bus & Drug/Alcohol Program Manager wtelovsky@dot.state.ny.us 518.457.6279 POD 54, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12232 NC North Carolina Department of Transportation - Public Transportation Division Miriam Perry Director mperry@dot.state.nc.us 919.733.4713 x243 1 S. Wilmington St., Raleigh, NC 27601 ND North Dakota Department of Transportation - Local Government Division Annette Tait atait@nd.gov 701.328.2194 608 East Boulevard Avenue . Bismarck, ND 58505-0700 OH Ohio Department of Transportation - Office of Transit Brett Harris Rural Transit Program Coordinator brett.harris@dot.state.oh.us 614.466.7440 1980 West Broad Street, 2nd Floor, Columbus, OH 43223 LA Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development - Public Transportation Section Donna Lavigne Public Transportation Administrator DonnaLavigne@dotd.la.gov 225.274.4302 8900 Jimmy Wedell, Baton Rouge, LA 70807 (continued on next page)

OK Oklahoma Department of Transportation - Transit Programs Division Ken LaRue Manager klarue@odot.org 405.521.2584 200 N.E. 21st Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 State Name Title Unit sserddAenohPliamE Matthew Barnes Transit Network/Intercity Program Manager matthew.m.barnes@odot.state.or.us 503.986.4051 555 13th St. NE, Ste. 3, Salem, OR 97301-4179 PA Pennsylvania Department of Transportation - Bureau of Public Transp. Services and Programs Tina Chubb Project Coordinator vchubb@state.pa.us 717.705.1492 400 North Street, Harrisburgh, PA 17120 RI Rhode Island Public Transit Authority Harriet Holbrook hholbrook@ripta.com 401.784.9500 x222 265 Melrose Street, Providence, RI 02907 SC South Carolina Department of Transportation - Division of Mass Transit Glennith Johnson Deputy Director johnsongc@scdot.org 803.737.0831 955 Park Street, P.O. Box 191, Columbia, SC 29202-0191 Johnny Mmanuike Assistant Division Director mmanuike@scdot.org 803.737.0831 SD South Dakota Department of Transportation - Office of Public Transit Jackie K. Mattheis Transportation Specialist jackie.mattheis@state.sd.us 605.773.4169 Becker-Hansen Building, 700 E. Broadway Ave., Pierre, SD 57501 TN Tennessee Department of Transportation - Office of Passenger Transportation Dironna Belton Transportation Planner Dironna.Belton@state.tn.us 615.253.1035 Suite 1800, James K. Polk Bldg., Nashville, TN 37243 TX Texas Department of Transportation - Public Transportation Division Garry Williams Program Manager GWILLIA@dot.state.tx.us 512.416.2823 125 East 11th Street, Austin, TX 78701-2483 UT Utah Department of Transportation - Systems Planning and Programming Group Leone Gibson Director lgibson@utah.gov 801.964.4508 4501 South 2700 West, Mail Stop 141200, Salt Lake City, UT 84114- 1200 VT Vermont Agency of Transportation - Public Transit Section Krista Chadwick Public Transit Coordinator krista.chadwick@state.vt.us 802.828.5750 One National Life Drive, Montpelier, VT 05633-5001 VA Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation Darrel Feasel Rural Transit Section Manager Darrel.Feasel@drpt.virginia.gov 804.786.8089 P.O. Box 590, Richmond, VA 23218- 0590 WA Washington Department of Transportation - Public Transportation Division Stephen Abernathy Intercity Planner abernas@wsdot.wa.gov 360.705.7929 310 Maple Park Avenue SE, Olympia, WA 98504 WV West Virgina Department of Transportation - Division of Public Transit Cindy Fish Senior Grant Coordinator cindy.e.fish@wv.gov 304.558.0428 Building 5, Room A-906, 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East, Charleston, WV 25305-0432 WI Wisconsin Department of Transportation - Public Transit Section Monique Currie Program Manager monique.currie@dot.state.wi.us 608.267.7345 Public & Specialized Transit Section , Room 951, P. O. Box 7913, Madison, WI 53707-7913 WY Wyoming Department of Transportation - Planning Program (Local Government Coordination) John Black Public Transit Coordinator John.Black@dot.state.wy.us 307.777.4181 LGC - Planning Building, Room 215, 5300 Bishop Boulevard, Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340 OR Oregon Department of Transportation - Public Transit Division Table 3-1. (Continued).

available; in other cases states mentioned that locating and obtaining the data would require a significant undertaking. The latter was an obstacle, but not insurmountable; the study team was able to obtain contact information for the operators and obtain data directly from them. Also, the kind of data available varied. In most cases the study team was provided route-level fiscal or calendar year data. How- ever, in some cases the study team received monthly or, if a system operated several routes, system-wide ridership data that is very difficult to analyze on a per-route basis. Stop-by-stop ridership data was made available for only a select number of routes. • Funding allocations for intercity services—In some cases states used Section 5311(f) funds to support a network of services, rather than a route or service. This arrangement makes it difficult to identify that portion of the route or service that is supported by Section 5311(f ) funds and determine the performance, or ridership, based on this arrangement. • Operating projects in 27 states—The survey effort identified projects in 27 states. Projects had to be in operation during FY 2006 or FY 2007 to have any useful operating data. As mentioned, most routes identified did have fiscal year data available, but not stop-by-stop information. New services that had commenced in the past year (2008) were also identified, but ridership data was not yet available. Also discovered were efforts by several states to execute planning tasks that assess intercity travel needs. Data Compilation Mapping/Geographic Information System The geographic representation of these routes is vital in understanding the breath and coverage of these services. As data tables were populated during the survey efforts, bus stop information was made available for mapping purposes. The routes were mapped in ArcView GIS. Once a route was mapped, it was then easy to incorporate other important indicators and develop a geographic representation. The following geographic characteristics were used in this study: • Stops along the route—to show proximity and access points to the service. • Buffers (10 and 25 mile)—to show potential market areas and the relative distance of other major points of interest near the route. • Population data—using Census 2000 population statistics for municipalities allowed representation of the coverage area of service in relation to population characteristics that are associated with transit-dependent people (low income, disabled, carless). • Route length—once mapped, the route length was easily calculated. For each participating state with rural intercity operations (Figure 3-1), a statewide map was produced for the route infor- mation received. These maps are included as Appendix C. Generally, the country has a fairly sparse coverage, with states along the East and West Coast exhibiting higher participation rates, and a few Midwestern states showing participation. Development of Database The archiving effort consisted of two main components. One component is the summary table for each state popu- lated with data from the survey form. The summary table is in Microsoft® Word and allowed space for descriptive text that elaborated on the type of facilities, frequency, and vehicles used in the operation of the intercity service. The summary table was developed for each state and is included as Appendix D. The second component is the demand model database table developed in Microsoft® Excel. The model is a reduction of the table summary into its most basic attributes. For example, instead of identifying specific trip generators, such as a regional medical center, the study team simply notes that the route stops at a medical facility by placing an “x” in the appropriate column. This entry can later be translated into a binary value, an “x” would denote a “1,” and could be used in statistical analyses. The variables in the demand model include the following: • Route identification • Classification of operator • Interlining (yes/no) • Competition on route, between endpoints (yes/no) • Connection with local transit (yes/no) • Route type—dead end (yes/no) • Annual route ridership (boardings) • Route length (one-way miles) • Frequency (trips per week) • Fare (type) • Fare per mile • Corridor population • Destination population (if major metropolitan area) • Presence/absence of key generators (college/university, major medical, airport, etc.) These variables are the basis of the demand model. Some variables require more discussion, as they represent service characteristics that address particular local needs. 23

24 TX Austin HoustonSan Antonio CA MT AZ NV ID CO NM OR KS UT WY IL WI KY IN MI OH WV Chicago Detroit Columbus Milwaukee SD NE FL AL GA AR LA NC MS TN SCMemphis Charlotte Jacksonville IA MN MO OKOklahoma City ND WA PA NY VA ME VT NH NJ MD MA CT DE RI DC Boston New York DallasFort Worth Denver El Paso Phoenix Seattle San Jose Portland San Diego Los Angeles San Francisco Legend States Initiating Section 5311(f) Operating Programs States with Section 5311(f) Operating Programs (Providing Ridership Data)AK Anchorage HI Honolulu M E X I C O C A N A D A P a c i f i c O c e a n A t l a n t i c O c e a n G u l f o f M e x i c o Figure 3-1. States with Section 5311(f) operating programs.