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.

25 In reviewing the routes identified and collected, an initial classification involved the division of the population of routes into three categories: • Services that can be thought of as traditional intercity bus service • Services that are regional in character, provided by private firms • Services operated by rural public transit providers Table 4-1 presents a summary list of the rural intercity services identified along with the classification assigned to each service. Each of these categories has general characteristics, but within each class or group there are particular services that may differ to some degree. The routes and services can be fit into this framework based on service characteristics, but at this point the classification cannot be related directly to impacts on ridership. This classification was important to the development of demand prediction tools as it permitted the testing of the ridership to determine if ridership response differs among the three classes, and if so, to design tools that would allow the user of the “model” to choose the most appropriate technique. It also allowed the development of better fitting tools if the underlying travel market characteristics differ—if all the routes are combined into one data pool, these differences may not be evident, but the model or technique will be less accurate. Traditional (Rural) Intercity Bus Service These services may be funded with Section 5311(f) fund- ing, but in other aspects to the user they would appear to be intercity bus service as known and used for decades. Charac- teristics of this type of service include the following: • Operator: Private for-profit firm, member or sponsored member of the NBTA. • Service type: Fixed route, fixed schedule. • Vehicles: Usually the standard over-the-road bus (OTRB), 40 to 45 feet in length, passenger deck above underfloor baggage bins. • Ticketing: Interline ticketing available through NBTA, carrier interline agreements. Tickets sold by intercity bus terminal personnel, bus commission agents (at stations and offline), and often online over the internet. • Fares: Standard industry intercity bus fare levels, varying with distance, now also with advance payment discounts, etc. These fares tend to average $0.11 to $0.15 per mile, with an initial minimum of several dollars, and a taper (the rate per mile declines with the distance). Passengers often purchase tickets for travel beyond the rural intercity route, so the rural carrier is receiving their pro-rated portion of a ticket for a longer trip. • Information: Routes and schedules available through standard intercity bus industry sources, including Russell’s Guide, Greyhound’s online timetables, Greyhound’s inter- net ticketing (for Greyhound interline partners), carrier- provided timetables, carrier websites. • Frequency: Services are generally provided daily, 365 days per year, but on rural routes generally only once or twice per day. • Schedule connectivity: Schedules are designed to provide connectivity to unsubsidized trunk line intercity schedules at connecting points in urbanized areas, allowing passengers from the rural leg to catch mainline buses traveling to points out of the region, and passengers from the mainline buses to catch the rural intercity buses back to the rural stops. • Accessibility: Follows federal requirements for private operators of OTRBs—accessible buses provided to users with 48-hour advance reservation. • Stations: Rural stops are usually at bus commission agen- cies, where the primary business activity is not bus related (e.g., diner, gas station, hotel), and the business sells tickets for a commission. In many rural stops, the location is C H A P T E R 4 Rural Intercity Bus Classification Scheme

State Route (ID) Route Description Carrier AL Selma-Mont Selma-Montgomery West Alabama Public Transportation X776,6 Oklahoma City-Fort Smith-Little Rock-Pine BluffBP-CORA Jefferson Lines 50,933 X Route 660: Vickenburg Connector066 etRZA Valley Metro contracts service to Total Transit X454,2 AZ Rte 685 GB-Phnx Route 685 (Portion): Gila Bend Regional Connector (Gila Bend to Phoenix) Valley Metro contracts service to Ajo Transpnoitatro X908,01 AZ Rte 685 Ajo-GB Route 685 (Portion): Gila Bend Regional Connector (Ajo to Gila Bend) Pima County Rural Transit contracts service to Ajo Transpnoitatro X955,21 AZ Ajo-Tucson Ajo-Tucson Pima County Rural Transit contracts service to Ajo Transportation X583,4 AZ Ajo-Why Ajo-Why Pima County Rural Transit contracts service to Ajo Transpnoitatro X674 AZ Grn Vlly-Sah Green Valley & Sahuarita Regional Connector Pima County Rural Transit contracts service to American Pony Express X507,3 AZ Tuc Est-Irv Rd Tucson Estates-Irvington Rd Pima County Rural Transit contracts service to Trax Transportation Pima County Rural Transit contracts service to Trax Transportation X167,51 AZ San Xav-Tucson San Xavier Access Route: San Xavier-Tucson X185,53 AZ Nav Rte 1 Route 1: Tuba City-Window Rock Navajo Transit System Navajo Transit System Navajo Transit System Navajo Transit System Navajo Transit System Navajo Transit System Navajo Transit System XRN AZ Nav Rte 2 Route 2: Toyei-Window Rock XRN AZ Nav Rte 3 Route 3: Kayenta-Tsaile-Ft. Defiance XRN AZ Nav Rte 4 Route 4: Crownpoint-Ft. Defiance XRN AZ Nav Rte 5 Route 5: Gallup-Ft. Defiance XRN AZ Nav Rte 7 Route 7: Shiprock-Farmington-Window Rock XRN AZ Nav Rte 8 Route 8: Chinle-Ganado XRN AR Jefferson Lines Pine Bluff-Little Rock-State Line Jefferson Lines 140,623 X Malvern-El DoradoTACSRA South Central Arkansas Transit (SCAT) XRN AR Ft Smith-Texarkana Fort Smith-Texarkana (Shreveport-Houston) X007,43Kerrville Bus Lines Redwood coast Transit AuthorityRoute 20: Smith River-ArcataSmith River-ARcataAC X748,21 CA Clearlake-Lakeport Route 4: Clearlake-Lakeptro Lake Transit Authority Lake Transit Authority X391,4 CA Lakeport-Ukiah Route 7: Lakeport-Ukiah X604,8 CA Pecwan-Willow Creek Pecwan-Willow Creek XRNYurok Tribal Government Napa County Transportation & Planning AgencyRoute 11: Helena-Santa RosaHelena-Santa RosaAC X895,2 CA Salinas-King City Line 23: Salinas-King City Expsser Monterey-Salinas Transit X536,68 CA SLO-Santa Maria Route 10: San Luis Obispo-Santa Maria SLO Regional Transit Authority X874,19 CA Susanville-Reno Susanville-Reno Sage Stage X189 CA Alturas-Redding Alturas-Redding Sage Stage X097 CA Alturas-Klamath Falls Aluras-Klamath Falls Sage Stage X979 CA San Mateo-Half Moon Bay San Mateo-Half Moon Bay Samtrans X798,4 CA East Kern Express Bakersfield-Lancaster Kern Regional Transit Kern Regional Transit X518,48 CA Mojave Ridgecrest Express Mojave-Ridgecrest X390,6 CA CREST Route Ridgecrest-Reno Inyo-Mono Transit X463,4 CA Highway 120 Route Yosemite-June Lake Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System X459,1 CA Highway 140 Route Yosemite-Merced X964,95 CA Acton/Agua Dulce Route Acton, Agua Dulce, Santa Clarita Los Angeles Co. Department of Public Works X149,1 North County Transit District, San Diego North County Transit District, San Diego anomaR-odidnocsE :683 etuoR683 etuoRAC X000,34 Pala-Escondido Transit CenterEscondido to PalaAC X465,421 CA Route 888 Jacumba-El Cajon Veolia for North County Transit District, San Diego X354,6 CA Route 891/892 Borrego Springs-El Cajon Veolia for North County Transit District, San Diego X939,1 CA Route 894 El Cajon-Morena Village Veolia for North County Transit District, San Diego X725,52 CO Sterl-Den Sterling-Denver (Omaha-Denver) Black Hills Stage Lines X977,01 CO Jules-Den Julesburg-Denver (Chicago-Burlington-Des Moines-Omaha-Denver) Burlington Trailways X069,32 FL Miami-Key West Miami-Miami Intl. Airport-Key Largo-Key West Greyhound Lines Greyhound Lines Greyhound Lines NR X FL Tampa-Tallahassee Tampa-Tallahassee via New Port Richey NR X Orlando-Fort Pierce via MelbourneOrlando-Ft. PierceLF NR X Jefferson LinesytiC sasnaK-senioM seD-ytiC nosaM-silopaenniM)057 eludehcS( CK-nniMAI 79,914 X ID Moscow-Lewis Moscow-Lewiston RPT, Inc. (Valley Transit) 2,773 X ID Moscow-Boise Moscow-Boise Boise-Winnemucca Stages and Northwestern Stage Lines X778,9 ID CdA-Sand Coeur d’Alene-Sandpoint North Idaho Community Express (NICE) X829,5 ID Boise-Rex Salt Lake Express Rexburg: Boise-Rexburg Rocky Mountain Trails X154,1 ID Twinfalls ICB Intercity Fixed Routes between Twin Falls & Kimberly, Jerome, Wendell, Filer, Buhl, & Burley TRANS IV Buses 8,040 X ME Bangor-Lime Bangor-Limestone Cyr Bus Line 15,891 X ME Calais-Bangor Calais-Bangor West’s Transportation Inc. X589,3 ME ShuttleBus ShuttleBus Intercity Service (Tri-Towns - Scarborough-Maine Mall-Portland) ShuttleBus XRN MI Hiawatha Route St. Ignace-Ironwood Indian Trails 4,884 X MI Superior Route Calumet-Milwaukee Indian Trails 8,967 X MI Michigan Straits Route Lansing-St. Ignace Indian Trails 20,667 X MI Michigan Huron Route Bay City-St. Ignace Indian Trails 10,335 X MI Michigan Sleeping Bear Rte. Grand Rapids-St. Ignace Indian Trails 23,665 X MN Duluth-Minn Duluth-Minneapolis Jefferson Lines 19,030 X Classification Ridership Annual a Standard Intercity Bus Private Regional Carrier Rural Public Transit Operator Table 4-1. Summary of rural intercity ridership by operator and type of service.

State Route (ID) Route Description Carrier Classification Ridership Annual a Standard Intercity Bus Private Regional Carrier Rural Public Transit Operator Jefferson LinesMinneapolis-Sioux Falls-Rapid City-BillingsMinn-BillNM 47,026 X MN Fisher-Minn Fisher-Minneapolis (Winnipeg-Fargo-Minneapolis) Jefferson Lines 34,342 X Jefferson LinesKansas City-Springfield-Joplin-Fort SmithKC-Jop-Ft SmithOM 33,931 X MO KC-Ft Smith Kansas City-Fort Smith Jefferson Lines 20,428 X MT NTI Shelby Northern Transit Interlocal: Shelby-Kalispell (T, W), Shelby-Great Falls (M-Th) Toole County X004,2 MT Miss-White Missoula-Whitefish Rimrock Trailways X310,85 Butte-Great FallsButte-GFTM Rimrock Trailways NR X Billings-MissoulaBill-MissTM Rimrock Trailways NR X MT Skyline Skyline Link Express Big Sky Transit District X229,101 NV Mesq-Bunk Mesquite-Bunkerville X000,27Southern Nevada Transit Coalition Southern Nevada Transit Coalition Northern Nevada Transit Coalition, operated by K-T Contract Services Northern Nevada Transit Coalition, operated by K-T Contract Services NV Las Vegas Exp Las Vegas Express X278,1 Catch the Bus!-Elko-WinnemuccaElko-WinnVN X000,84 NV Elko-Ely Catch the Bus!-Elko-Ely X000,291 NMDOT NMDOT NMDOT NMDOT NMDOT NMDOT NMDOT Blue Route: Santa Fe-Los AlamosBlue RteMN X286,56 NM Green Rte Green Route: Espanola-Los Alamos X824,15 Red Route: Santa Fe-EspanolaRed RteMN X656,81 NM Purple Rte Purple Route: Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Los Alamos X574,491 NM Orange Rte Orange Route: Las Vegas-Santa Fe X741,91 NM Silver Rte Silver Route: New Mexico State University-Las Cruces-White Sands Missile Range X728,01 NM Turquoise Rte Turquoise Route: Moriarty-Albuquerque X374,21 ND Fargo-Pem Fargo-Pembina (Kansas City-Omaha-Sioux Falls-Fargo-Winnipeg) Jefferson Lines 4,544 X ND Minot-Bis Minot-Bismarck, Grand Forks (separate runs) Souris Basin Transportation (New Town Bus Lines) X065,4 Sitting Bull College, River Cities Public TransitNorth South Shuttle: Bismarck, ND-Pierre, SDNS ShuttleDN X611 Jefferson LinesKansas City-Omaha-Sioux Falls-Fargo-WinnipegKC-WinnDN 46,011 X OH Athens-Cleve Athens-Cleveland (data for Athens-Columbus segment) Lakefront Lines 3,582 X OR Port-Bend Portland-Prineville-Bend Central Oregon Breeze (a division of CAC Transportation, Inc.) NR X OR Coastal Exp Coastal Express Curry Public Transit X067,8 OR CC Rider Columbia County Rider: Westport-Clatskanie-Rainier-Longview/Kelso Columbia County contracts with private operator X009 OR Diamond Exp Diamond Express: Oakridge-Eugene Administered by Lane Transit District, operated by Special Mobility Services, Inc. X807,9 OR Bend-Ont Amtrak Thruway Bus: Bend-Ontario Porter Stage Lines X887,4 OR Port-Astoria Amtrak Thruway Bus: Portland-Astoria Oregon Coachways Oregon Coachways X610,11 OR Port-Eugene Amtrak Thruway Bus: Portland-Eugene X271,14 OR Red-Chemult Amtrak Thruway Bus: Redmond-Bend-Chemult Redmond Airport Shuttle X804,3 OR Port-Medford Amtrak Thruway Bus: Portland-Medford Discontinued after 2002 3,816 X OR Coos Bay-Bend Coos Bay-Bend Porter Stage Lines NR X OR KF-Medford Klamath Falls-Lake of the Woods-White City-Medford The Shuttle Inc. 4,104 X OR Tilla-Port Tillamook-Portland Tillamook County Transportation District XRN OR VR Newport Newport-Portland, Newport-Bend Valley Retriever 6,996 X PA Read-Phil Reading-Philadelphia Bieber Tourways X000,06 PA Leb-Read Lebanon-Reading Capitol Bus Company Capitol Bus Company Capitol Bus Company 140,000 X PA Harris-Scran Harrisburg-Scranton 21,328 X PA Potts-Phil Pottsville-Philadelphia 39,110 X PA State Coll-Harris State College-Harrisburg Fullington Bus Company Fullington Bus Company Fullington Bus Company Fullington Bus Company Fullington Bus Company 21,480 X PA Pitts-Brad Pittsburgh-Bradford 15,659 X PA State Coll-Bane State College-Wilkes-Bane 7,062 X PA State Coll-Pitts State College-Pittsburgh 8,417 X PA DuBois-Harris DuBois-Harrisburg 18,880 X PA Philadelphia-Scranton Philadelphia-Scranton Greyhound Lines Greyhound Lines Greyhound Lines X031,92 PA Pittsburgh-Erie Pittsburgh-Erie X858,72 PA Harrisburg-Pittsburgh Harrisburg-Pittsburgh X705,24 PA Pitts-Grove Pittsburgh-Grove City Myers Coach Lines X000,03 Williamsport-PhiladelphiaWill-PhilAP Susquehanna Transit Company Susquehanna Transit Company Susquehanna Transit Company 33,536 X PA Will-Easton Williamsport-Easton 37,868 X PA Will-Elmira Williamsport-Harrisburg-Elmira 13,600 X City of Aberdeen (possible contractor)Aberdeen Ride Line: Aberdeen-SummitAber-SummitDS X393,1 TX Hous-Texar Houston-Texarkana Greyhound Greyhound Greyhound Greyhound Greyhound Greyhound 12,592 X TX Hous-Ft Worth Houston-Fort Worth 16,644 X TX El Paso-Lubb El Paso-Lubbock 16,962 X TX Lubb-Abi Lubbock-Abilene 4,726 X Big Spring-AmarilloBS-AmarXT 21,286 X TX Lubb-Odessa Lubbock-Odessa 2,554 X (continued on next page)

StateRoute (ID) Route Description Carrier Classification Ridership Annual a Standard Intercity Bus Private Regional Carrier Rural Public Transit Operator TX SA-Amar San Antonio-Amarillo Kerrville Bus Lines (Greyhound) Kerrville Bus Lines 9,000 X TX Eagle-Del Rio Eagle Pass-Del Rio X085,2 TX Midland-Pres Midland-Presidio Greyhound 9,600 X VA The Smart Way Bus Roanoke-Blacksburg Valley Metro X119,25 WA Apple Line Travel Washington Apple Line: Omak-Ellensburg Northwestern Stage Line, Inc. X868,5 WA Dungeness Line Travel Washington Dungeness Line: Port Angeles-Seattle Olympic Bus Lines X279,21 WA Grape Line Travel Washington Grape Line: Walla Walla-Pasco Airporter Shuttle/Bellair Charters X000,5 Jefferson LinesMinneapolis-Rochester-La CrosseMinn-La CrosseIW 16,889 X WI Minn-Milwa Minneapolis-Green Bay-Milwaukee Jefferson Lines NR X WV Grey Line Grey Line: Clarksburg-Pittsburgh Mountain Line Transit Authority X907,6 3,024,956 54 16 63 a Annual ridership for most recent full year available. NRNot Reported. Note: Routes in bold are multistate and funded by more than one state according to Jefferson Lines. Each state funds the miles in the state. The route was included under the specific state because this state contains the most stops for this route. Table 4-1. (Continued).

designated by the operator, but there may not be any way to purchase a ticket at that location. • Baggage: Can be carried in the baggage compartment of the bus, standard intercity bus baggage liability applies, driver (or station personnel) may load or unload bags from baggage compartment. In some cases bags may be checked through to a destination. • Bus package express: The buses also carry package express. All of these attributes are essentially the same as for un- subsidized, non-Section 5311(f) services on the national inter- city bus network. Examples of subsidized services include the following: • The Jefferson Lines routes subsidized under Section 5311(f) in Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Arkansas, and Missouri • Greyhound routes funded in Florida, Texas, and Penn- sylvania • Black Hills Stage Lines/Arrow Stage Lines services in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming • Burlington Trailways services in Iowa, Colorado, and Missouri • Northwestern Trailways services in Washington and Idaho • Fullington Trailways, Capitol Trailways, and Carl Bieber services in Pennsylvania There are, of course, some particular cases in this class that differ. For example, many of the Jefferson Lines routes in Minnesota and the Dakotas are not daily, but operate on particular days of the week, or are weekend only (particularly those routes that served major college campuses). Also, the fare per-mile can vary—if the rural route is relatively short, the average fare per mile may be higher than the general intercity standard, because of the taper in the fare level. For example, Greyhound’s minimum mileage fare is $11.00, so for trips under 73 miles, the fare per mile would be greater than $0.15. If short-haul fares are much higher per mile, and most pas- sengers on these services have short average trip lengths, their average fare per mile may be higher. Unfortunately, unless this is pointed out by the carriers, or reported to the state, it may be difficult to know if the average fare per mile on a particular route is relatively high or low compared to the overall intercity average, as this data is not often collected for a specific route, schedule, or segment. It is a factor to be con- sidered if an analyst determines that a particular route in this class has ridership that varies considerably from what might be expected. For these “standard intercity” routes, one might expect that the demand would be the same for Section 5311(f)–funded service as for unsubsidized service, given that the fare levels, frequency, connectivity, and information systems are the same as for unsubsidized rural intercity bus service. For that reason, data on rural intercity bus ridership on conventional intercity bus services to rural points (populations under 50,000) could be included with data from the Section 5311(f)–funded services in the development of a model. However, following the nationwide Greyhound restructuring in 2004–2006, few points on the Greyhound network still fell below the 50,000 population threshold—so any available data on ridership at these points likely predates the restructuring and may be somewhat suspect because the characteristics of the route or of competing modes may have changed in the interim, poten- tially changing the demand curve. For the routes in this class, the ridership data is generally quite good. Route-level ridership is generally collected by the carriers for subsidized routes, as most states require this information for reporting. In addition, many (but not all) of the carriers are now using computerized ticketing that pro- vides data to the stop level, by route. This information could be used to calibrate stop-level demand models. Two issues arose with the data for this class of carrier. One is that, in states that utilize their Section 5311(f) and/or state funding (Iowa and New York) to provide assistance to carriers on a formula basis (rather than by route), data on ridership by route/schedule may not be collected (it depends on the fund- ing formula). A second issue is that route-level ridership may only be available by schedule, and that schedule may serve segments that are served by other routes as well. Therefore, not all stops have the same frequency, and a given point may have riders using several different schedules, complicating efforts to link ridership with demographic and service variables. Other Services: Regional Private and Rural Public The other Section 5311(f)– or Section 5311–funded services could collectively be thought of as the other class, though there are enough general differences that initially, at least, they will be divided into two groups. In general, the non-traditional intercity bus services may be operated by private for-profit firms or private non-profit agencies/public agencies (or private contractors to such agencies). However, the more significant differences relate to the basic service characteristics, which can vary considerably from the traditional intercity mode on all the basic dimensions. Routes may be shorter, schedules more frequent, days of service fewer (weekday only, or less than weekday), and schedules designed around needs other than connectivity. Fares are different, ticketing is different, vehicles are different, connectivity may be limited or to different modes (airports, train stations), information sources are different, etc. The major rationale for dividing the services in this class into two subclassifications is the possibility that the type of organization may be highly correlated with the intended 29

market. The private for-profit carriers in this group are potentially more interested in serving an intercity market that provides linkages to major airports and to other intercity modes—with a focus on service from the rural/small urban area to a larger metropolitan area. Rural public transit oper- ators may well focus more on providing regional services linking the rural area to the nearest regional center offering medical, employment, and social services needed by the majority of local clients—with connections to national inter- city networks provided as a secondary focus. Services in this class are almost unique case studies, but perhaps one way to differentiate among them is the degree of connectivity with the national intercity bus network—for example, the route goes to/does not go to an intercity bus station, it is/is not scheduled to connect with intercity bus service. Thus routes operating as feeders to intercity bus services might be charac- terized as being in one group, while other Section 5311(f) rural routes with limited connectivity to bus services would be in the alternative group—perhaps called rural regional services. For example, the Grape Line service in Washington operates from Walla Walla to the Greyhound station in Pasco, with three round trips per day scheduled to make intercity bus connections. It also serves the commercial airport, the tran- sit centers (in both Pasco and Walla Walla), and the Amtrak station. The Grape Line service sells Greyhound tickets and interlines with Greyhound. Information on the service is available from the transit systems, Greyhound, and the Grape Line website itself. It is not traditional intercity bus service, but it offers the functionality of that service, while also meeting local needs in the region for service from a small urban/rural area to the regional center. This type of service can be con- trasted with something like the Section 5311(f)–funded route from San Mateo to Half Moon Bay operated by Sam Trans (San Mateo County Transit District) in California. This route is 30 miles in length; operates 10 daily weekday trips; and has limited stops, a low flat fare, and no connectivity or inter- lining with the national intercity network (it does stop across the street from the Caltrain commuter rail station). This is, in effect, a long transit route. Accordingly the characteristics of each of these groups was defined separately. Regional Intercity Service Provided by a Private Carrier In general the common characteristics for regional private carriers include the following: • Operator: Private for-profit firm, likely to not be a member or sponsored member of the NBTA. • Service type: May be fixed route, fixed schedule, but often combined with advance reservation requirements to offer a service more similar to route deviation (e.g., some sched- uled stops, but also home pickups or drop-offs within cer- tain origin/destination zones). • Vehicles: May use vans or small buses, or the standard OTRB. • Ticketing: Likely to not be part of the interline ticketing system available through NBTA or to have intercity carrier interline agreements (though it is possible). Tickets are likely to be sold by the driver, in company offices, at airport ground transportation counters, and often online over the Internet. • Fares: Unless interlined with intercity bus carriers (which would have standard industry intercity bus fare levels, varying with distance, etc.), fare levels would be indepen- dently set, generally as point-to-point fares (not mileage). Often these fares are much higher than intercity fares on a per-mile basis, comparable to airport shuttle fare levels. • Information: Service availability information is generally provided through listings in Yellow Pages, through travel agencies, on the Internet, and through airport websites and ground transportation offices. Routes and schedules are not generally available through standard intercity bus indus- try sources. • Frequency: Services are generally provided daily, 365 days per year, but may also be more limited if reservations are required—on demand only, for example, based on the existence of a reservation. • Schedule connectivity: Schedules may be designed to provide connectivity to major airports or to intercity rail passenger schedules, rather than other destinations or the national intercity bus network. • Accessibility: Follows federal requirements for private operators who are primarily engaged in transportation, which set the requirements based on the passenger capacity of the vehicles and/or whether the service is fixed route, fixed schedule (eight passengers or over in fixed-route service must be accessible), or demand responsive (accessible vehicles required in the fleet to a level to offer comparable service). For OTRBs—accessible buses are provided to users with 48-hour advance reservation. • Stations: Rural stops may be other businesses where the primary business activity is not bus related (e.g., travel agency, diner, gas station, hotel); public or private park- and-ride lots; or homes (demand responsive). In many rural stops, the location is designated by the operator, but there may not be any way to purchase a ticket at that location. These carriers may also have designated stops/counters at airports or train stations. They may stop at intercity bus stations or on the street in front of intercity bus stations. • Baggage: Can be carried in the baggage compartment of the vehicle (behind the seats at the back or under the seat- ing deck). Baggage liability is limited, and the driver may load or unload bags from the baggage compartment. 30

These services look more like a long-distance airport shuttle that is going after a broader market. Major differentiating factors for this type of service are the higher fare levels (higher than both intercity bus and public transit services) and reser- vation requirements. These factors would tend to attract a market that is higher in income, has access to credit cards for advance payment, and is scheduling the trip in advance. These may differentiate the demand from both standard intercity bus service ridership and rural public transit riders. However, to the extent that they have applied for Section 5311(f) fund- ing, they must meet the transit program requirements. These may include elements that make this type of service more like intercity bus service (if the requirements imposed by the state include connectivity with the national intercity bus network or NBTA interlining). Examples of Section 5311(f)–funded regional private inter- city bus service in our sample include the following: • Grape Line (operated by Bellair Charters/Airporter Shuttle) between Walla Walla and Pasco, Washington • Dungeness Line (operated by Olympic Bus Lines) between Port Angeles and Seattle/Sea-Tac International Airport in Seattle • Central Oregon Breeze between Portland and Bend, Oregon • Porter Stage Lines/Amtrak Thruway Bus between Bend and Ontario, Oregon • Porter Stage Lines between Coos Bay and Bend, Oregon • The Shuttle, Inc. between Klamath Falls and Medford, Oregon • The Valley Retriever between Newport and Bend, Oregon • Oregon Coachways/Amtrak Thruway between Portland and Astoria, Oregon • Oregon Coachways/Amtrak Thruway between Portland and Eugene, Oregon • West’s Transportation between Calais and Bangor, Maine There are a limited number of these types of services, and they are more variable than the standard intercity bus service, so it is quite likely that if they appear as a group to have dif- ferent demand characteristics than both intercity and rural public transit–type services a non-statistical methodology or tool will need to be developed that can allow users to identify appropriate analogues to their proposed service and look at the potential ridership from that perspective. Rural Intercity Service Provided by a Public Transit Operator The remaining classification of rural intercity services includes all the services provided by rural (and in some cases urban) public transportation operators. These services also vary considerably—from services scheduled around connections with the national intercity bus system, fully interlined—to long rural transit routes with little or no physical or temporal connection to intercity services. In general, the common char- acteristics include the following: • Operator: Public transportation entity—may be a public agency, government, or private non-profit. • Service type: Usually fixed route, fixed schedule, but may be combined with advance reservation requirements. • Vehicles: May use vans, cutaways, small buses, or larger transit buses. • Ticketing: Likely to not be part of the interline ticketing system available through NBTA or to have intercity carrier interline agreements (though it is possible). Fare collection on-board—may have conventional transit farebox or require driver to collect fare. • Fares: Unless interlined with intercity bus carriers (which would have standard industry intercity bus fare levels, varying with distance, etc.), fare levels would be indepen- dently set. Flat fares or zone fares are common, generally fares per-mile are lower than standard intercity fares. Fares are frequently collected on an exact fare basis placed in a farebox, and transfers may be issued for use on connecting transit routes. • Information: Service availability information is generally provided through transit information sources—websites, brochures/timetables, transit telephone information. Routes and schedules are not generally available through standard intercity bus industry sources. • Frequency: Services are generally provided less than daily, in some cases two or three days per week, usually weekdays only. • Schedule connectivity: Schedules may be designed to pro- vide a daytime round trip to a regional activity center or to other local public transit routes, rather than designed around connectivity to airports, intercity bus schedules, or intercity rail passenger schedules. Service design may focus on other requirements (college schedules and locations, tourism markets, etc.) rather than intercity connections. • Accessibility: Follows federal requirements for public transit operators requiring accessible vehicles and trained operators. • Stations: Rural stops may be signs along the route at potential pickup points or destinations, at transit centers, at park-and-ride lots, etc. These carriers may also have designated stops at airports or train stations. They may stop at intercity bus stations but usually stop on the street in front of intercity bus stations, rather than docking with the intercity buses. • Baggage: Can be carried in the baggage compartment of the vehicle (behind the seats at the back, in baggage racks installed in the interior, or under the seating deck). Baggage 31

liability is limited, and the driver may or may not load or unload bags from the baggage compartment. These services are quite varied, with some resembling long rural or suburban transit routes and others having character- istics affording more connectivity with the national intercity bus network or with other intercity modes. Examples from the inventory include the following: • West Alabama Public Transportation system between Selma and Montgomery, Alabama (interlined with Greyhound, schedules coordinated) • Valley Metro (contracted) service between Gila Bend and Phoenix, to Wickenburg, Arizona • Pima County Rural Transit service in Arizona between Ajo and Gila Bend, Ajo and Tucson, Ajo and Why, Green Val- ley and Sahuarita, Tucson Estates and Irvington Road, and San Xavier and Tucson • Navajo Transit System services on eight routes in Arizona • South Central Arkansas Transit (SCAT) services (connected with Greyhound) between Malvern and El Dorado, Arkansas • Sage Stage service between Alturas, California, and Reno, Nevada (connected with Greyhound at Reno) • CREST service between Ridgecrest, California, and Reno, Nevada • South East Arkansas (SEAT) services between Pine Bluff, Wilmot, and Eudora, Arkansas • RPT, Inc. (Valley Transit) service between Moscow and Lewiston, Idaho • North Idaho Community Express between Coeur D’Alene and Sandpoint, Idaho • ShuttleBus service between three towns in Maine • Toole County Transit’s Northern Transit Interlocal service between Shelby and Kalispell, Montana • Big Sky Transit District’s Skyline Transit District service in Montana For purposes of developing a demand forecasting tool, the availability (or its lack) of detailed ridership data posed a problem. Many of the rural public transit operators had difficulty providing route-level annual ridership for these routes, but the study team obtained an annual route-level ridership figure for most of these routes. The issue arose in part because these operators are used to reporting system-level (and within that service-type level, e.g., fixed route, demand responsive, etc.) ridership to their state funding agencies. There is almost no stop-level ridership data for this category, so development of stop-level demand models calibrated on services operated by rural public transit systems was not possible. While the requirements for the rural National Transit Database (RNTD) reporting would seem to require route-level ridership and miles for all Section 5311(f)–funded services, for FY 2006 and 2007 virtually all of the rural intercity data is from private firms providing service under Section 5311(f). Rural transit operators with services funded under this pro- gram have included their ridership data with their overall RNTD reporting. FTA is aware that this issue exists, and changes are being made, but at this point the data collected here on route-level ridership for this category is the best data available. Adequacy of Survey Data One significant conclusion is that the study has ridership data on essentially all the rural intercity routes operated under the Section 5311(f) program in recent times (long enough ago that ridership data is available, recent enough that rider- ship data is still available). The study team found at least 135 identifiable services and obtained ridership data on approxi- mately 120 of those services. Data for the other variables was provided by the operators or was developed by the study team through Internet research or phone calls. This data included information on the points served, the frequencies, fare levels, information sources, inter- lining, stations served, etc. and demographic information from the Census. With the ridership available, data on the remaining variables was obtained, or developed, to complete the data matrix. Reclassification At the interim TCRP B-37 panel meeting, there was con- siderable discussion about the criteria used by the study team to identify routes or services for inclusion in the database to be used to develop the demand estimation toolkits. As the primary goal of the project was to develop tools for use by local, regional, and state planners to estimate the potential ridership of rural intercity services, which are funded by the Section 5311(f) program, the initial survey effort had sought to include the universe of projects funded under that pro- gram for which ridership data and service characteristics could be identified. Under that definition, the criteria in the Section 5311(f) program definition (long distance, between two or more urban areas, fixed route/fixed schedule, capable of carrying baggage, not commuter service, and making a mean- ingful connection with the national intercity bus network) were essentially assumed to have been applied by the program administrators in funding projects. In the survey results, it was noted that many projects funded with Section 5311(f) appeared not to meet all of the elements in the program def- inition, leading to the reaction that many of the routes were essentially regional or local rural transit, or commuter, service— i.e., not intercity service. 32

A separate TCRP project is addressing the demand for rural transit generally, and there was concern about a poten- tial overlap with that project, though it was noted that it is not developing route-level demand models for rural transit, but rather area-wide models (jurisdictional level, i.e., county or region level). TCRP B-37 panel input suggested eliminating all services in this project’s database that are essentially rural transit. A concern expressed was that this project was not intended to evaluate the state programs on their implementation of the Section 5311(f) program and the degree of their adherence to federal guidance. This concern was acknowledged by the study team and the other TCRP B-37 panel members, and the team was directed to determine a definition for the study that was not tied to the specific program guidance of the Section 5311(f) program, but would focus on services that were clearly inter- city. One position was that this definition should include only rural intercity services that are fully interlined with the national intercity network—that is, have interline tickets, coordinated schedules, and information in the main customer information systems that support the national network. However, if strictly applied, this definition might well limit the pool of data to a handful of rural feeder routes and the Section 5311(f)–funded intercity routes that are operated by the carriers in the national network—perhaps too few cases to obtain the desired database for developing tools beyond case studies. A final TCRP B-37 panel response suggested that the team seek to obtain data on rural intercity routes that are not subsidized—both to reflect that the definition is not program based and to fill out the data matrix. TCRP B-37 panel member Lawrence Hughes volunteered to review the interim report database and provide his assessment of the routes or services as to whether they were intercity. He provided an extensive report, and the study team reviewed each of the suggested classifications, agreeing in most cases. He provided a detailed categorization of services as either intercity or not, but he did not provide a formal definition. In general, the study team, and the other panel members, would probably agree with his classification (intercity or not) on 95% of the services. The definition is needed to address the other 5% and to provide a decision rule to allow inclusion in the study. The definition in this case is strictly intended for the categorization of rural intercity services for use in this study, not as an evaluation of projects as to their qualification for Section 5311(f) funding. In reviewing the categorization, the decision rule appeared to have had much to do with the potential use of the service to access the national intercity network and make a meaning- ful connection. However, Hughes did not limit the category of “intercity” to those services that have a formal interline connection, but apparently had a broader operative definition. The study team concurs in this view, primarily because: 1. It is possible that in many cases the creation of a formal interline agreement for a rural intercity service provider is not possible, feasible, or sensible, even though the service is intended to allow access to the intercity service. This may be true if the service provider found that fees imposed by terminal owners, NBTA, or other interline ticketing charges were excessive given the revenue from interline fares. It might also be the case that the potential revenue share of the rural carrier would be too low, or the cost of the staff time for the ticketing, reporting and financial accounting would exceed the potential additional revenue resulting from the ability to obtain revenue from inbound passengers who would not otherwise know about the connection. 2. It would be useful to know if there is a difference in demand between those projects that are interlined and those that pro- vide a meaningful connection but are not fully interlined. So, the definition used by the study team to classify service as intercity included the following factors: • Service does connect rural areas (non-urbanized areas with a population under 50,000) with the national intercity bus network (NBTA carriers). • Vehicles used on the service accommodate both passengers and baggage. • Service is fixed route, fixed schedule. Demand-response services, marketed as such, were not considered intercity for this study. • Information about the rural intercity transportation ser- vices must be publicly available (if the study team could not determine whether or how the service made an intercity connection, the service was excluded). • A service was considered as intercity if it makes a connection with the national intercity bus network at a common stop location. Additionally a service was included as intercity if its identified connection location was within one-quarter mile of the stop location for the national network carrier. This allowed for the inclusion of services that stopped across a street or intersection, at an adjacent station, etc. • A service was considered as intercity if it makes a meaningful connection to the national intercity network in a temporal sense, defined as a scheduled arrival at most two hours prior to the intercity bus departure and departure no later than two hours after the intercity bus arrival. • Local rural transit routes connecting to other rural intercity routes that do connect to the national intercity network are not considered intercity in themselves, as they do not connect directly to the national intercity bus network. With multiple transfers to reach the national network, it is unlikely that many of the passengers on these connecting local services are making intercity trips, even if such linkages are technically possible. 33

• Intercity routes that do not serve rural intermediate points, but have a majority of the stops located in the urbanized areas of the origin and destination endpoints, do not nec- essarily establish rural intercity service because the service is not accessible. They are not included in the definition of rural intercity points. • Commuter services, defined as peak-hour, peak-direction weekday services, are not considered rural intercity services. The point of the definition and the categorization was to identify pools of data that are appropriate for developing tools to estimate ridership. In that sense the routes included in the data should be similar to the kinds of routes or services for which the analyst will be attempting to estimate ridership. So the study team was looking for generally comparable services within each category, though it was clear from delving into the service and operational characteristics of each service that many services have unique characteristics. The study team applied the working definition provided above to the database provided in the interim report and also used it in the effort to identify and collect data on unsubsidized rural routes. Table 4-2 lists the services or routes that the study team considered as rural intercity routes provided in the traditional intercity model, generally with comparable fares, interlining, and information about connections by private carriers with low frequencies. The study team called this category “standard intercity bus.” Table 4-3 presents routes the study team defined as rural intercity services provided by regional carriers. Generally there is more variance within this group with regard to any characteristic or measure—mostly what these services have in common is that they are not “standard intercity bus service,” but they are included in the study because they do connect with the national intercity bus network and because it is likely that many users of the toolkit will be focusing on this kind of service. Routes that the study team identified previously as receiv- ing funding under Section 5311(f) programs were included in the interim report, but they are not included in these tables because they do not meet the definitional criteria developed for this study to be included in the database used to estimate demand for rural intercity services. In some cases they are demand-responsive services; in others they have commuter characteristics; and a number of them do not meet the connec- tivity requirements for projects to be considered in developing the toolkit. Unsubsidized Rural Routes The study team made efforts to collect corridor or ridership data on some services meeting the definitions of rural intercity service that were not subsidized with Section 5311(f) fund- ing. These services are included in the database presented in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. In general, carriers were not quick to provide ridership data for unsubsidized services for which ridership data is not required by any public source. Some of this data came with explicit requirements that the numbers would not be provided in any report but only used in devel- opment of the model. In some cases the study team used such data that it had available, that was provided for other more limited purposes, and for that reason will not publish specific data in the report or toolkit. In a few cases data that was offered did not materialize, even after follow-up efforts to obtain the data. At this point in the project it was decided to move ahead on Task 7, focusing on the sketch-planning guide and supporting tools using the data on hand, and the only additional research on the data was limited to efforts to understand ridership that was significantly at variance with comparable services—for example, looking back at the service points to see if there is a unique traffic generator or considering major changes in a local economy (a military base closing, for example). 34

State AR AR AR CO CO FL FL FL IA IA ID ME MI MI MI MI MI MN MN MN MN MN MT MT MT MO MO MO MO MO MO ND ND OH PA PA PA JL (All routes in AR) KBS (813, 816) JL (Table No. 755) Sterl-Den Jules-Den Miami-Key West Tampa-Tallahassee Orlando-Ft. Pierce Minn-KC Chicago-Denver Moscow-Boise Bangor-Lime Hiawatha Route Superior Route Michigan Straits Route Michigan Huron Route Michigan Sleeping Bear Rte. Duluth-Minn Minn-La Crosse Minn-Luverne Minn-Billings Fisher-Minn Miss-White Butte-Great Falls Bill-Miss Des Moi-Kan Cty KC-Fort Smith KC-Fort Smith KC-SF KC-SF St. Louis-Brlgtn Fargo-Pem KC-Winn Athens-Columbus Read-Phil Harris-Read [Follow-up] Harris-Scran {Follow-up] Route (ID) Route Description Uncertain how ridership relates to routes Fort Smith-Texarkana (Shreveport-Houston) Oklahoma City, OK to Pine Bluff, AR (Tbl #755, Run Nos: 323, 324) Sterling-Denver (Omaha-Denver) Julesburg-Denver (Chicago-Burlington-Des Moines-Omaha-Denver) Miami-Miami Intl. Airport-Key Largo-Key West (3711, 3715) Tampa-Tallahassee via New Port Richey [Multiple alignments] Orlando-Fort Pierce via Melbourne Minneapolis-Kansas City (Mason City-Lamoni segment) [Tbl 750] Des Moines-Davenport segment [Tbl 7096] [Multiple schedules] Moscow-Boise Bangor-Limestone St. Ignace-Ironwood Calumet-Milwaukee Lansing-St. Ignace Bay City-St. Ignace Grand Rapids-St. Ignace Duluth-Minneapolis Minneapolis-Rochester-La Crosse Minneapolis-Luverne (Minneapolis-Sioux Falls-Rapid City-Billings) Minneapolis-Billings, MT Fisher-Minneapolis (Winnipeg-Fargo-Minneapolis) Missoula-Whitefish Butte-Great Falls Billings-Missoula Des Moines, IA-Kansas City [Tbl 750, Run Nos: 801, 803, 806, 804] Kansas City-Nevada-Fort Smith, AR [Tbl 753, Run Nos: 117, 114] KC-Springfield-Fort Smith, AR [Tbl 753, Run Nos: 120, 121] Sioux Falls, SD-Kansas City, MO [Tbl 751, Run Nos: 501, 502] Sioux Falls, SD-Kansas City, MO [Tbl 751, Run Nos: 706, 705] St. Louis-Burlington, IA [Tbl 7095] Fargo-Pembina (KC-Omaha-Sioux Falls-Fargo-Winnipeg) Kansas City-Omaha-Sioux Falls-Fargo-Winnipeg Athens-Cleveland (data for Athens-Columbus segment) Reading-Philadelphia Harrisburg-Reading Harrisburg-Scranton Capitol Bus Company Capitol Bus Company Bieber Tourways Lakefront Lines Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Burlington Trailways Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Rimrock Trailways Rimrock Trailways Rimrock Trailways Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Indian Trails Indian Trails Indian Trails Indian Trails Indian Trails Cyr Bus Line Boise-Winnemucca Stages & Northwestern Stage Lines (Northwestern Trailways) Burlington Trailways Jefferson Lines Greyhound Lines Greyhound Lines Greyhound Lines Burlington Trailways Black Hills Stage Lines Jefferson Lines Kerrville Bus Lines Jefferson Lines Carrier X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Standard Intercity Bus 140,623b 34,700 50,933 10,779 23,960 ND ND ND 79,914 ND 9,877 15,891 9,578 20,863 10,294 9,360 24,972 19,030 16,889 27,867 47,026 34,342 3,809 7,659 12,177 68,446 23,176 20,426 35,663 41,716 ND 4,544 46,011 3,582 60,000 not avail. not avail. Ridership Annuala 181 205 125 182 160 272 121 450 300 200 329 435 203 247 270 165 129 225 358 138 156 343 202 306 415 200 218 230 175 981 114 63 60 142 Route Length - One-Way Miles 123,610 403,129 582,147 583,614 479,371 667,642 353,224 1,548,338 247,798 82,777 60,412 895,186 229,798 71,789 266,218 898,404 834,462 804,190 804,190 509,247 86,890 119,781 238,437 658,729 711,606 873,934 1,128,781 1,149,203 475,178 140,562 1,336,833 780,081 1,793,298 187,647 207,366 PA Potts-Phil [Follow-up] Pottsville-Philadelphia Capitol Bus Company X not avail. 110 1,673,025 Corridor Population Table 4-2. Standard intercity bus routes. (continued on next page)

PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX WA WI WI State Coll-Harris Pitts-Brad State Coll-Wilkes Barr State Coll-Pitts Du Bois-Harris Will-Phil Will-Easton Will-Harr Harr-Pitt Pitt-Erie Scra-Phil Hous-Texar Hous-Ft Worth El Paso-Lubb Lubb-Abi BS-Amar Lubb-Odessa SA-BigSpr Eagle-Del Rio Midland-Pres Apple Line Minn-La Crosse Minn-Milwke State College-Harrisburg Pittsburgh-Bradford State College-Wilkes Barre State College-Pittsburgh DuBois-Harrisburg Williamsport-Philadelphia Williamsport-Easton (to New York) Williamsport-Harrisburg Harrisburg-State College-Pittsburgh [Tbl 190] Pittsburgh-New Castle-Erie [Tbl 178] Scranton-Stroudsburg-Philadelphia [Tbl 166] Houston-Texarkana Houston-Fort Worth El Paso-Lubbock Lubbock-Abilene Big Spring-Amarillo Lubbock-Odessa San Antonio-Big Spring Eagle Pass-Del Rio Midland-Presidio Travel Washington Apple Line: Omak-Ellensburg Minneapolis-Rochester-La Crosse Minneapolis-Green Bay-Milwaukee Jefferson Lines Jefferson Lines Northwestern Trailways, Inc. All Aboard America! Kerrville Bus Lines Kerrville Bus Lines (Greyhound) Greyhound Greyhound Greyhound Greyhound Greyhound Greyhound Greyhound Lines Greyhound Lines Greyhound Lines Susquehanna Transit Company Susquehanna Transit Company Susquehanna Transit Company Fullington Bus Company Fullington Bus Company Fullington Bus Company Fullington Bus Company Fullington Bus Company ND 16,889 5,868 9,600 2,580 9,000 2,554 21,286 4,726 16,962 16,644 12,592 29,358 27,558 42,567 13,772 37,383 33,035 18,880 8,417 7,062 15,659 53,880 387 173 166 270 56 296 102 237 123 453 283 346 143 164 262 90 134 220 149 136 134 169 86 1,603,714 834,462 56,186 207,664 56,280 1,692,087 855,753 305,905 435,829 362,094 2,683,600 2,285,583 139,048 242,590 1,736,158 117,935 438,673 123,658 417,045 100,125 ND = Data not available or not provided. a Annual ridership for most recent full year available. b Total statewide ridership for Jefferson Lines as reported to State of Arkansas. State Route (ID) Route Description Carrier X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Standard Intercity Bus Ridership Annuala Route Length - One-Way Miles Corridor Population Table 4-2. (Continued).

AL AR CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA ID ME MT ND ND OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR PA SD VA UT UT UT WA WA WV Selma-Mont SCAT Smith River-Arcata Clearlake-Lakeport Lakeport-Ukiah SLO-Santa Maria Susanville-Reno Alturas-Redding Alturas-Klamath Falls Mojave Ridgecrest Express CREST Route Highway 140 Route Route 386 Route 388 Boise-Rex Calais-Bangor NTI Shelby Minot-Bis North South Shuttle Port-Bend Brkgs-Smi Riv CC Rider Bend-Ont Port-Astoria Port-Eugene Coos Bay-Bend KF-Medford Tilla-Port Newport-Portland Pitts-Grove Aber-Summit The Smartway Bus Rexburg to SLC Logan to SLC Provo to SLC Dungeness Line Grape Line Grey Line Selma-Montgomery Malvern-El Dorado Route 20: Smith River-Arcata Route 4: Clearlake-Lakeport Route 7: Lakeport-Ukiah Route 10: San Luis Obispo-Santa Maria Alturas-Susanville-Reno Alturas-Redding Alturas-Klamath Falls Mojave-Ridgecrest Ridgecrest-Reno Yosemite-Merced (Seasonal) Escondido-Ramona Pala-Escondido Transit Center Salt Lake Express Rexburg: Boise-Rexburg Calais-Bangor (West's Coastal Connection) Northern Transit Interlocal: Shelby-Kalispell (T, W), Shelby-Great Falls (M-Th) Minot-Bismarck; Minot-Grand Forks Bismarck, ND, to Pierre, SD Portland-Prineville-Bend Coastal Express [North Bend-Brookings-Smith River, 2 segments] Columbia County Rider: Westport-Clatskanie-Rainier-Longview/Kelso Amtrak Thruway Bus: Bend-Ontario Amtrak Thruway Bus: Portland-Astoria Amtrak Thruway Bus: Portland-Eugene Coos Bay-Bend Klamath Falls-Lake of the Woods-White City-Medford Tillamook-Portland Newport-Portland, Newport-Bend Pittsburgh-Grove City Aberdeen Ride Line: Aberdeen-Summit Roanoke-Blacksburg Rexburg, ID-Brigham-Ogden-Salt Lake City (dwntn & airport) Logan-Brigham-Ogden-Salt Lake City (dwntn & airport) Provo-Orem-Sandy-Salt Lake City (airport) Travel Washington Dungeness Line: Port Angeles-Seattle Travel Washington Grape Line: Walla Walla-Pasco Grey Line: Clarksburg-Pittsburgh West Alabama Public Transportation South Central Arkansas Transit (SCAT) Redwood Coast Transit Authority Lake Transit Authority Lake Transit Authority SLO Regional Transit Authority Sage Stage Sage Stage Sage Stage Kern Regional Transit Inyo-Mono Transit Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System North County Transit District San Diego North County Transit District San Diego Rocky Mountain Trails West's Transportation Inc. Toole County Souris Basin Transportation (New Town Bus Lines) Sitting Bull College, River Cities Public Transit Central Oregon Breeze (a division of CAC Transportation, Inc.) Curry Public Transit Columbia County contracts with private operator Porter Stage Lines Oregon Coachways Oregon Coachways Porter Stage Lines The Shuttle Inc. Tillamook County Transportation District Valley Retriever Bus Lines Myers Coach Lines City of Aberdeen Valley Metro Salt Lake Expressa Salt Lake Expressa Salt Lake Expressa Olympic Bus Lines Airporter Shuttle/Bellair Charters Mountain Line Transit Authority 6,677 4,343 12,847 4,193 8,406 91,478 981 790 979 6,093 4,364 59,469 43,000 124,564 1,451 3,985 2,400 4,560 116 Not Avail. 8,760 900 4,788 11,016 41,172 Not Avail. 4,104 Not Avail. 6,996 32,212 1,393 63,894 Available Available Available 12,972 5,000 6,709 52 124 94 24 45 35 203 145 107 83 400 90 22 27 335 175 85 321 208 161 110 30 259 106 112 251 76 73 66 60 75 37 239 85 60 123 50 150 405,337 65,648 661,061 459,615 241,824 396,638 176,178 28,247 365,573 1,146,243 618,551 88,802 217,896 844,790 551,513 68,054 49,770 38,870 692,270 77,677 160,588 81,052 53,809 39,121 140,882 149,250 65,631 276,586 37,148 23,374 87,622 194,021 171,692 23,815 22,645 24,143 52,376 222,080 a Annual ridership for most recent full year available. State Route (ID) Route Description Carrier X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Standard Intercity Bus Ridership Annuala Route Length - One-Way Miles Corridor Population Table 4-3. Regional carriers.