udot statewide intercity bus study

Utah Department of Transportation

UDOT Statewide Intercity Bus Study

Section 5311(f) – Intercity Bus Program

February 2010

Public Transit Team

Utah Intercity Bus Study Final Report September 2009

Page left intentionally blank


Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 1

INVENTORY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS ................................................................................... 1 RECOMMENDED SERVICES .............................................................................................................................. 1

NEW SERVICE ROUTES ......................................................................................................................................... 2 INVESTMENT IN MARKETING AND COORDINATION TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF SERVICES ............................ 2

RECOMMENDED POLICY FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 1: POLICY CONTEXT AND PREVIOUS PLANNING .................................................................. 6

FEDERAL FUNDING AND POLICY .................................................................................................................. 6 1. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311(F) .................................................................................. 7 2. FEDERAL BUS AND BUS FACILITY PROGRAM—INTERMODAL TERMINALS ................................................... 11 3. SECTION 3038 OVER-THE-ROAD BUS ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM GRANTS .................................................... 12

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (FMCSA) ..................................................... 13 CARRIER POLICIES ............................................................................................................................................ 15

GREYHOUND LINES ............................................................................................................................................ 16 INTERLINING AND THE NATIONAL BUS TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION ....................................................................... 18

PREVIOUS PLANNING STUDIES .................................................................................................................... 19 ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABILITY AND NEED FOR INTER-CITY BUS SERVICES IN UTAH .................................... 19 UTAH’S COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN .................................................... 21 UINTAH BASIN PUBLIC TRANSIT BUSINESS PLAN .............................................................................................. 21

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING INTERCITY BUS SERVICES ................................................................................... 25

EXISTING INTERCITY BUS PROVIDERS ........................................................................................................ 25 CLASSIFICATION OF INTERCITY BUS CARRIERS ...................................................................................... 26 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 29

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS—AREAS OF HIGHER POTENTIAL NEED ................................................ 29 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................. 32 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 34

DESTINATIONS/FACILITIES ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 46 COLLEGES AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS ............................................................................................................ 46 MILITARY BASES ................................................................................................................................................ 46 HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CENTERS ................................................................................................................. 46 CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................ 53 MAJOR AIRPORTS ............................................................................................................................................... 53 RECREATION SITES ............................................................................................................................................. 55


SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER 4: PUBLIC OUTREACH ..................................................................................................................... 59

RESULTS OF WORKSHOP ................................................................................................................................. 59 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 60

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY OF UTAH’S INTERCITY BUS NEEDS ................................................................ 61

IDENTIFICATION OF STATEWIDE NEEDS .................................................................................................. 61 1. EXPANSION OF EXISTING SERVICES .............................................................................................................. 61 2. COORDINATION OF PROVIDERS ..................................................................................................................... 63 3. IMPROVED AWARENESS OF EXISTING INTERCITY BUS SERVICES .................................................................. 64

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 65

CHAPTER 6: STRATEGIES TO MEET INTERCITY BUS NEEDS ................................................................ 67

OVERVIEW OF UTAH STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................... 67 POTENTIAL OPERATING PROJECTS ............................................................................................................. 68

SALT LAKE CITY EAST TO THE STATE LINE VIA U.S.40 ...................................................................................... 68 RICHFIELD TO PROVO/SALT LAKE CITY ............................................................................................................. 68 DELTA TO PROVO/SALT LAKE CITY VIA NEPHI .................................................................................................. 75 KANAB TO ST. GEORGE, VIA LA VERKIN AND HURRICANE ................................................................................ 76 MOAB, WITH MULTIPLE OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE TO/FROM BLANDING AND MONTICELLO, TO GREEN

RIVER (AND POTENTIALLY TO PROVO/SALT LAKE CITY .................................................................................... 80 POTENTIAL NON-OPERATING PROJECTS .................................................................................................. 82

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 82 COORDINATION THROUGH MARKETING, INFORMATION, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ................................. 83 COORDINATION FACILITIES................................................................................................................................ 84

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 85 ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM SCENARIOS ................................................................................................................ 87

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 89

CHAPTER 7: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 92

KEY POLICY ISSUES FOR UTAH ..................................................................................................................... 92 NO CERTIFICATION—UTAH HAS UNMET RURAL INTERCITY BUS NEEDS ........................................................ 92 CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERCITY BUS PROGRAM PROCESS ............................................................................. 93 THE STATE ROLE ................................................................................................................................................ 94 SECTION 5311(F) FUNDING AND MATCH ....................................................................................................... 100

INTERCITY BUS PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 101 PROJECT PRIORITY ........................................................................................................................................... 101 OPERATING ASSISTANCE.................................................................................................................................. 102 CAPITAL ASSISTANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 104 PLANNING ........................................................................................................................................................ 105 ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................................................ 113 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE ........................................................................................................................... 113

SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 114


Appendices APPENDIX A – DETAILED INVENTORY OF EXISTING SERVICES APPENDIX B – PUBLIC OUTREACH MATERIALS APPENDIX C – PILOT PROJECT FUNDING FEASIBILITY BY ROUTE

Utah Intercity Bus Study Final Report 1 September 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recent planning efforts have demonstrated a need to develop and support a statewide intercity transportation network. Consequently, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has undertaken this study to:

• Inventory existing intercity public transportation providers and identify unmet intercity public transportation needs;

• Develop conceptual service plans and strategies that meet the identified needs, and;

• Provide policy recommendations regarding the development of an intercity bus program.

INVENTORY AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS While portions of the State are well served by intercity bus providers, a number of areas have a demonstrable need for intercity bus service but are not part of the current intercity bus network. The top five areas with the most critical unmet needs include:

• Richfield • Park City • Vernal • Delta • Moab

Detailed information about the policy context, inventory of existing services, data analysis and public outreach efforts conducted in support of these findings can be found in Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively.

RECOMMENDED SERVICES A synthesis of the research conducted for this study indicates that expansion of intercity bus services is the greatest need in the state. Other needs include increased coordination among existing providers as well as a need for increased marketing and promotion of available services. The following recommendations are presented to address these needs.


NEW SERVICE ROUTES

Five service routes are proposed to provide new service to areas of the state that are recognized as having the most critical unmet needs:

• The U.S. 40 corridor from Salt Lake City east to the state line (and on to Denver, Colorado), via Heber and Vernal

• The U.S. 89 corridor from Richfield to Provo/Salt Lake City, via Manti and Mount Pleasant

• Delta to Provo/Salt Lake City, via Nephi • Kanab to St. George, via La Verkin and Hurricane • Moab, with multiple options including service to/from Blanding and Monticello,

to Green River (and potentially to Provo/Salt Lake City)

If Greyhound Lines is willing to allow for the use of the value of their unsubsidized services in Utah as match, the fifteen percent rural intercity bus set-aside amount represents enough funding to support the identified routes and services using the Pilot Project funding method. The identified services can be scheduled to provide meaningful connections with existing unsubsidized intercity bus service, thus permitting the use of federal funding for the operations of these services.

INVESTMENT IN MARKETING AND COORDINATION TO INCREASE AWARENESS

OF SERVICES

Another strategy recommendation is to strengthen the existing intercity bus network through better coordination, marketing, and technical assistance. The network of available services should be presented to the public to make them aware of the options and more readily able to access schedule and fare information.

Detailed information about the development and analysis of service options in support of these recommendations can be found in Chapter 6.

RECOMMENDED POLICY FRAMEWORK To implement these service options, the policy and program recommendations are as follows:

• UDOT should not certify to FTA that there are no unmet rural intercity bus needs, and should use the FTA Section 5311(f) set aside portion of Utah’s Section


5311 apportionment to support the development of rural intercity bus services that address needs identified in this report.

• At least in the initial years of the program it is recommended that Utah offer its intercity bus program as a stand-alone grant program similar to its other transit programs.

• UDOT should use a grant solicitation which initially seeks proposals for one or two corridors (depending on available staff resources) in addition to the current joint project with Colorado Department of Transportation to reinstate service in the U.S.40 corridor.

• UDOT should take advantage of the in-kind funding method to meet the requirement for local operating match.

• The top recommended priority is providing funding to existing rural intercity bus services. The second recommended priority is funding new intercity routes.

• UDOT should participate in frequent and regular planning activities to stay current in its understanding of statewide intercity transportation needs.

• To carry out the necessary administrative tasks associated with implementing this program it is recommended that UDOT devote specific staff support to the program. If UDOT cannot provide additional state staffing for this effort, these functions could be performed by a contract employee or consultant.

Detailed information about the development and analysis of policy and program options in support of these recommendations can be found in Chapter 7


INTRODUCTION

Beginning with the construction of major highways connecting rural and urban areas in the United States, intercity public transit service has been an important resource for Americans and Utahns alike. Over the past half century, however, the availability of intercity transit service has changed substantially. Since deregulation of the intercity public transit industry in the early 1980s, service in the US has been dropped from approximately 10,000 destinations nationwide. Similarly, many rural communities in Utah have experienced reduced or eliminated service over the past decade.

In response to these and other changes, the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the intercity transit industry, has developed funding programs specifically for intercity public transit service. The Section 5311(f) program provides funding for intercity bus connections, defined as:

“regularly scheduled bus service for the general public that operates with limited stops over fixed routes connecting two or more urban areas not in close proximity, that has the capacity for transporting baggage carried by passengers, and that makes meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant points, if such service is available.”

Utah’s recently completed Coordinated Human Service Public Transportation Plan found several communities where intercity public transportation needs were not being met, or where there were gaps in service. As such, FY 2007 funds represent the first time in recent years in which the state cannot certify that its intercity public transportation needs are being met.

Consequently, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) pursued a process to build on the findings of Utah’s Coordinated Human Service Public Transportation Plan to:

• Inventory existing intercity public transportation providers and identify unmet intercity public transportation needs;

• Develop conceptual service plans and strategies that meet the identified needs, and;

• Provide policy recommendations regarding the development of an intercity bus program.


REPORT ORGANIZATION This report documents the study process and presents the final recommendations of the study. It contains seven chapters, as follows:

• Chapter 1 provides a review of federal policy context regarding intercity bus as well as a review of previous intercity bus planning studies undertaken in Utah.

• Chapter 2 presents an inventory of current intercity bus providers. • Chapter 3 presents an analysis of the intercity bus transportation needs of the

state based on demographic and location analysis. • Chapter 4 describes the outreach effort of the study, a workshop meeting held in

Salt Lake City where numerous providers, city officials, and elected leaders met to discuss the state’s intercity bus needs.

• Chapter 5 presents a summary of the intercity bus needs of the state based on the data analysis and outreach efforts.

• Chapter 6 provides service design strategies to address the highest priority unmet service needs.

• Chapter 7 provides recommendations for the development of a program to address the needs for rural intercity bus service in Utah.


CHAPTER 1: POLICY CONTEXT AND PREVIOUS PLANNING

The purpose of this chapter is to document the context within which UDOT must work to address intercity transportation needs while developing an intercity transportation program. The first part of the chapter explores the federal context in regards to intercity transportation. This chapter will point UDOT to available funding sources and address their requirements. In addition to funding sources, this chapter will also discuss the federal regulatory context surrounding intercity travel and how it relates to developing an intercity network of carriers. This chapter also includes an overview of the current major carrier/industry policies that affect intercity travel in Utah. The chapter concludes with a review of previous planning studies undertaken in the state regarding Utah’s intercity bus network.

FEDERAL FUNDING AND POLICY An important aspect of federal policies and funding for intercity bus services is the federal definition of “public transportation.” The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) adopted a change in the FTA definition of public transportation that constrains the use of federal transit funds for intercity bus services. The language excludes “intercity bus transportation” from the definition of public transportation that is supported with federal funding, with three exceptions: the 49 U.S.C 5311(f) rural intercity bus assistance program, intermodal facilities (under Section 5309), and the Section 3038 of SAFETEA-LU Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility Program to assist in purchasing accessibility equipment and training for private operators of over-the-road coaches. This means that public transit agencies that receive FTA funding cannot operate intercity bus service between urbanized areas—this is a market reserved for the private for-profit industry.

The three types of federal intercity bus services assistance are discussed below.


1. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311(F)

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311(f) funds are a key funding source for intercity bus operations and are used in a majority of states to subsidize targeted intercity bus services. Section 5311(f) is a subsection of the Section 5311 formula allocation program for small urban and rural areas under 50,000 in population. Section 5311 allocates funding to each state’s governor for distribution to local applicants. The amount of funds provided to each state is based on the non-urbanized population of the state. The annual FTA Section 5311 apportionments can be found at www.fta.gov

Fifteen percent of the annual Section 5311 apportionment must be used to support intercity bus service through the Section 5311(f) component of the program, unless the governor of the state certifies that all rural intercity bus needs are met. A partial certification is also possible, if the rural intercity transportation needs can be met without utilizing the full 15 percent.

If the governor certifies that intercity bus needs are met, the funding reverts to the overall Section 5311 program for use in support of other rural transit projects. Under SAFETEA-LU, states planning to certify (partially or completely) are required to undergo a consultation process prior to the governor’s certification. Chapter VIII of Circular 9040.1F (Circular) calls for the certification process to include identification of the intercity carriers; definition of the activities the state will undertake as part of the consultation process; an opportunity for intercity carriers to submit information regarding service needs; a planning process that examines unmet needs; and documentation that the results of the consultation process support the decision to certify—if, in fact, that is the final decision.

Under the Section 5311(f) program, intercity bus service is defined as regularly scheduled bus service for the general public which operates with limited stops over fixed routes connecting two or more urban areas not in close proximity; has the capacity to carry passenger baggage; and makes meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to points outside the service area. Feeder services to intercity bus services are also eligible. Commuter service is excluded. The Section 5311(f) program is implemented by each state as part of its overall Section 5311 program management activities. In the Circular, FTA includes guidance that makes clear that Section 5311(f) funded intercity bus services must take schedule considerations into account to have a meaningful connection with scheduled intercity bus services to points outside the service area, thereby attaching the dimension of time (schedule) 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 in the urban area should not properly be considered for Section 5311(f) funding, but instead should utilize other federal funding programs. Both of these interpretations have the effect of narrowing the definition of eligible intercity service that satisfies Section 5311(f) criteria. It should be noted that the connection to intercity bus services is a key element of the federal program guidance:

“Connection to the national network of intercity bus service is an important goal of Section 5311(f) and services funded must make meaningful connections wherever feasible . . . The definition of intercity bus service does not include commuter service (service designed primarily to provide daily work trips with the local commuting area) . . . Intercity bus does not include air, water, and rail service.” 1

Historically, for both Section 5311 and Section 5311(f) capital funds, the maximum federal shares have been 80 percent of the cost for capital and 50 percent of the net cost for operating assistance. Following the passage of SAFETEA-LU, FTA has also issued guidance for a two-year pilot program permitting use of the value of capital used in connecting private unsubsidized service as an in-kind match for Section 5311(f) operating funds. FTA has since extended this option for the life of SAFETEA-LU, and it has been included in proposed reauthorization bills.

In such projects, the carrier providing the in-kind match is also part of the project. FTA will require that the project demonstrate that the carrier providing the in-kind match is agreeable to the use of its in-kind value for the project. If the value of the in-kind match is sufficient, the impact of this pilot program is that it may be possible to operate Section 5311(f) connecting service without local cash match. Obtaining local cash operating match has been a major program issue, particularly in states that provide no state operating assistance—such as Utah.

State administration, planning, and technical assistance in support of intercity bus service are eligible at 100 percent federal share if applied against the 15 percent cap on state administration expenses. The amount of Section 5311 funds used for planning of intercity bus service is not limited by the 15 percent cap. However, the federal share of

1 Federal Transit Administration FTA C 9040.1F, Nonurbanized Area Formula Program Guidance and Grant Application Instructions, p.VII 4-5. April 1, 2007.


any planning assistance for intercity bus, not included in the 15 percent allowed for state administration, is limited to 80 percent of the planning cost.

For projects that may have both a rural and urban component (for example, a bus terminal located in an urbanized area, but served by rural routes), recipients can use Section 5311(f) funds as a portion of the overall project funding. Their use for capital projects in urbanized areas is limited to those aspects of the project that can be clearly identified as a direct benefit to services to and from non-urbanized areas. Such projects have to be included in the metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which subsequently becomes part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

With regard to eligible recipients, for the Section 5311(f) program only, FTA allows states to pass-through funds to private intercity bus carriers directly as sub-recipients, if they are willing to accept the federal terms and conditions. Carriers may decide not to be recipients directly, and prefer to be third-party contractors to a sub-recipient (which may be the state itself or a local public entity or nonprofit organization). As a third-party contractor, a carrier is able to isolate its other (non-assisted) operations from the requirements associated with a federal and/or state grant.

Recent Guidance on the 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 language allowing states to use the capital costs of unsubsidized private sector intercity bus service as in-kind match for the operating costs of connecting rural intercity bus feeder service. The FTA guidance on this pilot project includes language that explains how Section 5311(f) projects can use the value of the capital cost portion of connecting services on the unsubsidized intercity bus network as an in-kind local match for operating projects.

As part of this approach, the value of the capital cost portion of the total cost of the connecting unsubsidized services is used as in-kind match because the operating cost portion of these miles is offset by the revenues, and so it would not be eligible for operating assistance in the absence of a net operating deficit (and therefore would not be eligible to be considered as an in-kind contribution). Based on the precedent of the FTA regulations permitting 50 percent of the total cost of a turnkey operating contract to be considered as eligible for the 80 percent capital match ratio, FTA has allowed 50 percent 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 project definition includes connecting unsubsidized service on a specified segment, in terms of both costs and revenues. As in the case of most intercity bus services, costs are based on the cost per-mile. The length of the segment and the frequency of the connecting service determine the number of bus-miles operated in turn setting a limit on the value of the in-kind contribution. The capital cost portion of the unsubsidized segment is included. Depending on the project definition, the amount of unsubsidized service may provide enough in-kind match to allow federal funds to cover the entire net operating deficit of the rural feeder service. FTA recognizes that the amount of in-kind match may not be enough to fully fund the feeder service, and that additional cash match may be required. However, if the in-kind match exceeds the amount needed, the excess cannot be used to increase the federal share above the actual operating deficit of the project.

In cases where the unsubsidized (from an operating perspective), connecting intercity bus service is already operated with FTA-funded capital for vehicles, the percentage used for in-kind will need to be adjusted. This adjustment will follow the guidelines provided by FTA for determining the percentage of contract cost eligible for capital under the capital cost of contracting guidance in cases where the buses are FTA-funded. This circumstance would necessarily reduce the amount of in-kind generated.

A major part of the rationale for this approach is based on the call for “meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant points” contained in the FTA Circular. Because the proposal for valuing unsubsidized service as local match involves defining the project in terms of a meaningful connection, FTA’s guidance requires that the private operator has consented to the arrangement in the project and acknowledges that the service it provides is covered by the labor warranty and other requirements.

Because this essentially supplants the need for local operating match, it will have the effect of utilizing the available Section 5311(f) operating funds at approximately twice the rate that would have been the case, where local sources (including carriers or transit agencies) provided local match for 50 percent of the net operating deficit. In addition, it means that the policy guidelines and project designs will need to conform to the FTA guidance for such projects, and that the private carriers providing the unsubsidized segments will need to be full participants in program and project design.


2. FEDERAL BUS AND BUS FACILITY PROGRAM—INTERMODAL TERMINALS

In addition to assistance for maintaining or developing rural intercity bus services, a second aspect of intercity bus service that is addressed by federal transit policy and funding is support for intermodal terminals—i.e., passenger terminals that are served by more than one transit mode or carrier. There are many such terminals around the country that are served by private for-profit intercity bus companies, in which passengers can change carriers. Many of them also have intercity or commuter rail passenger service and most have local bus transit or other transit service.

Often intermodal facilities are joint development projects that also include commercial office space, retail space, or even residential units. These projects are typically developed by local transit or development authorities, who act as the applicant for federal and available state funding. Private for-profit intercity bus firms have been involved, either as partners (contributing some of the local capital match), tenants (leasing docking space for buses, counters, offices, and paying a pro rata share of common space), or sometimes both (paying a pro rata share of operating expenses, but not having to lease because of participation in the local match). Funding for these projects has generally come from the FTA capital programs—particularly the Bus and Bus Facilities program, Section 5309, most of the funding of which is earmarked by Congress for specific projects, but also from Section 5307, Section 5311, or Section 5311(f). Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program capital funding has also been used for intermodal facilities, including both terminal buildings and park and ride lots.

SAFETEA-LU makes it clear that private intercity carriers should be considered as eligible to benefit from federal transit funding in these projects—the intercity bus portion of an intermodal facility is now eligible under the Bus and Bus Facilities program. Preliminary guidance about this change has been issued by FTA.

In addition, SAFETEA-LU creates a funding source for the intercity bus facilities by authorizing $35 million per year under the Bus and Bus Facilities discretionary program (Section 3011) for intercity bus facilities. This totals $175 million over the life of the bill, beginning in FY 2005. The program is administered by FTA and is likely to fit within the general Bus and Bus Facilities program. It is likely that this funding will be considered as having been applied to the earmark projects that have intercity components, so it may not represent a new additional source. SAFETEA-LU contains an extensive list of such projects.


Section 5309 funding has also been used in the past in other states for buses used by private intercity providers, while this has not been common, it is another way to provide vehicle capital for rural intercity services.

3. SECTION 3038 OVER-THE-ROAD COACH ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM GRANTS

This program was authorized as part of TEA-21, and it continues under SAFETEA-LU. It makes funds available to private operators of over-the-road coaches to pay for the incremental capital and training costs associated with compliance of the final DOT rules on over-the-road accessibility2. The Section 3038 program is unusual in that it is conducted directly by FTA (including its regional offices) rather than being managed by state recipients. The solicitation for applications is conducted on a national basis, with federal funding to provide up to 90% of the costs of accessibility equipment (such as wheelchair lifts, access doors, folding seats, interlocks, tie-downs, etc. and the labor cost for installation) and training. The funds can be spent on the incremental costs of such equipment on a new coach, or used to retrofit existing coaches.

In FY 2006, $5,568,750 was provided to regular-route carriers, and an additional $1,856,250 to charter and other operators of over-the-road coaches. Over-the-road coaches are defined as coaches with a high seating deck with luggage compartments below. The definition of intercity, fixed-route over-the-road coach service is essentially the same as that for the Section 5311 program: “regularly scheduled bus service for the general public, using an over-the-road bus that: operates with limited stops over fixed routes connecting two or more urban areas not in close proximity; has the capacity for transporting baggage carried by passengers; and makes meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant points.” The only difference is the focus on the over-the-road coach.

In terms of a potential state role, Utah could encourage carriers serving the state to apply for funding, could assist them in preparing grant applications, and could potentially provide the 10% local match if the state decided to provide transit funding (the state of Utah currently does not provide funding for transit). However, it should be noted that the bus industry associations have provided models for grant applications, and the 10% carrier match is not a major barrier to participation (it is likely that the cost of having a vehicle out of service for a retrofit is a larger barrier). The major statewide

2 49 CFR Part 37, published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1998 (63 FR 51670).


scheduled carrier, Greyhound Lines, Inc. (GLI), received $2,803,950 in FY 2007 for its national fleet.

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

(FMCSA) In addition to the policy implications of the three intercity bus funding sources above, the other major federal policy framework affecting intercity bus service is the regulatory framework of the FMCSA. The FMCSA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and one remnant of the regulatory authority formerly exercised by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). FMCSA does not have any role in the economic regulation of the intercity bus industry. Rather, its focus is on ensuring that the firms providing service in interstate commerce are financially responsible (have the required levels of insurance) and operate within the federal safety requirements. Thus the FMCSA requirements are important to UDOT in that intercity bus carriers in the state that offer interline service to interstate passengers must meet FMCSA requirements, with some limited exceptions. In addition, FMCSA policing of insurance and safety allows UDOT to address these issues by requiring FMCSA registration and compliance, rather than having to process these tasks itself. In Utah, these requirements are addressed by the Motor Carrier Division of UDOT.

In general, all commercial motor vehicle operators that transport passengers “for-hire” across state lines must register with the FMCSA. For-hire means that the operator receives compensation, even if it is not directly from passengers (for example, if Medicaid pays for the trip). This is true for non-profit agencies as well as for-profit firms. Used in interstate commerce to transport passengers, a commercial motor vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating (or weight, or gross combination weight) in excess of 10,001 pounds; is designed or used to carry more than eight passengers, including the driver, for compensation; or is designed or used to carry more than 15 passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation. There are exceptions for school bus service, operations entirely within a commercial zone, and taxicab service. There are specific definitions for commercial zones in the law, including listing of specific zones and a generic definition for other locations not specifically listed.

The commercial vehicle operator transporting passengers for-hire in interstate service must apply for a license, filing a Form OP-1(P) in paper or on-line and paying an


application fee. The applicant must present evidence of the proper insurance and designate a process agent (a representative who can receive court papers that might be served in any court proceeding against the carrier). Generally the operator must pay a fee to a process agent for these services. The required insurance levels are based on the seating capacity of the vehicle (the largest vehicle in the operator’s fleet or the number of passengers, whichever is greater). The liability insurance coverage per occurrence is $5 million for vehicles having a capacity of 16 or more passengers, and $1.5 million for 9 to 15 passenger vehicles. Once the operator has a license, they receive an MC (for motor carrier) number and a USDOT number. The USDOT number and the name of the operator must be marked on the buses. There is no separate fee to obtain the USDOT number. Public entities performing for-hire services are exempt from the need to obtain a USDOT number and from several other FMCSA safety requirements, but they must obtain operating authority (an MC number) if they are providing transportation that would otherwise be covered by these requirements.

Commercial vehicle operators that provide interstate service and receive funding under Section 5311(f) (or Section 5311, Section 5307, or Section 5310), or contract to provide service funded by these programs, do not have to meet the insurance requirements listed above, but must carry insurance at the highest levels required by any of the states in which they operate. Also, the application fee for the FMCSA license is waived—but the operator must still file and obtain a MC number and a USDOT number (unless a public entity). These exemptions and exceptions for FTA grantees and contractors receiving FTA funding are not widely known in the FMCSA system. Applicants may need to contact FMCSA offices directly and explain their status as recipients of FTA funding in order to receive the fee waiver and the alternative insurance requirements. It should be noted that operators receiving Section 5311(f) funding, who wish to interline with GLI or be part of the National Bus Traffic Association (NBTA) interline ticketing system, will need to meet FMCSA levels of insurance, which may be higher than the amount required of FTA sub-recipients not providing interstate transportation.

FMCSA is also responsible for safety regulations affecting commercial motor vehicles operated in interstate commerce. In addition to the requirements for the appropriate USDOT numbers and vehicle markings, FMCSA sets requirements for driver qualifications, driver medical examinations, hours of service limits, records of duty status, vehicle safety inspections, and documentation of vehicle repair and maintenance. FMCSA regulations include the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL)


requirements for both interstate and intrastate commercial transportation (for operators of vehicles designed to transport 16 or more passengers). FMCSA regulations also include drug and alcohol testing. However, if the operator is receiving FTA funds, the FTA drug and alcohol and drug-free workplace requirements apply.

In Utah, various state agencies participate in approving and monitoring the CDL program, medical exams, vehicle safety and inspections, and vehicle licenses. The Motor Carrier Division (MCD) of UDOT works with FMCSA and the Utah Highway Patrol to enforce the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs). MCD Transportation Safety Investigators conduct on-site investigations of carrier records to ensure compliance. The MCD also administers and enforces size and weight limitations and oversees the Port of Entry (POE) facilities located at key gateways. The MCD works with the Utah Highway Patrol to conduct roadside vehicle safety inspections on commercial motor vehicles operating in Utah. Much more detail about the regulations and their application is contained in the Utah Trucking Guide 2009 Edition, which also applies to for-hire passenger carriers.

CARRIER POLICIES In addition to the federal funding and regulatory policies, the intercity bus program in the State of Utah must recognize and work with the private sector industry that provides most of the intercity bus service—in part because federal policy does not allow the state to participate in providing intercity bus service between urbanized areas, and also because it would cost a great deal of public funding to replace the extensive network of service provided by the private carriers. In the development of a program at this time, the private intercity bus industry is also a key participant in the state’s intercity bus program because of the recent FTA regulatory guidance, which allows the use of the value of capital on unsubsidized, connecting intercity bus service as in-kind operating match for Section 5311(f) operating grants. Project designs utilizing this approach to funding need to include the unsubsidized private carrier, which is providing the connecting service, as part of the overall project design and application. This means that the private carriers are part of the program, along with the state and the local Section 5311(f) grantee (or contractor).


GREYHOUND LINES

Greyhound Lines is the only national network of scheduled intercity bus service, and it performs a critical function in linking the other smaller regional services around the country. It is a private for-profit firm, owned by FirstGroup USA. Greyhound is the largest carrier in Utah, and its policies regarding coordination with other services must be recognized in the development of intercity bus programs. Like the airlines, intercity bus ridership fell after 9/11/01, and during the same period Greyhound faced increased competition from independent and ethnic bus companies in many parts of the country. It also faced the costs of implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act and the increases in fuel and insurance costs. In 2004-05 Greyhound conducted a system restructuring, eliminating low ridership stops and route. Basically, in order to fully utilize its fleet and return to profitability, Greyhound has focused service on routes between larger urbanized areas, responding to customer requests for more frequent express services. Local service with many intermediate stops, routes serving non-urbanized locations, and many routes not operating on the Interstate highways or other expressways have been dropped. Nationwide almost a thousand rural and small urban places lost service under this restructuring. In Utah the service from Salt Lake City to Denver via U.S.40, through Vernal, was eliminated.

However, Greyhound is interested in continuing to receive traffic from these areas, primarily by increasing its coordination with smaller regional intercity bus carriers and increasingly with public transit providers that operate services to connect rural areas with Greyhound stops in urbanized areas. Section 5311(f) funding is intended to provide exactly this type of service, and the firm wants to expand its cooperation with states and rural transit operators.

Greyhound has taken a number of steps to facilitate increased coordination with rural feeder operators. It has worked with the USDOT, states, and transit operators to develop an approach to insurance that will allow Greyhound to quote connecting rural transit services in its schedule information system, without requiring that they carry the full private sector insurance levels required by the FMCSA. Greyhound has supported the development of the concept of using the capital value of its services as in-kind match for operating assistance on connecting subsidized services under Section 5311(f). The company has worked with the NBTA to develop a way for rural feeders to participate in the interline ticketing system.


Greyhound’s view of coordinated rural-intercity service bus includes the following elements:

• Connecting service (to Greyhound) should be scheduled, not demand-responsive (so the schedule information system can quote times to customers).

• Connecting carriers should have proper operating authority and insurance levels.

• Connecting service should be operated at least five days per week. • Connecting service should not duplicate existing service, either by Greyhound,

another carrier, or subsidized transit service. • Connecting carriers should offer proper ticketing and package express service. • Connecting carrier information should be available nationwide as part of the

national intercity bus network.

Greyhound offers several ways to coordinate on ticketing and information. These include a role for the rural connecting carrier as a formal interline partner (accepting Greyhound tickets and package express service over the national bus network and providing tickets that are accepted by other carriers in the interline system), as a Commission Agent (selling Greyhound tickets and package express service for a percentage commission), or simply by allowing Greyhound terminal access with no joint ticketing. If a connecting carrier wishes to be included in Greyhound’s national schedules and telephone/internet schedule information system, it must be an interline partner.

For liability reasons, Greyhound requires that its interline partners have FMCSA authority to operate (an MC number and a USDOT number)—even if they do not themselves operate in interstate service. However, Greyhound accepts different insurance levels so that an FTA funding recipient might not need the full $5 million in coverage. Greyhound requires $1.5 million combined single limit liability for vehicles with a seating capacity of 15 or less, $2 million for vehicles with a capacity of 16 to 30, and $5 million for vehicles with a capacity over 30. Under FMCSA rules, interstate commercial vehicle operators that receive FTA funding are only required to have the highest insurance levels required by the states served. The State of Utah has adopted the federal insurance standards for motor carriers: $5,000,000 for vehicles with passenger capacities equal to or exceeding sixteen passengers, and $1,500,000 vehicles with passenger capacities between seven and fifteen passengers. For access to


Greyhound terminals, other carriers are required to have general liability insurance with a combined single limit of at least $1 million.

INTERLINING AND THE NATIONAL BUS TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION

The NBTA is a non-profit association created by the bus industry in 1933 as a clearinghouse for interline ticket revenue, as a tariff publisher, and to deal with interline baggage and package express in terms of liability and revenue. It currently has 59 member firms that provide scheduled intercity bus service. In Utah, Greyhound and Salt Lake Express are members.

Interline tickets allow a passenger to buy a single ticket that provides travel over two or more different bus companies. The NBTA clearinghouse allows the different firms that provide transportation on a particular ticket to collect their proportionate share of the revenue based on the part of the trip that carrier provided. The proportionate share is calculated based on the ratio of the miles a particular passenger was transported on that carrier to the total miles of the passenger’s trip. This is called the mileage prorate. The participating carriers submit their bill for their share of these revenues on a monthly basis, and the NBTA clearinghouse processes all of these claims.

Normally membership involves placing some equity into the “bank” that provides liquidity to this function, along with other qualifications (including a number of requirements on the ticket itself). However, to facilitate participation in interline arrangements by Section 5311(f) funded operators or other transit agencies, NBTA has created a category of membership called a Sponsored Membership, in which a rural connector can participate in the interline system through a member carrier that is their Sponsoring Member (most likely an interline partner). The rural connector pays only a $100 annual membership fee to NBTA, and it can then sell interline tickets on the sponsoring carrier’s ticket stock from originating points on the sponsoring carrier’s routes. The sponsored rural transit connector would be required to honor tickets issued by other NBTA members for services originating on their lines. The sponsoring NBTA member secures the “reclaims” for the sponsored member. It should be noted that Greyhound is an NBTA member, and participation as a sponsored interline partner would make the rural connector a Greyhound interline partner, with schedules and fares quoted on the nationwide Greyhound telephone/internet information system.

The new policies of the intercity bus industry, particularly the Greyhound and NBTA interlining policies, provide a significant opportunity for transit operators, especially


those receiving Section 5311(f), to become an integral part of the national intercity bus network. Requiring Section 5311(f) contractors or sub-recipients to participate to the largest extent possible would make a great deal of sense, and would likely result in higher ridership and revenue than would otherwise be the case.

PREVIOUS PLANNING STUDIES Another component to understanding the context of Utah’s intercity bus system is a review of previous planning efforts. Three previous studies are relevant to this discussion of Utah’s intercity bus needs:

• UDOT Report No. UT-02.23, Assessment of Availability and Need for Inter-City Bus Services in Utah, completed in July 1996

• Utah’s Coordinated Human Service Public Transportation Plan, completed in June 2007.

• Uintah Basin Public Transit Business Plan, completed in May 2008

The major findings from these studies related to intercity transportation needs are reviewed here, along with their recommendations and strategies, which will be considered in developing conceptual alternatives for new or expanded intercity bus services in Utah.

ASSESSMENT OF AVAILABILITY AND NEED FOR INTER-CITY BUS SERVICES IN

UTAH

The purpose of this report was two-fold: to assess Utah’s existing intercity bus network at the time (around 1995) and to recommend the most effective ways for the state to spend Section 5311(f) funds. The report’s inventory of existing services found that intercity bus service throughout Utah decreased significantly between 1980 and 1995. Whereas the state’s two main providers, Greyhound and Trailways (notably different than the current Utah Trailways, which largely provides charter bus transportation for private groups, listed in this report’s inventory) previously served 101 stops in Utah in 1980, only 31 stops were served by 1995. Small and presumably rural communities with populations less than 2,500 were disproportionately negatively affected by this decrease in statewide intercity bus service. In 1995, nearly one quarter of the state’s population did not have easy access to Greyhound or UTA services, which had become the main means of intercity transportation in Utah. The rural counties that had no access to intercity bus services also had higher percentages of transit-dependent populations,


including older adults, persons with disabilities, and persons with lower incomes, than the statewide average. This inventory indicated significant intercity transportation needs for rural populations in the non-urbanized parts of the state.

This report also conducted surveys of 5310 and 5311 transportation providers and elected local officials throughout the state to further determine intercity transportation needs. Nearly 75 percent of the transportation providers surveyed responded that intercity transportation needs were “poorly met” and that coordination efforts and capital investment should be the top priorities for investments in intercity transit. The survey of elected officials provided a political perspective on intercity transportation, indicating that political support for investing in intercity transit was not very strong. Most surveyed local officials did not believe their communities would be severely impacted if intercity bus services were discontinued, and they prioritized investment in other public transportation services higher than in intercity bus services.

The survey results for the transportation providers and elected officials illustrated a disconnect between perceived need for intercity transportation and political support for investing in such services. Though both transportation providers and elected officials acknowledged that the existing network did not meet intercity transportation needs, the transportation providers called for solutions to fulfill service gaps, while the elected official offered little support for increased investment in intercity bus services.

The report developed several intercity bus route alternatives, though none were recommended to receive 5311(f) funding due to low estimated ridership for the alternatives. Instead, the report concluded with three recommendations to meet intercity transportation needs:

• Provide financial and institutional support to local transportation providers to coordinate equipment and personnel, specifically to create timed transfers from local to intercity bus services, thereby using local transportation as feeder services.

• Provide user subsidies. • Provide capital investment subsidies to operators, particularly to those providers

interested in expanding or introducing new services to meet intercity travel needs.


UTAH’S COORDINATED HUMAN SERVICE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN

This plan was developed in accordance with federal requirements that applicants for funding from specific federal transit programs participate in a coordinated plan. Utah developed a statewide plan that consisted of individual plans for rural and urban areas. Intercity public transportation was identified as a major statewide need as well as a regional need in most rural areas. In public outreach meetings across the state, rural communities identified several forms of intercity transportation needs:

• Stranded out of town visitors had no way to continue their journey. • Stranded transient and homeless individuals were unable to travel to larger

towns to access human services. • Local residents expressed difficulty in reaching non-emergency medical

appointments. • Local residents were unable to travel to larger regional cities for common

appointments and errands.

The plan offered several strategies to meet intercity transportation needs. At the statewide level, the relevant strategy was to evaluate intercity transportation needs from a statewide perspective by involving appropriate agencies and transportation companies (this particular strategy was the impetus for this study). Several rural regions identified needs for increased and improved transportation from rural communities to major cities, including those outside the region. Recommended strategies to meet these needs included:

• Developing new transit routes to provide a networked system of inter- and intra-city transportation options

• Establishing a feeder bus connection between a central location in the region and outlying cities, where people can access intercity bus services

• Expanding existing services • Increasing coordination of existing services, including those provided by local

agencies and private transportation operators

UINTAH BASIN PUBLIC TRANSIT BUSINESS PLAN

The need for transit identified in the Uintah Basin portion of Utah’s Coordinated Human Service-Public Transportation Plan resulted in a new project whose purpose was to implement the strategies recommended in the coordinated plan. The Uintah


Basin Public Transit Business Plan was conceived to clarify transportation strategies, provide operational details, and give funding strategies.

One of the strategies that took shape in the Business Plan was the reintroduction of intercity bus services along U.S. 40 between Denver and Salt Lake City. This route, once operated by Greyhound, had been discontinued by the company in 2005. The plan recommended facilitating discussions between UDOT and CDOT to satisfy intercity bus needs along U.S. 40 that were identified separately by planning efforts conducted in both states. This partnership has resulted in the advertisement of a Request for Proposal (RFP) to locate an operator to provide subsidized intercity bus service along Highway 40 between SLC and Denver. The UDOT-CDOT U.S. 40 partnership is an on-going project that will ultimately provide intercity bus services to a part of the state that lacks many transit options.

SUMMARY Section 5311(f) is the primary federal funding tool available to UDOT to develop and support Utah’s intercity bus network. Two other types of intercity transit assistance, the intermodal terminal program and Section 3038, are available through the FTA, as described in this chapter. While these two methods of funding assistance should be pursued in the development of a robust intercity bus network, they are limited in meeting many of the needs outlined later in this report and are administered outside of the UDOT Public Transit Team.

The description of the in-kind Pilot Project in this chapter details a potentially useful tool in maximizing Section 5311(f) funding. The use of the in-kind match of the capital of unsubsidized connecting routes has the potential to cover the local share requirement of operating costs. While this policy will likely result in rapid utilization of available funding, it provides a solution to a significant obstacle to cities and counties seeking improved intercity bus services. The implications and ramifications of promoting the use of this funding policy is addressed more in detail in the Chapter 7 of this report.

This chapter also has provided information regarding specifics of the private intercity carrier industry. An understanding of this industry is important since so many of the strategies develop and sustain a health intercity bus network relies on interfacing and partnering with private carriers.


Lastly, a review of previous studies has helped to couch this study in proper historical context. This project will seek to build on previous work and use their conclusions as a starting point for additional work.


CHAPTER 2: EXISTING INTERCITY BUS SERVICES

This chapter provides an inventory of the existing intercity bus services available in Utah. These carriers have been identified in order to provide an understanding of the geographical coverage of the intercity bus network and to help in defining appropriate recommendations. Because operators within the intercity bus industry change frequently, this inventory, while current at the time of this report, will require an effort on the part of UDOT to maintain in future years.

EXISTING INTERCITY BUS PROVIDERS There are 14 providers of regularly scheduled intercity and regional bus services that provide service in Utah:

• Greyhound • Salt Lake Express • Bighorn Express • Alltrans, Inc. • Vernal Shuttle • St. George Shuttle • Hail Harry • Cedar City Shuttle

• Go Green Shuttle • Utah Trailways • Aztec Shuttle • St. George Express • Utah Transit Authority (UTA) • and the Cache Valley Transit

District (CVTD)

All but the last two of the providers listed are private, for-profit carriers (see Appendix A for detailed profiles and schedules for the private operators). The last two regional public providers have been included in this analysis because of their important connection to the larger intercity bus network.

In addition to these services, a new route has been proposed by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) in collaboration with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) along U.S. 40 between Salt Lake City, Utah and Denver, Colorado. The UDOT-CDOT U.S. 40 partnership route will be a subsidized service operated for UDOT and CDOT by a private provider.


CLASSIFICATION OF INTERCITY BUS CARRIERS Since this list of intercity bus providers encompasses a broad collection of private operators that differ in size, frequency of service, and regularity of stops, it is useful to further categorize private companies into two different groups: Tier 1 and Tier 2 providers.

• Tier 1 (Traditional Intercity Bus Services): These providers are those companies that most resemble traditional intercity bus operators. They offer fixed routes, designated stops, provide a meaningful connection to the larger intercity bus network, and offer accompanying parcel service. Identified Tier 1 providers include Greyhound and Salt Lake Express.

• Tier 2 (Other Intercity Bus Services): These providers consist of the remainder of intercity bus operators. Many of these services function as airport shuttles whose main purpose is to ferry passengers to and from the Salt Lake City Airport. They are included in this study because they offer semi-regular service, or provide shuttle services over long distances, and could easily convert their services to fit a more traditional intercity bus model.

A meaningful analysis of the statewide intercity bus network cannot be made without distinguishing these two types of providers. For instance, multiple operators list Nephi as a stop. This gives the impression that Nephi has excellent intercity bus services. However, in reality, this is not the case since the city does not function as a fixed stop for its many Tier 2 providers. In the majority of cases, the Tier 2 operators stay on the freeway and bypass the city. Without a recognized and regular fixed stop, it is likely that many of Nephi’s residents are unaware of available services and remain psychologically cut off from the intercity bus network.

Figure 2-1 is a map of the state with the existing intercity and regional public bus routes.

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

##

#

###

#

#

2

2 Amtrak

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

2

2

2

2

Orem

Moab

Ogden

Sandy Heber

Price

Provo

Nephi

Kearns

Layton

Meadow

Vernal

Beaver

Midvale

Wendover

Duchesne

Fillmore

Roosevelt

Tremonton

Bountiful

St. George

Monticello

Cedar City

Logan-CVTD

SLC Airport

Green River

Brigham City

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

¤

G r e a tS a l tL a k e

L a k e P o w e l l

B e a rL a k e

Data Sources: Census 2000, Utah's State GeographicInformation Database Website, ESRI Data CD, and WCEC Engineers

0 30 6015Miles

L E G E N D

FIGURE 2-1: EXISTING INTERCITY AND REGIONAL BUS SERVICES

-

Major Interstates and Highways

Tier 2: Other Intercity Bus Services

# Other Intercity Stop

Bighorn Express

AlltransAztec Shuttle

Go Green ShuttleHail Harry

St. George ShuttleUtah TrailwaysVernal Shuttle

Cedar City Shuttle

St. George Express

Tier 1: Traditional Intercity Bus Services

# Traditional Intercity StopUDOT CDOT Partnership

GreyhoundSalt Lake Express

! Cache Valley TransitExisting Regional Bus Providers

! Utah Transit Authority

Lake


SUMMARY Although a discussion and analysis of the needs of the state occurs in the next chapter, a few observations based on Figure 2-1 can be pointed out here:

1. The vast majority of the carriers in the state stay on the interstates: The exceptions to this include US 40 to Vernal, US 6 to Price and Moab, and US 89 to Logan. Nonetheless, the map demonstrates that residents not living near the interstate have few intercity bus options.

2. The large number of carriers along Interstate 15 between Salt Lake City and St. George: Five carriers make this trip on a daily basis including Greyhound, St. George Shuttle, Aztec Shuttle, Go Green Shuttle, and Hail Harry.

3. The importance of Salt Lake City: Except for the Greyhound routes along Interstate 70, every carrier includes Salt Lake City as a destination or origin. It is not surprising that the state’s capital and population center should figure so prominently in the network of intercity bus carriers. However, there is limited service that provides a direct connection between towns in the outer reaches of the state. For instance, there is no direct connection from Kanab to St. George or from Vernal to Moab.

While the state appears to have a large number of intercity bus carriers, only two of these can be classified as Tier 1 carriers. The next chapters of this report will provide analysis on the extent to which the network of carriers shown here meets the intercity transportation needs of the state.


CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS

The objective of this chapter is to examine the question of whether or not the current intercity bus network potentially meets public need for intercity connections. This is done by identifying areas within the state that have a higher relative potential need for transportation service, and by treating these areas as potential trip origin or destination areas that should be served as a matter of policy, or as places that are most likely to generate ridership.

Using the population characteristics of the state, the relative need for intercity bus service in different areas can be estimated by comparing Census Block Groups based on the number, percentage, and density of persons with characteristics similar to those of intercity bus passengers. A second step in this process identifies places or facilities that are likely to be destinations. Institutions that are likely traffic generators for intercity bus destinations include residential institutions of higher learning, major hospitals/medical facilities, correctional facilities, military bases, major airports, and recreation areas such as ski resorts.

The demographic and location analysis described in this chapter provides some useful findings regarding the intercity transportation needs of the state. However, these early findings, by themselves, are not the basis for recommending new intercity bus routes or other measures. Instead, the findings described in this chapter are compared and substantiated with data collected during public outreach activities (described in Chapter 4). Following this, Chapter 5 synthesizes and prioritizes the intercity transportation needs identified in previous chapters.

DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS—AREAS OF HIGHER POTENTIAL NEED The need for any type of transit service, including intercity bus service, depends upon the size and distribution of an area’s population and on the composition of that population. In this section, socio-economic characteristics are evaluated using 2000 Census data and more recent population estimates to identify areas within the state that have a high relative need for intercity transportation service.

The following analysis provides a review of relative transit needs in Utah in terms of those population segments that indicate a potential need for intercity bus


transportation. Potentially transit-dependent population segments are those segments of the population that, because of demographic characteristics such as age, income, or automobile availability, may require transit service to meet mobility needs (as an alternative to the private automobile). These segments of the population are defined – using 2000 Census data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census as:

• Young Adults (persons age 18 to 24): Enlisted military personnel and college students typically fall into this age range; these persons often do not have access to an automobile and are stationed far from home. Utah is also unique in that its ski resorts attract young adults from abroad as seasonal employees. These young persons typically do not have their own vehicle while they are working in Utah.

• Elderly (persons age 60 and above): Advancing age can mean diminished ability or desire to drive (particularly on a long trip) and a need for access to medical facilities on a regular basis.

• Persons living below the poverty level: Persons that typically do not have the economic means to own or operate a vehicle, or they may have a vehicle perceived as incapable of making a long trip.

• Persons with a disability (age 16 and above): Persons may be reliant on local accessible public transit services and would therefore also consider public transit options to make non-local trips.

• Autoless households: Persons without access to a car must rely on alternative transportation services.

These factors were chosen in part because of national data regarding intercity bus passenger characteristics. Some data is available from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). Its purpose was to collect information about the travel behavior of households generally, but it included questions about the characteristics of long-distance trips, defined as trips over 50 miles in length to the furthest one-way destination. It included information on the trip itself, the modes used, and the characteristics of the traveler. Table 3-1 presents a summary of some information from the NHTS, which indicates that persons using scheduled intercity bus trips (over 50 miles in length), when compared to users of other modes, are more likely to be traveling for leisure or personal business, are more likely to be female, and are making longer trips than users of either the train or the personal vehicle, but shorter than commercial air trips. Earlier data from the 1995 American Travel Survey, which


defined long-distance trips as 100 miles or more, found that bus users are more likely to be young adults or seniors, have lower incomes, and are more likely to lack alternative personal transportation.

Intercity Train Commercial PersonalBus Airplane Vehicle

Long-Distance Trip Length: Median (miles) 287 192 2,068 194

Long-Distance Trips by Mode and Sex: Female 55 42 43 42 Male 45 58 57 58

Trip Purpose: Commute 0.5% 1.7% 1.5% 96.4% Business 0.8% 1.6% 17.8% 79.3% Pleasure 2.2% 0.5% 6.7% 90.4% Personal Business 5.6% 0.3% 4.7% 89.3% Other 0.5% 0.0% 1.9% 96.6%

Source: Compiled by KFH Group from data in the U.S.Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, preliminary long-distance trip file. All data for trips over 50 miles in length.

Table 3-1: COMPARISON OF INTERCITY MODAL TRIP CHARACTERISTICS

This description of intercity bus rider characteristics is supported by the limited information Greyhound has presented from its annual market research survey. Greyhound’s annual 10K report to the Securities and Exchange Commission for 2004 (the last such report provided) states that their average customer travels to visit friends or relatives, has an annual income below $35,000, and may own an automobile that they think is reliable enough for the trip, but travel by bus because they are traveling on their own and the cost of the bus trip is lower than driving alone.

It should be noted that this methodology focuses mainly on the likely ridership for the “traditional” intercity bus services, persons with higher transportation need characteristics. These are also persons likely to need local public transit. This analysis also looks at overall populations and population density, which includes all persons and not just those with need characteristics. However, this analysis does not


satisfactorily address potential markets of persons that might be considered “choice” riders in transit planning terms—those who have a vehicle available, could drive or fly, and could choose to take transit or not.

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this task was to compare the locations served by the current network with the locations in Utah that have concentrations of persons more likely to need public transportation. This analysis of transit needs was conducted at the Census Block Group level because this is the most accessible data that provides a significant level of detail and allows us to determine segments of the population that are potentially transit-dependent as described above. The first step was extracting the 2000 Census data for Utah’s total population for each of the five demographic variables (i.e., all persons age 18 to 24 to capture the young adult population). Due to the significant growth that Utah has experienced since the 2000 Census was conducted, the data for each Census Block Group were adjusted upward using the average annual growth rate of the particular county that contains the Census Block Group.

The average annual growth rate was calculated using Utah Population Estimates Committee data on the annual population of counties statewide from 2000 to 2007. After identifying the county that contained each Block Group, the county’s specific growth rate was applied to all the data for that Block Group. Adjusting for growth at the county level impacted the demographics analysis because some counties experienced rapid growth, as high as 36 and 55 percent (Tooele and Washington Counties, respectively). It was important to reflect this growth in the demographics analysis in order to determine current transportation needs more accurately.

Next, the data for each population segment were ranked, and these rankings were summarized by Census Block Group to produce a density ranking, further described below. The numbers of people for each demographic variable were not added together for each Block Group because the variables are not mutually exclusive. For example, a person 65 years of age may also have an income below the poverty level and/or have no automobile available to them for personal use. Instead, each category is considered individually. Also, “autoless households” refer to occupied housing units and not persons.

Since the most densely populated cities along I-15, including Ogden, Provo, Salt Lake City, and St. George, already have significant intercity bus service, it was important to


determine places of potential need outside of these metro areas. The first step in doing this was mapping the raw numbers of persons for each demographic variable throughout the state. It is important to remember that the number of needy persons may be spread out over a large area, depending on the physical size of the Block Group. Then the density of such persons may not be substantial enough to warrant intercity bus service. However, as this study looks to expand service to rural areas within the state, it is helpful to get an idea of the amount of potentially transit-dependent persons that reside in rural areas. This number combined with an analysis of population densities helps prioritize the more densely populated places for improved intercity bus services.

The data for numbers of young adults, older adults, persons with disabilities, persons living below the poverty level, and autoless households per Block Group were divided into three ranges: low, medium, and high. For the first four population segments, a high number exceeded 200 persons per block group, a medium number ranged from 101 to 200, and a low number was 100 or less. Data for the autoless households were split by a different standard, high being over 100 units per acre, medium in the 51-100 range, and low being 50 or less. These standards have been used for similar studies of transit need in other states.

The density of potentially transit-dependent populations per Block Group was also examined in this needs analysis. For each demographic variable, every Block Group was ranked relative to the other Block Groups based on the density of the population characterized by each variable. The rankings for all the demographic variables were then summed by Block Group, resulting in a combined ranking that represents relative transportation “need” based on the density of potentially transit-dependent persons. The combined ranking for density was divided into ranges of low, medium, and high relative needs among the Block Groups. Though the ranking was originally divided by natural breaks, this classification did not highlight the needs in rural areas of the state because a significant number of Block Groups are concentrated in the metropolitan areas along I-15. These metropolitan Block Groups have the highest density rankings because much higher numbers of people, including potentially transit-dependent populations, live there than in the rural parts of the state.

To capture potential needs for intercity bus service outside of these metropolitan areas, data for Block Groups located within the boundaries of Utah’s Metropolitan Planning


Organizations (MPOs) were excluded from the combined ranking for density.3 The remaining Block Groups, representing populations outside the MPOs, were then divided by the quantile classification method, in which each class—high, medium, and low – has the same number of Block Groups. The results of this analysis are described below.

The general population densities outside the metro areas were also mapped to compare with the map of ranked density of transit-dependent persons. For the most part, the general population density map confirms that the towns with high ranked densities of transit-dependent persons also have high general densities by rural standards.

RESULTS

It is important to recognize that this methodology produces relative rankings that include each Block Group’s ranking for each demographic variable, and that this may not translate directly into demand or ridership. The map of transit need by ranked density of transit-dependent persons is typically used to identify locations that may have a higher concentration of potential riders, and therefore is more indicative of potential demand. Rural areas typically have higher percentages of the population that are elderly, low income, or without automobiles. However, these areas may lack the density of demand to support intercity bus service without subsidy, or even with subsidy. Such areas may be candidates for rural feeder services, particularly as part of local rural transit options.

By examining each of these rankings independently and then comparing them to one another, we can derive a better understanding of the relative potential need for transit services by Block Group and determine the cities or towns located in high need Block Groups that are good candidates for improved intercity bus services.

Density Ranking of Transit-Dependent Populations: The density summary ranking involved examining the population density of each of the five demographic variables by Block Group. This ranking identifies and uncovers concentrations of potentially transit-dependent persons. Figures 3-1 through 3-3 displays the map of Block Groups in Utah showing relative levels of need for public transportation based on the density of transit-

3 Utah’s MPOs include Cache MPO (located in Logan), Dixie MPO (located in St. George), Mountainland Association of Governments (located in Orem), and Wasatch Front Regional Council (located in Salt Lake City). (Source: AMPO Website, http://www.ampo.org/directory/index.php.)


dependent populations, with the intercity bus network superimposed, and a 10-mile and 25-mile market area radius around each existing intercity bus stop. The Block Groups with high relative need based on ranked density that are outside the major metro areas tend to exist along major highways. A few of these areas are currently served by existing intercity bus service, but most are not.

Determining the location of Block Groups with a high relative ranking for density provides a fine grain assessment of the potential need for intercity bus service in relation to the existing network. However, in reality, the market area of a bus stop would include the town where the high or medium need Block Group is located and the surrounding area. As ridership is generally proportionate to the overall population served, an additional analysis step is presented in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. See Table 3-2 for a list of the rural towns that have at least one block group with a high ranked density and are not currently served by intercity or regional transit. The towns’ 2000 Census populations, their estimated Census 2007 populations, and their distances from existing intercity bus stops are listed. This information was used to determine the towns that would be good bus stop candidates, which are listed in Table 3-3, for improved intercity bus service. The criteria were as follows:

1. The town’s estimated 2007 population is at least 2,500—one possible standard for warranting fixed-route service in rural areas.

2. The town is more than 10 miles away from existing intercity bus service. (The reasoning behind this criterion is that people who live within 10 miles of existing service have reasonably good and feasible access to the service, i.e. riders can drive or catch a ride for a relatively short distance. The populations that live more than 10 miles, and especially more than 25 miles, away are considered to have limited access to existing service. Therefore, the towns that are more than 10 miles away and are not currently served by local transit, which could connect to intercity bus services, would be good candidates for stops on new and improved intercity bus routes.)

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

§̈¦80

Orem

Ogden

SandyHeber

Provo

Kearns Murray

Layton

Bluffdale

Riverdale

Tremonton

Bountiful

Logan-CVTD

SLC Airport

Brigham City

Salt Lake City

I D A H O

¤


B e a rL a k e

Data Sources: Utah's State Geographic Information Database Website, ESRI Data CD.

0 10 205 Miles

FIGURE 31: RELATIVE TRANSIT NEED BY RANKED DENSITYOF TRANSIT-DEPENDENT PERSONS-NORTHERN UTAH

10 and 25 Mile Buffers

L E G E N DCensus Block Groups

HighMediumLowMetro Area

Lake

Intercity Service! ! Regional Service

Existing Intercity Bus Stops# Traditional Intercity Stop# Other Intercity Stop


Paradise

Morgan

Coalville

Park City

35

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

Orem

Moab

Sandy Heber

Price

Provo

Nephi

Kearns Murray

Meadow

Vernal

Beaver

Duchesne

Fillmore

Roosevelt

Bountiful

Monticello

Green River

CO

LO

RA

DO

¤Data Sources: Utah's State Geographic Information Database Website, ESRI Data CD.

0 10 205 Miles

FIGURE 3-2: RELATIVE TRANSIT NEED BY RANKED DENSITY OFTRANSIT-DEPENDENT PERSONS-SOUTHEASTERN UTAH





Interstates and Highways

Lake



Delta

Salina

Gunnison

Manti

Mount Pleasant

Castle Dale

Huntington

36

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

§̈¦70

§̈¦15

§̈¦15

Orem

Price

Provo

Nephi

Meadow

Beaver

Fillmore

St. George

Cedar City

NE

VA

DA

¤

B e a rL a k e

Data Sources: Utah's State Geographic Information Database Website, ESRI Data CD.

0 10 205 Miles

FIGURE 3-3: RELATIVE TRANSIT NEED BY RANKED DENSITYOF TRANSIT-DEPENDENT PERSONS-SOUTHWESTERN UTAH




Lake





Hurricane

Minersville

Delta

Panguitch

Kanab

Castle Dale

Huntington

Mount Pleasant

Manti

Gunnison

Salina

37


The candidate towns were mapped in each of the needs analysis maps to capture the needs of individual transit-dependent population segments, or a lack thereof, in the towns. The same was done with the ranked density map. Table 3-3 summarizes the relative level of need of each potentially transit-dependent population in the candidate towns. The values for each demographic variable refer to the thresholds described earlier for high, medium, and low needs. The values for population density refer to the ranges per Block Group, i.e. ‘200s’ indicates the population density per Block Group in that town ranged from 201 to 300 persons per square mile. It is worth noting that the town’s population density in Table 3-3 represents the highest population density for a Block Group in the town; other Block Groups in or surrounding the town likely had lower densities, especially in the more rural towns.

Other information provided in Table 3-3 includes the towns’ population as of the 2000 Census, population estimates for 2007, the distance the town is from an existing intercity bus stop, and whether a feeder service that connects the town to the existing intercity bus network is available. The following cities have Block Groups with high relative need based on ranked density and are more than 25 miles from the nearest intercity bus service:

• Delta • Gunnison • Kanab • Manti

A few cities with high need Block Groups are more than 10 miles, but less than 25 from existing intercity bus service:

• Hurricane • La Verkin • Morgan • Mount Pleasant • Park City • Richfield

City/TownCensus 2000

Population

Census 2007

Estimated Pop.

Distance from Existing Intercity Stops

(Miles)

Castle Dale 1,657 1,569 More than 25

Coalville 1,382 1,374 More than 25Delta 3,209 3,143 More than 25

Fairview 1,160 1,180 Between 10 and 25

Gunnison 2,394 2,734 More than 25

Huntington 2,131 2,004 Between 10 and 25Hurricane 8,250 12,896 Between 10 and 25

Kanab 3,564 3,769 More than 25

La Verkin 3,392 4,434 Between 10 and 25

Manti 3,040 3,232 More than 25

Minersville 817 815 Between 10 and 25

Morgan 2,635 3,270 Between 10 and 25

Mount Pleasant 2,707 2,744 Between 10 and 25

Orangeville 1,398 1,303 More than 25

Panguitch 1,623 1,473 More than 25

Paradise 759 890 At 10 mile buffer

Park City 7,371 8,030 Between 10 and 25

Richfield 6,847 7,119 Between 10 and 25

Salina 2,393 2,392 Between 10 and 25

39

Table 3-2: Towns with At Least One Block Group with a High Density Ranking and which are Not Served

by Existing Intercity Bus Service

Notes: Towns in bold have populations over 2,500 and have been identified as new, feasible intercity bus stop candidates. Also, the

distance of each town from existing routes was determined using 10 and 25 mile buffers around existing bus stops

City/Town

Estimated

Census

2007

Population

Census

2000

Population

Distance from

Existing Intercity

Stops (Miles)

Population

Density

Young

Adults

Older

Adults

Disabled

Persons

16+

Persons

Living Below

the Poverty

Level

Autoless

Households

Ranked

DensityAvailable Feeder Service?

Delta 3,143 3,209 More than 25 200s Medium High Low High Low High

Neither local nor feeder

service is available.

Gunnison 2,734 2,394 More than 25 300s High High Medium Medium Low High



Hurricane 12,896 8,250 Between 10 and 25 500+ High High Medium High Medium High



Kanab 3,769 3,564 More than 25 500+ Medium High Low Medium Low High



La Verkin 4,434 3,392 Between 10 and 25 500+ Medium High Medium High Low High



Manti 3,232 3,040 More than 25 100s Medium High Low High Low High



Morgan 3,270 2,635 Between 10 and 25 200s High High Low Low Low High



Mount Pleasant 2,744 2,707 Between 10 and 25 500+ Low High Low Medium Low High



Park City 8,030 7,371 Between 10 and 25 100s High Medium Low High Low High

Park City/Summit County

Transit provides local

service, but doesn't

currently connect to ICB

network.

Richfield 7,119 6,847 Between 10 and 25 300s High Low High Low Medium High



Notes: Though the population density is 500+ for several bus stop candidates, it is important to keep in mind that the towns are usually surrounded by areas with low population

density, reflecting nearby rural areas that would also be served if the town had intercity services.

40

Table 3-3: Potential Bus Stop Candidates for Improved Intercity Bus Service


The location of these cities is mapped in Figure 3-4 in relationship to the current intercity bus network. As shown in the map, several stop candidates are located within 25 miles of existing stops along I-15, and a few also lie along US-89. While the stop candidates that are more than 25 miles from existing service are the strongest candidates, other towns showing high relative need, which are more than 10 miles but less than 25 from an existing stop, could be served by local feeder routes that connect them to the intercity bus network. Further investigation will determine if such projects are being proposed, or if existing local transit could offer such trips.

It should be noted that only cities with Block Groups of high ranked density that have a population of at least 2,500 have been listed so far. Cities with high ranked density and smaller populations may be considered as additional stops for improved intercity bus service, especially if these cities lie along the potential routes. The following lists towns with high ranked density and estimated populations less than 2,500 as of 2007:

More than 25 miles from existing intercity bus service:

• Castle Dale • Coalville • Figure 3-4 Highlighted Cities • Orangeville • Panguitch

Between 10 and 25 miles away from existing service:

• Fairview • Huntington • Minersville • Paradise • Salina

Overall Population Density: The population profile analysis also examines the overall distribution of population in the state, particularly in terms of population density. Figure 3-5 illustrates the overall population density of each Block Group in relationship to the existing intercity bus network and current stops. The areas over 500 persons per square mile, which we know to be high density, have been shaded in white to try and avoid the obvious and examine the places with high relative densities outside the metro areas.

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

Delta

Kanab

Manti

Morgan

Gunnison

Hurricane

Park City

Richfield

La Verkin

Mount Pleasant

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

¤G r e a t

S a l tL a k e

L a k e P o w e l l

B e a rL a k e

Data Sources: 2000 Census, Utah PopulationEstimates Committee, ESRI Data CD.

0 30 6015 Miles

FIGURE 3-4: HIGHLIGHTED CITIES IDENTIFIED IN DEMOGRAPHICANALYSIS IN RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING SERVICES

L E G E N D

Lake

Metro Area

Census Block GroupsHighMediumLow


42



As previously noted, the density ranking of potentially transit-dependent persons should be studied in conjunction with the overall population density to identify potential demand. As seen in Figure 3-5, the majority of the population in the state is located in the Salt Lake City area, ranging from Ogden in the north to Provo to the south. Brigham City, Logan, Tremonton, and St. George also have significant concentrations of population at higher densities. A few other pockets of high and medium population density are located in cities, such as Castle Dale, Delta, Gunnison, Heber, Huntington, Kanab, Moab, Monticello, Panguitch, Park City, Price, Richfield, Salina, and Vernal, throughout the state. These places with higher population densities are largely located along the primary interstate and highway road networks (I-15, I–215, I-70, I-84, US-191, US-40, US-6, and US-89).

Population density increases the likelihood that intercity bus alternatives may be feasible, but density alone may not provide enough people to have a sufficient market. The overall size of the potential market area population is also important in identifying areas that potentially should have intercity bus service. Unsubsidized intercity bus service continues to be feasible in municipalities that have substantial population, though it should be noted that in its recent route restructuring Greyhound has generally reduced or eliminated service to points with populations under 50,000, focusing on city-to-city services with fewer intermediate stops and greater frequency—suggesting that it is now more difficult for the private sector to serve rural points without significant operating assistance.

The points identified through this analysis need to be assessed in terms of the overall population at each location, the possibility of serving it on a route between larger points, and whether or not a local or regional transit connection to the nearest intercity bus service point might be available or appropriate for development.

DESTINATIONS/FACILITIES ANALYSIS An analysis of intercity bus need should also consider places and/or facilities in the state that are potential attractors of intercity bus ridership. These include colleges and universities, major military bases, hospitals and major medical facilities, correctional facilities, recreation areas, and major intermodal connections at airports. These locations were addressed by identifying facilities of each type in Utah and then determining whether they are served by the existing network. In this review, intercity bus service is considered accessible if the destination is located in a city that is an existing stop. For outlying destinations, the distance from existing intercity bus service


is noted. As mentioned previously, local transit systems could potentially provide feeder services to connect destinations that lie between 10 and 25 miles from intercity bus stops to the existing network.

COLLEGES AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS

The locations of all two-year colleges and technical schools and four-year colleges and universities in Utah have been identified and mapped and compared to the stops that are currently served by the intercity bus network. Table 3-4 lists all the colleges and universities and their locations. Figure 3-6 presents the location of these facilities in relation to the existing intercity bus network and the 10 mile- and 25 mile- service areas. Many colleges and vocational schools are currently served by existing intercity bus service with one notable exception: Snow College in Ephraim, which is more than 25 miles away from an existing stop.

MILITARY BASES

Table 3-5 lists the major military bases in Utah, which are located in the northern part of the state as shown in Figure 3-7. While Camp Williams and the Hill Air Force Base are located within 10 miles of existing intercity bus service, the Dugway Proving Ground is farther than 25 miles from the intercity bus network. The Tooele Army Depot is currently served by UTA Route 475, which travels through Tooele and Stansbury Park before going to West Valley City. This route operates one roundtrip per weekday, leaving Valley Fair Mall to Tooele Army Depot at 4:51 a.m. and returning from Tooele Army Depot at 5:20 p.m.

Table 3-5: MILITARY BASES

Name Address City Zip Code

Camp Williams West of I-15, 26 miles south of Salt Lake City Camp Williams 84065

Dugway Proving Ground Stark Rd Dugway 84022 Hill Air Force Base I-15 and N Main St Clearfield 84056 Tooele Army Depot Tooele Army Depot Rd Tooele 84074

Sources: http://military-hotels.us/utah/ut-bases.html and Google Maps

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

Moab

Heber

Kamas

NephiPrice

DeltaManti

Kanab

Salina

Beaver

Vernal

Morgan

Tooele

Ferron

Milford

Blanding

Roosevelt

Tremonton

Richfield

Coalville

Huntington

Cedar City

Minersv ille

Cast le Dale

Mount Pleasant

Orem

Moab

Ogden

SandyHeber

Price

Provo

Nephi

Kearns

Layton

Meadow

Vernal

Beaver

Wendover

Duchesne

Fillmore

Roosevelt

Tremonton

Bountiful

St. George

Monticello

Cedar City

Logan-CVTD

Green River

Brigham City

Salt Lake City

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

¤G r e a t

S a l tL a k e

L a k e P o w e l l

B e a rL a k e

Data Sources: 2000 Census, Utah PopulationEstimates Committee, ESRI Data CD.

0 30 6015 Miles

FIGURE 3-5: POPULATION DENSITY

L E G E N D

Lake

Metro Area

Census Block GroupsHighMediumLow


45

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

!

å

å

å

å

å

åå

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

åå

å

å

åå

å

ååå

åå

åå

å

ååå

å

å

å

å

å

å

åå

å

åå

å

ååå

å

åå

å

å

å

å

å

åååå

å

å

å

å

ååå

å

å

ååå

å

åå

ååå

å

å

å

å

2

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

2

2

2

2

2

Orem

Moab

Ogden

Sandy Heber

Price

Provo

Nephi

Kearns

Layton

Meadow

Vernal

Beaver

Wendover

Duchesne

Fillmore

Roosevelt

Tremonton

Bountiful

St. George

Monticello

Cedar City

Logan-CVTD

Green River

Brigham City

Salt Lake City

Ephraim

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

¤G r e a t

S a l tL a k e

L a k e P o w e l l

B e a rL a k e

Data Sources: Utah's State Geographic Information Database Website and ESRI Data CD.

0 30 6015 Miles

FIGURE 3-6: COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND EXISTING INTERCITY AND REGIONAL BUS SERVICES

L E G E N D

Lake2 Amtrak Station

! ! Regional Bus ServiceIntercity Bus Serviceå Utah Colleges and Universities


Existing Intercity Stops

# Other Intercity Stops# Traditional Intercity Stops

46

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

!

%,

%,

%,

%,

2

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

2

2

2

2

2

Orem

Moab

Ogden

Sandy Heber

Price

Provo

Nephi

Kearns

Layton

Meadow

Vernal

Beaver

Wendover

Duchesne

Fillmore

Roosevelt

Tremonton

Bountiful

St. George

Monticello

Cedar City

Logan-CVTD

Green River

Brigham City

Salt Lake City

Dugway

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

¤G r e a t

S a l tL a k e

L a k e P o w e l l

B e a rL a k e

Data Sources: Military-Hotels.us, ESRI Data CD.

0 30 6015 Miles

FIGURE 3-7: MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND EXISTING INTERCITY AND REGIONAL BUS SERVICES

L E G E N D%, Military Insta llations



Lake

2 Amtrak Station

Intercity Bus Service! ! Regional Bus Service

47


HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CENTERS

Although medical trips make up a small percentage of intercity bus trips, the ability to make trips from rural areas and small towns to major medical facilities is often a policy consideration for maintaining bus services. It may be less of a consideration for patient transportation than for family and friends to visit, simply because most intercity bus services are not frequent enough to permit same-day outpatient visits. In addition, use of intercity bus services to provide regional medical trips requires a ride to and from the bus station at either end of the bus trip, adding to the cost, time, and physical effort required. However, in many states, long-distance medical trips under Medicaid do utilize intercity bus services.

Table 3-6 presents a list of all the hospitals and medical centers located in the state. These facilities are also displayed, along with the intercity bus network, in Figure 3-8. Most major medical facilities currently have intercity bus service available, though hospitals in Milford, Mt. Pleasant, and Park City are between 10 and 25 miles from existing stops. The medical facilities in Delta, Gunnison, Kanab, and Panguitch are located more than 25 miles from the intercity bus network.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

In the case of hospitals, while demand for correctional facility trips results in a small percentage of intercity bus trips, the ability to make trips from rural areas and small towns to and from correctional facilities may be crucial to families, released inmates, and employees. Utah’s Department of Corrections operates two state prisons which are listed in Table 3-7 and mapped in Figure 3-9. The Utah State Prison in Draper is near the existing urban transit system in Salt Lake County. The Central Utah Correctional Facility is located more than 25 miles from the existing network.

Table 3-7: CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Name Address City Zip Code Central Utah Correctional Facility 255 E 300 N Gunnison 84634 Utah State Prison 14425 Bitterbrush Ln Draper 84020

Source: Utah's Department of Corrections Website.


Allen Memorial Hospital 719 W 400 N Moab 84532

Alpine Surgical Center, LLC 4403 Harrison Blvd Ogden 84403

Alta View Hospital 9660 S 1300 E Sandy 84094

American Fork Hospital 170 N 1100 E American Fork 84003

Ashley Valley Medical Center 151 W 200 N Vernal 84078

Bear River Valley Hospital 440 W 600 N Tremonton 84337

Beaver Valley Hospital 1109 N 100 W Beaver 84713

Benchmark Regional Hospital 592 W 1350 S Woods Cross 84087

Brigham City Community Hospital 950 S 500 W Brigham City 84032

Cache Valley Specialty Hospital 2380 N 400 E Logan 84341

Castleview Hospital 300 N Hospital Dr Price 84501

Central Utah Surgical Center 1067 N 500 W Provo 84604

Central Valley Medical Center 48 W 1500 N Nephi 84648

Copper Hills Youth Center 5899 W Rivendell Dr West Jordan 84084

Cottonwood Hospital 5770 S 300 E Murray 84107

Davis Hospital and Medical Center 1600 W Antelope Dr Layton 84041

Davis Surgical Center 1544 W Antelope Dr Layton 84041

Delta Community Medical Center 126 S White Sage Ave Delta 84624

Dixie Regional Medical Center 544 S 400 E St. George 84770

EyeSurg of Utah, LLC 10011 S Centennial Pkwy Sandy 84070

Fillmore Community Medical Center 674 S Highway 99 Fillmore 84631

Garfield Memorial Hospital 200 N 400 E Panguitch 84759

Gunnison Valley Hospital 64 E 100 N Gunnison 84634

Health South Rehabilitation Hospital 8074 S 1300 E Sandy 84094

Health South Surgical Center of Park City 1850 Sidewinder Dr Park City 84060

HealthSouth Surgical Center 617 E 3900 S Salt Lake City 84107

Heber Valley Medical Center 1485 S HWY 40 Heber City 84032

Highland Ridge Hospital 175 W 7200 S Midvale 84047

Institute of Facial & Cosmetic Surgery 5929 Fashion Blvd Murray 84107

Intermountain Surgical Center 359 8th Ave Salt Lake City 84143

Jordan Valley Hospital 3580 W 9000 S West Jordan 84088

Kane County Hospital 355 N Main Kanab 84741

Lakeview Hospital 630 E Medical Dr Bountiful 84010

LDS Hospital 8th Ave & C Street Salt Lake City 84143

Logan Regional Hospital 500 E 1400 N Logan 84321

Madsen Surgery Center 555 S Foothill Blvd Salt Lake City 84112

McKay Dee Hospital 4401 Harrison Blvd Ogden 84403

Milford Valley Memorial Hospital 451 N Main Milford 84751

Mountain View Hospital 1000 E 100 N Payson 84651

Mountain West Endoscopy Center 6360 S 3000 E Salt Lake City 84121

Mountain West Medical Center 2055 N Main Tooele 84074

Mt. Ogden Surgical Center 4364 Washinton Blvd Ogden 84403

Northern Utah Endoscopy Center 630 E 1400 N Logan 84341

Ogden Regional Medical Center 5475 S 500 E Ogden 84405

49

Table 3-6: HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CENTERS


Table 3-6: HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL CENTERS

Orem Community Hospital 331 N 400 W Orem 84057

Orthopedic Spcialty Hosp 5848 S 300 E Salt Lake City 84107

Pioneer Valley Hospital 3640 S Pioneer Parkway West Valley 84120

Primary Childrens Hospital 100 N Medical Dr Salt Lake City 84113

Provo Surgical Center 585 N 500 W Provo 84601

Ridgeline Endoscopy Center 6028 S Ridgeline Dr Ogden 84405

Salt Lake Endoscoy Center 24 S 1100 E Salt Lake City 84070

Salt Lake Regional Medical Center 1050 E South Temple Salt Lake City 84012

San Juan Hospital 364 W 100 N Monticello 84535

Sanpete Valley Hospital 1100 Medical Drive Mt. Pleasant 84647

Sevier Valley Hospital 1100 N Main Richfield 84701

Shriners Hospital Fairfax Road at Virginia St Salt Lake City 84103

Silverado Senior Living 1430 E 4500 S Salt Lake City 84117

South Davis Community Hospital 401 S 400 E Bountiful 84010

Southtowne Surgical Center 10011 S Centennial Pkwy Sandy 84070

St. George Surgical Center 676 S Bluff St St. George 84770

St. Marks Hospital 1200 E 3900 S Salt Lake City 84124

St. Marks Outpatient Surgery Center 1250 E 3900 S Salt Lake City 84124

The SurgiCare Center & Eye Institute o 755 E 3900 S Salt Lake City 84107

Timpanogos Regional Hospital 750 W 800 N Orem 84057

Uintah Basin Medical Center 250 W 300 N Roosevelt 84066

University Neuropsychiatric Institute 501 Chipeta Way Salt Lake City 84108

University of Utah Medical Center 50 N Medical Dr Salt Lake City 84112

Utah State Hospital 1300 E Center St Provo 84606

Utah Valley Regional Medical Center 1034 N 500 W Provo 84604

Valley View Medical Center 1303 N Main Cedar City 84720

Veterans Administration Medical Center 500 Foothill Dr Salt Lake City 84148

Wasatch Endoscopy 1220 E 3900 S Salt Lake City 84124

Western Medical, Inc. 850 E 1200 N Logan 84341

Zion Eye Institute/Rec Cliffs Surgical 1791 E 280 N St. George 84790

Source: Utah's State Geographic Information Database Website.

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

G

G

GG

G

G

G

G

G

GG

GG

G

G

G

G

G

GG

GG

G

GG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

GGGG

G

G

G

GG

G

G

G G

GG

GG

G

G

G

G

G

GG GGG

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

G

GGGG

G

G

G

2

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

2

2

2

2

2

Orem

Moab

Ogden

Sandy Heber

Price

Provo

Nephi

Kearns

Layton

Meadow

Vernal

Beaver

Wendover

Duchesne

Fillmore

Roosevelt

Tremonton

Bountiful

St. George

Monticello

Cedar City

Logan-CVTD

Green River

Brigham City

Salt Lake City

Delta

Kanab

Gunnison

Panguitch

Mount Pleasant

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

¤G r e a t

S a l tL a k e

L a k e P o w e l l

B e a rL a k e

Data Sources: Utah's State Geographic Information Database Website, ESRI Data CD

0 30 6015 Miles

FIGURE 3-8: HOSPITALS AND EXISTING INTERCITY AND REGIONAL BUS SERVICES

L E G E N DG Hospitals


Lake

2 Amtrak Station

! ! Regional Bus ServiceIntercity Bus Service


50

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

!ª

ª

2

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

2

2

2

2

2

Orem

Moab

Ogden

Sandy Heber

Price

Provo

Nephi

Kearns

Layton

Meadow

Vernal

Beaver

Wendover

Duchesne

Fillmore

Roosevelt

Tremonton

Bountiful

St. George

Monticello

Cedar City

Logan-CVTD

Green River

Brigham City

Salt Lake City

Gunnison

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

¤G r e a t

S a l tL a k e

L a k e P o w e l l

B e a rL a k e


0 30 6015 Miles

FIGURE 3-9: CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND EXISTING INTERCITY AND REGIONAL BUS SERVICES

L E G E N D

ª Correctional Facilities10 and 25 Mile Buffers

Lake

2 Amtrak Station

! ! Regional Bus ServiceIntercity Bus Service


51


RECREATION SITES

Recreation sites include national and parks, camping sites, and ski resorts. Intercity bus service can be a viable transportation option for tourists flying into major cities and do not have access to a car or want to rent a car. Ski resorts, in particular, are a major attraction in Utah for both tourists and residents. Intercity bus service is most likely in demand by resort employees, who may live a notable distance from work depending on the housing options available in the resort town, and tourists, who may choose intercity bus if the routes provide direct access from major airports to the ski resorts. Anecdotally, some seasonal workers at the resorts also come from abroad and do not have personal automobiles while they are in Utah. Table 3-9 lists the recreation sites in the state, and Figure 3-11 maps their locations. About half the recreation sites are located more than 25 miles from existing intercity bus stops, and most others are located between 10 and 25 miles from existing stops.

Table 3-9: RECREATIONAL AREAS


Bear Lake Marina Campground 485 N Bear Lake Blvd Garden City 84028 Flaming Gorge Dam Visitor Center 5995 Flaming Gorge Visitor Center Dutch John 84023 Brian Head Ski Area 329 South Highway 143 Brian Head 84719 Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument 190 East Center Kanab 84741

Lake Powell Hwy 276 Southeastern Utah

Monument Valley East of Hwy 163 at Arizona Border Southeastern Utah

Dinosaur National Monument 4545 Highway 40 Dinosaur 81610 San Rafael Swell I-70, 20 miles west of Green River 84525

Golden Spike NHS Hwy 83, 32 miles west of Brigham City

Wasatch Mountain State Park Northeast corner of Midway Midway 84049 Snow Canyon State Park 1002 Snow Canyon Drive Ivins 84738 Zion National Park Springdale 84767 Capital Reef National Park Hwy 24 Bryce Canyon National Park Hwy 63 Bryce 84764 Canyonlands National Park Hwy 313 or Hwy 211 Arches National Park Hwy 191, 5 miles north of Moab Moab Beaver Mountain Ski Area 40000 E Highway 89 Garden City 84028

Sources: Utah's State Geographic Information Database Website, National Park Service Website, state park websites, and other recreational sites' websites.

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

ÆQ

2

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

2

2

2

2

2

Orem

Moab

Ogden

Sandy Heber

Price

Provo

Nephi

Kearns

Layton

Meadow

Vernal

Beaver

Wendover

Duchesne

Fillmore

Roosevelt

Tremonton

Bountiful

St. George

Monticello

Cedar City

Logan-CVTD

Green River

Brigham City

Salt Lake City

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

¤G r e a t

S a l tL a k e

L a k e P o w e l l

B e a rL a k e

Data Sources: Utah's State Geographic Information Database Website, Utah Office of Tourism and the Division of Utah State Parks and Recreation

0 30 6015 Miles

FIGURE 3-11: RECREATION SITES AND EXISTING INTERCITY AND REGIONAL BUS SERVICES

L E G E N DÆQ Recreation Sites



Lake

2 Amtrak Station

Intercity Bus Service

! ! Regional Bus Service

53


MAJOR AIRPORTS

People connecting from rural towns to commercial airports are a potential market for intercity bus services. This is particularly true for major airports like Salt Lake City International Airport. Table 3-8 lists the major commercial airports in the state, and the locations are mapped in Figure 3-10. Several major airports are located within 10 miles of existing intercity bus stops and are therefore considered accessible. The Canyonlands Field Airport and the Salina-Gunnison Airport lie between 10 and 25 miles from existing stops, while the Delta Municipal Airport and the Manti-Ephraim Airport are more than 25 miles from the intercity bus network.

Table 3-8: MAJOR AIRPORTS

Name Address City County

Canyonlands Field Airport N Hwy 191 Moab Grand Carbon County Airport 3095 E Airport Rd Price Carbon Cedar City Regional Airport 2560 W Aviation Way Cedar City Iron Delta Municipal Airport 76 N 200 W Delta Millard Manti-Ephraim Airport 5 S Main Ephraim Sanpete Provo Municipal Airport PO Box 1849 Provo Utah Richfield Municipal Airport 1615 S Airport Rd Richfield Sevier Salina-Gunnison Airport PO Box 790 Gunnison Sevier Salt Lake International Airport PO Box 145550 Salt Lake City Salt Lake St. George Municipal Airport 175 E 200 N St. George Washington Vernal Airport 825 S 500 E Vernal Uintah

Sources: Utah's State Geographic Information Database Website, Utah Airport Operators Association-Airport Listing 2007, and airport web sites.

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

! !

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

2

§̈¦70

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦80

§̈¦15

§̈¦84

2

2

2

2

2

Orem

Moab

Ogden

Sandy Heber

Price

Provo

Nephi

Kearns

Layton

Meadow

Vernal

Beaver

Wendover

Duchesne

Fillmore

Roosevelt

Tremonton

Bountiful

St. George

Monticello

Cedar City

Logan-CVTD

Green River

Brigham City

Salt Lake City

Delta Ephraim

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

¤G r e a t

S a l tL a k e

L a k e P o w e l l

B e a rL a k e


0 30 6015 Miles

FIGURE 3-10: MAJOR AIRPORTS AND EXISTING INTERCITY AND REGIONAL BUS SERVICES

L E G E N Do Major Airports


# Traditional Intercity Stop# Other Intercity Stop

Existing Intercity Bus Stops Lake

2 Amtrak Station

Intercity Bus Service! ! Regional Bus Service

55


SUMMARY The demographic and mapping exercises described in this chapter point to several areas in the state that have poor access to the network of intercity transportation providers. Based solely on demographics, areas that have a higher relative potential need for intercity transportation service include:

• Delta • Gunnison • Hurricane • Kanab • La Verkin

• Manti • Morgan • Mount Pleasant • Park City • Richfield

The location/facilities analysis highlighted certain destinations around the state that traditionally produce a strong demand for intercity bus service. While many of these locations do have access to nearby intercity transportation services, there are a number of sites located greater than 25 miles from an intercity bus stop, including the following larger cities and towns:

• Delta • Ephraim • Gunnison • Kanab • Manti • Panguitch

While these analyses point out certain locations lacking intercity bus services, much of the current intercity service is in the correct place when you consider the size of the state. Some places, such as Park City and Richfield, appear to have some need and actually lie along current routes, but are not stops. Local transit systems can potentially provide feeder services between potential stop candidates and the intercity bus network, but further investigation is needed to evaluate the feasibility and actual need for any type of intercity bus project.

While the analyses described in this chapter are useful in providing a feel for the areas of the state that are potentially lacking sufficient intercity bus services, additional input from stakeholders will assist in assessing needs. The next chapter of this report will focus on this task.


CHAPTER 4: PUBLIC OUTREACH

Public outreach served as an important factor in the effort to identify regional and local needs. The public outreach component of the study culminated in a workshop attended by a wide range of public and private transportation providers, elected leaders, and government officials. This planning workshop served as an opportunity to discuss needs related to intercity bus transportation, verify initial needs findings, and to brainstorm possible alternatives to meet those needs. The workshop was conducted on March 4, 2009, with over sixty people in attendance. Appendix B provides a meeting summary of the outreach workshop as well as a list of the participants.

RESULTS OF WORKSHOP The main event of the workshop was facilitated break-out groups. Attendees were able to participate in groups that focused on the following geographical areas of the state: northern Utah (including Salt Lake City, Ogden, Brigham City, Logan), southern Utah (consisting of all the area south of Salt Lake County), and the U.S. 40 UDOT-CDOT Partnership Route (areas adjacent to U.S. 40, including Uintah, Duchesne, Summit, and Wasatch Counties). The purpose of dividing into groups was to facilitate small group discussion that used local knowledge to identify intercity transportation needs and to propose possible solutions. The summary of each group has been included as Appendix B.

The workshop was successful in confirming many of the results produced in the demographic and destinations/facilities analysis. Many of the towns identified as relatively high potential transit demand locations were reiterated by workshop attendees. In fact, every one of the towns identified as potential intercity bus stop candidates in Table 3-3 was explicitly mentioned. Other towns were also mentioned as potential areas of intercity bus demand which must be considered as well.

The workshop was also useful in gathering feedback on intercity bus needs that were outside the realm of specific cities and locations. There was particular emphasis by attendees regarding the need for greater awareness by the general public about the existing services available. Unexpectedly, many of these comments came from private transportation providers. However, these comments were also expressed by government leaders and officials who seemed genuinely surprised by the amount and availability of services. Greater visibility would doubtlessly increase the number of


intercity bus trips taken by the general public which, in turn, would serve to both improve the network and improve the viability of the businesses providing these services.

Input from workshop attendees also focused on the need for greater coordination among transportation providers, both public and private. It was mentioned that Utah’s intercity bus “network” was not so much a network as it was a system of individual companies serving narrow markets whose paths rarely cross. Private companies that transport up and down Interstate 15 make no effort to coordinate pick-up and drop-off locations in the various towns. Even more serious, providers generally do not consider coordinating schedules or stops with services that allow their patrons to continue their journey. Coordination between private and public providers is another aspect that would serve to improve the overall statewide network. By agreeing to coordinated stop locations and schedules, public and private providers would increase the availability of services and potential trips.

One of the workshop groups focused exclusively on the proposed US-40 route between Denver and Salt Lake City. The workshop forum offered an excellent opportunity to discuss operational and route characteristics of this service. However, even though the purpose of this group differed from the other two groups, similar themes of need, coordination, and marketing were discussed. There was considerable brainstorming about how different operators can be used to address the varied transportation needs along the route. Participants provided creative ideas on how to better market a potential new route. Also, connecting the route with existing services was discussed as an important component of the success of the route.

SUMMARY The public outreach component this of study resulted in confirming many of the results produced in the demographic and location/facilities analysis described in the previous chapter. But more than this, the input from stakeholders also reflected other concerns beyond those of individual cities or counties. These concerns dealt with the integrity of the existing intercity bus network and how to make it more effective. Also, the need for increased marketing and promotion was expressed.


CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY OF UTAH’S INTERCITY BUS NEEDS

As with any area of public concern, the state’s intercity transportation needs far exceed the availability of funds. This financial reality requires prioritization of statewide intercity bus needs in order to formulate appropriate policy recommendations. This chapter presents three of the top needs across the state as identified by the consultant team. These needs represent a synthesis of data collected in earlier intercity bus studies, the data analysis described in Chapter 3, and the comments received by interested stakeholders at the intercity bus workshop described in Chapter 4.

IDENTIFICATION OF STATEWIDE NEEDS 1. EXPANSION OF EXISTING SERVICES

The lack of intercity bus services in rural areas constitutes the top intercity transportation need in the state. The primary basis for this conclusion comes from the amount of data and feedback received on this topic. The main conclusion of the 1996 study regarding intercity bus needs was the lack of intercity transportation options in the state. The most current planning today shows the same conclusion. Every rural Association of Government (AOG) in Utah’s 2007 Coordinated Human Service Plan noted the lack of intercity bus services. One of the key recommendations from that study was to develop new transit routes, as well as to expand existing routes. The lack of rural intercity transportation routes is further verified by a review of Figure 3-1 that shows existing intercity bus services. It is quite clear, even from a cursory review of the figure, that today’s intercity bus providers remain on the state’s freeways and bypass rural communities. Expanding the reach of intercity bus services is a foundational component of a state’s intercity bus plan. Minor improvements can be made to improve the efficiency of the intercity bus network or to improve its market penetration through marketing campaigns. However, no amount of improvements of this sort will significantly expand the geographical reach of intercity bus services to communities that currently have none.

What are the neediest locations in the state for intercity transportation services? The demographic analysis provides valuable insight regarding which cities have the best potential for intercity bus services based on age, income, and availability to


automobiles. However, other considerations should also be taken into account. For instance, cities with more people should be given greater emphasis over smaller towns. Towns with important facilities/locations that tend to attract intercity bus traffic should also be given some weight. Lastly, the distance to existing Tier 1 and Tier 2 bus stops must be considered since the level of accessibility to the intercity bus network varies dramatically based on a town’s distance to a bus stop. This analysis places a much greater importance on distance to Tier 1 stops. As noted earlier, Tier 1 providers tend to have a greater presence in the communities in which they stop. This, in turn, leads to better awareness by local residents of the availability of intercity transportation options. Tier 1 providers also offer better access to and meaningful connections with the broader intercity bus network than do Tier 2 providers.

The methodology used to quantify the neediest locations in the state started by listing every town or city that contained a block group classified as ‘High Need’ in the demographics analysis done earlier. This group was reduced by removing towns that had a population of less than 2,500 and by removing locations that contained a Tier 1 bus stop. The remaining 18 cities, summarized in Table 5-1, were then ranked relative to each other, using the following weighted criteria:

• 2007 population (30 percent) • Demographic score (30 percent) • Distance to nearest Tier 1 intercity bus stop (20 percent) • Distance to any existing intercity bus stop (5 percent) • Presence of important facilities/locations (15 percent)

The resulting ranks were then summed with the neediest city indicated by the highest score. The results, shown in Table 5-1, provide an idea of which locations in the state have the highest need for intercity transportation services based on the criteria. This analysis shows that the top five neediest cities in the state are:


It is interesting to note the factors that contributed to the high scores of these cities. Richfield, Park City, and Vernal all have relatively high populations, each of them


exceeding at least 7,000. Richfield and Vernal are over 100 miles from the nearest Tier 1 stop. Also, based on the number of important facilities, each of these top five towns is an important regional hub that attracts residents from nearby smaller towns. It should be noted that Vernal, Moab, Heber, Midway, Nephi, Blanding, and Beaver all have relatively good levels of access to Tier 2 providers. However, for reasons already mentioned, Tier 2 levels of service do not adequately meet a community’s need for intercity transportation.

The majority of the cities identified here were validated by comments made at the intercity transportation planning workshop. This reaffirms that these cities and towns should be prioritized as top candidates if the state considers expanding intercity bus services. The question of how to assist these demonstrated high-need communities is not addressed in this section, but will be discussed later in this report.

2. COORDINATION OF PROVIDERS

In addition to the service needs of specific towns and cities, this needs assessment has identified some non-service statewide needs. Coordination of transportation providers is one of those needs. From a transportation perspective, coordination implies the sharing of information and resources to produce improved services, make transportation easier to use, and provide more transit options through improvements in cost effectiveness. In terms of intercity transportation, coordination among the various providers could result in improved ease of use for customers, better awareness of intercity transportation options, and improved connectivity with the larger intercity bus network.

Improved intercity bus coordination is not a new need in the state. The 1996 UDOT report identified coordination as a top need and responded by proposing improved coordination of equipment and personnel to create timed transfers from local to intercity bus services. Utah’s Coordinated Plan also saw coordination of intercity bus services as an unmet need and recommended a strategy of coordinating the resources of local agencies and private transportation operators to address intercity bus needs.

Today, the intercity bus “network” actually seems to consist of multiple independent networks and single providers. This patchwork of providers makes it difficult for consumers to get information, make travel arrangements that extend beyond more than one provider, and creates inefficiencies that affect the profitability of service providers. This lack of communication exists among private transportation companies as well as


between private providers and public transportation agencies. For instance, a customer in a community with a rural transit agency would find it nearly impossible to obtain information on their own about how to connect to the local Greyhound stop.

Perhaps the need for more coordination activities can best be illustrated by one of the rare instances when coordination does occur. One private transportation provider that offers services between St. George and Salt Lake City told how he makes an effort to make a timed stop in Salt Lake City with another private provider that serves northern Utah and beyond. Customers that desire to extend their journey north or south of Salt Lake City are able to do so with minimal planning and effort. This results in improved services and ease of use for the customer with minimal resources. This instance of coordination, shared at the intercity transportation planning workshop, both provides a glimpse of how coordination can improve the intercity bus network as well as raises the question of why more examples of coordination cannot be found.

3. IMPROVED AWARENESS OF EXISTING INTERCITY BUS SERVICES

Improved public awareness of existing intercity bus services also has been identified as a significant need for Utah’s intercity bus network. This need was demonstrated by the lack of knowledge of available services by attendees at the workshop, a group that by all accounts can be considered well-informed on transportation issues. This same unawareness of intercity transportation services certainly also applies to the general public.

Improved marketing of available services will strengthen and support existing intercity transportation providers and create a more robust statewide network. As the general public learns about the variety of travel options available and more customers choose to travel by intercity bus, existing providers will improve their services. This is especially true for Tier 2 providers that lack schedule and stop regularity.

In many cases, improved marketing efforts and better coordination of existing services go hand in hand. Improvements in one area become the basis for improvements in the other area. For instance, one possible way to improve the public awareness of existing services is to combine resources and information of the different transit options into one single location that can then be effectively marketed to the public. This, in turn, provides customers with the ability to plan their trip better, especially if it includes multiple providers. Individual operators will be quickly rewarded if they can identify needs in the market for improved coordination and fill unserved service gaps.


SUMMARY This needs summary builds on the work described in the previous three chapters. Based on data from demographic, location, and stakeholder input, the top need in the state has been identified as a need to expand existing intercity bus services. This need has been further defined and quantified in order to provide a prioritized list of the most critical intercity transportation needs. These cities, in descending order, are:


Additionally, UDOT should be aware that other needs have been identified as pressing concerns. These include:

• A need for better coordination among transportation providers to increase the effectiveness of the intercity bus network

• Improved awareness and education for the general public regarding the extent and availability of existing services

City/Town 2007 PopPop Rank

(30%)*

Demographic

Score (based on

data analysis in

Chapter 3)

Demographic

Rank (30%)*

Distance to

Nearest T1

Stop

T1 Distance

Rank

(20%)*

Distance to

Any Stop

Any Stop

Distance

Rank (5%)*

Location/Facility

Score (15%)*

Cumulative

Score

Richfield 7,119 14 5,469 13 114 17 72 17 18 15.1

Park City 8,030 15 5,648 17 30 6 18 9 12 13.1

Vernal 8,403 16 5,235 10 112 16 0 1 12 12.9

Delta 3,143 4 5,666 18 93 15 41 15 12 12.2

Moab 4,868 12 5,182 8 55 9 0 1 18 10.6

Manti 3,232 6 5,570 15 81 11 42 16 6 10.2

Heber 9,715 17 5,187 9 24 2 0 1 12 10.1

Kanab 3,769 9 4,997 7 84 14 84 18 6 9.4

Hurricane 12,896 18 5,299 11 19 1 19 10 0 9.4

Roosevelt 4,852 11 4,563 5 84 13 0 1 12 9.3

Gunnison 2,734 2 5,352 12 82 12 41 14 12 9.1

Morgan 3,270 7 5,586 16 26 5 23 11 0 8.5

Midway 3,474 8 5,569 14 25 4 4 8 0 7.8

Nephi 5,231 13 4,485 4 43 7 0 1 6 7.5

La Verkin 4,434 10 4,643 6 25 3 25 12 0 6.0

Blanding 3,185 5 2,867 1 129 18 0 1 0 5.5

Mount Pleasant 2,744 3 3,503 2 59 10 28 13 6 5.1

Beaver 2,564 1 4,243 3 53 8 0 1 6 3.8

*The number in parentheses indicates the relative weight of the five components used to score each city

64

Table 5-1: Cities With Highest Intercity Bus Transportation Needs


CHAPTER 6: STRATEGIES TO MEET INTERCITY BUS NEEDS

This chapter provides UDOT with a menu of strategies to address rural intercity transportation needs in the state. These strategies include provision of funding to operate new services, capital assistance to provide vehicles, technical assistance, and information systems.

OVERVIEW OF UTAH STRATEGIES The alternatives presented in this chapter have been developed to address the needs identified to the greatest extent possible, bearing in mind that there is limited potential funding for a rural intercity bus program. The primary source of funding at this time is Utah’s apportionment of the Section 5311(f) program for rural public transportation (please see FTA’s website for annual 5311 and 5311(f) apportionments).

The general approach provided in this case is based on the notion that some form of ongoing operating assistance will be needed to develop intercity bus services in areas that are not currently served by unsubsidized providers. If the demand existed in those locations, at prices that cover costs and provide some profit, it is likely that the market would be serving those locations. User-side subsidies are only useful if there are services for the subsidized rider to use, and marketing assistance is useful to maintain or grow ridership on an existing service. But if the market does not provide the service, and there is an identified need, the only way to ensure that the service is provided is to fund it.

Some states have attempted to provide vehicle capital to an operator on the condition that the operator provides a specified rural service, with no other subsidy provided. However, the capital cost of the vehicle is only a portion of the fully-allocated cost, and the vehicle alone is rarely enough to bring service to an otherwise unserved area. Providing vehicle capital can be a useful strategy when combined with operating assistance to initiate new service, or to maintain an existing service that is close to viable on its own, or to provide for improved accessibility for persons with disabilities.

Funding can also be useful in supporting the ongoing provision of public information about intercity bus services, and that is included as a strategy in this chapter as well.


POTENTIAL OPERATING PROJECTS Based on the earlier needs assessment, five corridors have been developed as potential routes for new services:

• The U.S. 40 corridor from Salt Lake City east to the state line (and on to Denver, Colorado), via Heber and Vernal. This route serves Vernal, Park City, Heber, Roosevelt, and Midway, all cities with demonstrated high unmet intercity transportation needs.

• The U.S. 89 corridor from Richfield to Provo/Salt Lake City, via Manti, and Mount Pleasant. This route would potentially service Richfield, Manti, Gunnison, and Mount Pleasant, in addition to several other towns less than 2,500 population with high unmet intercity transportation needs.

• Delta to Provo/Salt Lake City, via Nephi. Both Delta and Nephi have high levels of unmet intercity need.

• Kanab to St. George, via La Verkin and Hurricane. While none of these cities are in the top five list of needy cities shown in Table 5-1, all three cities appear further down in the table and do have a high relative need for intercity transportation services.

• Moab, with multiple options including service to/from Blanding and Monticello, to Green River (and potentially to Provo/Salt Lake City). Both Moab and Blanding are identified as cities with need for intercity transportation needs.

These are mapped in Figure 6-1.

SALT LAKE CITY EAST TO THE STATE LINE VIA U.S.40

The U.S. 40 corridor is already part of a joint effort with Colorado, so it will be funded. Greyhound Lines has submitted a grant proposal to the states, and it includes proposed funding, with the firm supplying its own match via the in-kind value of its unsubsidized connecting service. Greyhound’s proposed schedule for this route is included in Table 6-1. It includes service to Park City, Heber, Duchesne, Myton, Roosevelt, and Vernal.

RICHFIELD TO PROVO/SALT LAKE CITY

For the other corridors, there are alternatives for each depending on different routes, scheduling to connect with (or complement) scheduled national intercity bus service, and likely provider. A key issue in the development of alternatives is the degree to


which the service is designed to provide a relatively convenient connection to Salt Lake City—in a number of cases such an alternative requires many more miles of operation, and is therefore higher in cost. It may offer the potential of higher ridership as well.

Richfield was identified as having a high unmet need, even though it is in the I-70 corridor. There is actually one Greyhound timetable that shows a stop time in Richfield, on one schedule, in one direction-- but numerous other buses bypass the town, staying on I-70 without stopping. So one alternative to provide for intercity bus service is simply to compensate Greyhound for the costs of stopping more services in Richfield, and accompany that with a designated stop/agent and some marketing support to make residents aware. This would provide service opportunities to St. George and Las Vegas (westbound) and Grand Junction and Denver (eastbound). But it would not provide service to Salt Lake City. Therefore a second alternative is a new route from Richfield north on U.S. 89 with stops in Manti, Ephraim, and Fairview, leaving Richfield early in the morning, arriving in Salt Lake City in mid-morning, with an early evening return to Richfield. This alternative could connect with Greyhound service in Salt Lake City, or eventually with the UTA’s planned commuter rail service between Provo and Salt Lake City, currently under construction.

Option 1: Reinstate Greyhound Stops: Currently Greyhound has one stop in Richfield, on a schedule from Las Vegas to Grand Junction/Denver. The Greyhound stops at the McDonald‘s for a rest stop at 7:25 a.m., leaving Richfield at 7:55 a.m. However, other schedules also go through Richfield, but they do not stop. Eastbound, Schedule 1344, from Las Vegas to Denver, goes through at approximately 12:15 p.m., and Schedule 1312 goes through at approximately 9:15 p.m. Both of these schedules also stop in Cove Fort, which is 42 miles from Richfield. Westbound, there are three Greyhound schedules that pass through Richfield on their way to Las Vegas: 1357, at approximately 9:20 a.m.; 1305 at approximately 4:15 p.m.; and 1303 at approximately 9:35 p.m. All three stop in Cove Fort. None of them go to Salt Lake City.

899

89

191

191

706

6

89

89

89

6

132

40

15

80

70

80

15

15

15

84

MOAB

NEPHI

DELTA

KANAB

MANTI

HEBER

MORGAN

VERNAL

BEAVER

BLANDING

GUNNISON

HURRICANE

PARK CITY

ROOSEVELT

RICHFIELD

MOUNT PLEASANT

MIDWAY

LA VERKIN

OREM

SANDY

PRICE

PROVO

OGDEN

COVE FORT

TREMONTON

ST. GEORGE

MONTICELLO

CEDAR CITY

LOGAN-CVTD

SLC AIRPORT

GREEN RIVER

BRIGHAM CITYLOGAN-UNIV INN

SALT LAKE CITY

OGDEN-GREYHOUND STA

INTERCITY BUS CONCEPTUAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVESOVERLAID ON EXISTING NETWORK AND RANKED DENSITY

Figure 6-1

A R I Z O N A

CO

LO

RA

DO

NE

VA

DA

I D A H O

W Y O M I N G

0 30 6015Miles


B e a rL a k e Cities with Highest ICB Needs

Conceptual Route AlternativesTraditional Intercity StopsIntercity Bus ServicesInterstates and HighwaysLakes

Data Sources: 2000 Census, Utah PopulationEstimates Committee, Utah's State Geographic Info. Database Website, ESRI Data CD.

L E G E N D

L a k eP o w e l l

Relative Transit Need(by Census Block Group)

HighMediumLow


Greyhound has indicated its willingness to consider revising the schedules to include stops in Richfield for some or all of these schedules. There may be some costs to Greyhound including the additional time and driver mileage of the diversion from the interstate, the administrative costs of having an agent and a location, and the impact of the additional stopping time on the through passengers. It is technically possible that some level of compensation might be requested by Greyhound to make these additional stops, but there is no precedent of them doing that in other states. Under Section 5311(f), it is not clear if such expenses might be treated as administrative costs, rather than operating assistance, but either way there is a need for local match.

The other issue with this is that Richfield residents may well want to reach Salt Lake City, which leads to the second option.

Option 2: New Service to Salt Lake City, via Manti, Ephraim and Fairview, with Connections to Wendover, Ogden, and Tremonton: This option would use operating assistance to fund new service from Richfield north on the U.S. 89 corridor to Salt Lake City. By staying on U.S. 89, additional areas identified as having High Needs, Manti and Ephraim, are also served. Passing through Fairview would also allow a stop, even though it has a smaller population base than would normally be needed to justify an intercity bus stop.

Table 6-2 presents a potential schedule, based on the approximate distances and time requirements, and the schedule times in Salt Lake City. This alternative calls for implementation of a service that provides a schedule into Salt Lake City that would allow for day trips, providing a morning inbound and evening outbound service. This is similar in concept to the Bighorn Express service from Monticello to Salt Lake City, but with a shorter trip distance. In this case the morning departure from Richfield could be at 6:30 a.m., with an arrival in Salt Lake City at 10:30 a.m., and a return trip leaving at 6:00 p.m., arriving at 10:30 p.m. These times could be modified to allow for an airport stop, as well as service to downtown Salt Lake City. It would be desirable to have the route begin and end at the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub, allowing connections to other transit modes.


Location:Read Down:

6:00 Leave Richfield 22:30 ArriveGunnisonMantiMount Pleasant

9:35 Leave Provo 18:5510:30 Arrive Salt Lake City 18:00 Leave11:00 Leave Salt Lake City 17:50 Arrive13:00 Arrive Wendover13:35 Leave Wendover19:50 Leave Reno, NV12:01 Leave Salt Lake City 17:55 Arrive13:05 Leave Ogden 17:1014:05 Leave Tremonton 16:2520:50 Leave Boise 10:35

Northbound Southbound

Table 6-2: Richfield to Salt Lake City: Connection Opportunities

This would be good service for the corridor, with the long span set to allow for a full-day in Salt Lake City and for connections to and from Greyhound service to Reno and Boise/Portland, allowing use of the Pilot Project funding method. It may have somewhat higher costs due to the need to have two drivers (it would have a span of nearly 16 hours) and the mileage.

In the future, this alternative could be made into a shorter service, connecting with the UTA’s FrontRunner South line, a planned commuter rail service between Provo and Salt Lake City that is currently under construction and scheduled for completion by 2015. The FrontRunner South will provide service between downtown Provo and the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub, where passengers can transfer to light rail, local buses, and commuter rail. The planned frequency of this service is 30 minutes during the day and hourly at night from 4:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. Monday through Friday and hourly from 6:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. on Saturdays. This frequency would provide significantly improved connection opportunities to Salt Lake City. However, without a meaningful connection to Greyhound services, the opportunity for use of the Pilot Project funding could be eliminated.


Option 3: Feeder Connections from Richfield to Cove Fort: This alternative makes sense only if it turns out that Greyhound is not able to revise its schedules to include stops in Richfield, as outlined in Option 1. It would provide daytime connections to Greyhound services to/from Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Grand Junction/Denver by providing a daily trip from Richfield to Cove Fort Utah, leaving Richfield at approximately 10:00 a.m. and returning just before 3:00 p.m. as shown in Table 6-3. During the time that vehicle is in Cove Fort, there are arrivals from Las Vegas and Salt Lake City, and an arrival from Denver slightly earlier at 10:05 a.m. There are departures from Cove Fort for Denver at 11:00 a.m., Las Vegas at 12:15 p.m., and Salt Lake City at 1:55 p.m. The mileage distance from Richfield to Cove Fort is approximately 42 miles, all on the interstate.

DEPARTURES: ARRIVALS:

Time: Carrier: Destination: Time: Carrier: Origin:

3:30 a.m. Greyhound Las Vegas3:45 a.m. Greyhound Salt Lake City

5:00 a.m. Greyhound Denver5:10 a.m. Greyhound Las Vegas


11:00 a.m. Richfield Shuttle Richfield11:00 a.m. Greyhound Las Vegas

11:30 a.m. Greyhound Denver11:45 a.m. Greyhound Salt Lake City

12:15 p.m. Greyhound Las Vegas1:40 p.m Greyhound Las Vegas

1:55 p.m. Greyhound Salt Lake City1:55 p.m. Richfield Shuttle Richfield

8:15 p.m. Greyhound Las Vegas8:30 p.m. Greyhound Denver

9:45 p.m. Greyhound Salt Lake City10:00 p.m. Greyhound Las Vegas

10:20 p.m. Greyhound Denver10:35 p.m. Greyhound Las Vegas

Table 6-3: Cove Fort Intercity Schedules: One Round Trip from Richfield

Issues with this alternative include the fact that although Cove Fort is listed in Greyhound timetables as a rest stop, with almost all buses scheduled for a layover of 15 minutes, it is not listed as a Greyhound station or agency. The nearest agency is Cedar


City, well to the south. For this alternative to work, it would be highly desirable that the provider be an agency capable of selling Greyhound tickets, offering a Greyhound ticket from Richfield to the final destination. Cove Fort has a very limited population base, and so it could not support an agent. Greyhound would have to agree to this step and support implementation. It is possible that there would be costs associated with this that could be part of the project. The other issue is that riders headed east toward Colorado would first have to ride west to catch the eastbound bus. And, as compared to more direct routes north to Salt Lake City, this option takes much longer and does not serve Manti, Ephraim, or Fairview. In addition, Greyhound does not serve the Salt Lake City Airport, so any travelers connecting to the airport would need to take a taxi from the bus station.

Benefits include the low cost of the feeder in terms of miles and hours, the opportunity to make multiple connections in three different directions, and the likelihood that Greyhound would agree to provide in-kind match support if it also would agree to having the Richfield provider also be a Greyhound agent.

DELTA TO PROVO/SALT LAKE CITY VIA NEPHI

This alternative connects Delta with Nephi and Provo/Salt Lake City. Both Delta and Nephi were identified as having unmet intercity bus needs. Delta was classified as High Need. Nephi has Tier 2 service, but was also identified as a location with additional service needs. One option is presented, a single round-trip to Salt Lake City via Nephi and Provo, allowing a full day in Salt Lake City. It would be scheduled to provide a morning departure from Delta, arriving in Salt Lake City mid-morning, with an evening return.

This service would depart Delta at approximately 7:30 a.m., as shown in Table 6-4, arriving in Salt Lake shortly after 10:00 a.m., permitting connections to outbound Greyhound services headed west to Reno and San Francisco, and northwest to Boise and Portland. It could be scheduled to include a stop at the airport as well, broadening the ridership base. It is likely that revenue would be higher, but the costs would also be greater because of the longer span and the increased mileage. This option would offer a “meaningful connection” to Greyhound in Salt Lake City, and the company might well be supportive of the use of the value of their in-kind match to allow use of the Pilot Project funding method.


Stop Location:Read Down:

7:30 Leave Delta 20:508:40 Leave Nephi 19:409:22 Leave Provo 18:55

10:12 Leave Salt Lake City 18:009:35 Leave Provo 18:55

10:30 Arrive Salt Lake City 18:00 Leave11:00 Leave Salt Lake City 17:50 Arrive13:00 Arrive Wendover13:35 Leave Wendover19:50 Leave Reno, NV12:01 Leave Salt Lake City 17:55 Arrive13:05 Leave Ogden 17:1014:05 Leave Tremonton 16:2520:50 Leave Boise 10:35

5:35 Arrive Portland 23:45 LeaveRead up:

Table 6-4: Delta to Provo

Northbound Southbound

In the near future, riders will be able to connect to Salt Lake City via the FrontRunner South, once the commuter rail line is completed by 2015. However, more local match may be required if the proposed alternative is not scheduled to connect with Greyhound, and Greyhound is therefore unwilling to provide in-kind match. The lack of service to the Salt Lake City International Airport may also be resolved as the UTA aims to complete its Airport TRAX line, a commuter light rail service connecting downtown Salt Lake City to the airport, by 2015.

KANAB TO ST. GEORGE, VIA LA VERKIN AND HURRICANE

This service option links Kanab, identified as having a High Need, with the nearest Greyhound service point in St. George, with stops in La Verkin and Hurricane. There are really two options here—one is a single round-trip from Kanab, and a second is to use a single vehicle to make two round trips. St. George is unusual in that it has a number of Greyhound services, which connect to Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Denver, and it has many connections provided by Tier 2 providers such as St. George Shuttle, Hail Harry, Go Green Shuttle or Cedar City Shuttle. Cedar City Shuttle already connects with St. George Shuttle in St. George to offer service from Cedar City to Las Vegas, so there is some precedent of connections among the Tier 2 carriers.


Option 1: One Round-Trip per Day, Kanab to St. George: Table 6-5 presents a summary of the arrivals and departures of all carriers serving St. George. As can be seen there is extensive service, much of it in the daytime, with linkages to Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, and regional service to Cedar City. In Table 6-5, the Greyhound schedules are shown in blue, and proposed new Kanab Shuttle arrivals and departures are shaded in green to show how they relate to the potential connections. The estimated drive time from Kanab via La Verkin and Hurricane is two hours and ten minutes, so the proposed 11:10 a.m. arrival in St. George would leave Kanab at about 9:00 a.m. Its 11:10 a.m. arrival would allow for connections to an 11:35 a.m. Greyhound departure for Salt Lake City, and a noon St. George Shuttle departure to Las Vegas, with additional departures for both destinations later in the day. Prior to the 2:30 p.m. Kanab Shuttle departure from St. George, there are arrivals from Salt Lake City and Las Vegas on St. George Shuttle, two arrivals from Salt Lake City on Hail Harry and Go Green Shuttle, and finally a 2:20 p.m. Greyhound bus arriving from Salt Lake City. The Kanab Shuttle would arrive back in Kanab at 4:40 p.m. This option offers about three hours in St. George, and provides connections to and from Greyhound Salt Lake City service, and to other carriers for Las Vegas connections.

Option 2: Two Round-Trips per Day, Kanab to St. George: Table 6-6 presents the same overall St. George schedule with two round-trips from Kanab to St. George. The proposed Kanab Shuttle would need to leave Kanab at about 5:20 a.m., arriving in St. George at 7:30 a.m. providing a connection to Greyhound’s 7:45 a.m. departure for Las Vegas, and three 8:00 a.m. schedules (Aztec Shuttle, Hail Harry, and St. George Shuttle) for Salt Lake City. The Kanab Shuttle would wait for the 8:50 a.m. Greyhound arrival from Las Vegas, and leave St. George at 9:00 a.m. for the return run to Kanab. The second trip would leave Kanab at noon, arriving in St. George at 2:10 p.m., allowing connections to a 2:30 p.m. Greyhound departure for Las Vegas, and a 3:00 p.m. St. George Shuttle departure for Salt Lake City. Incoming passengers from Salt Lake City on Greyhound would arrive at 2:20 p.m., and from Las Vegas on a St. George Shuttle at 3:10 p.m. The Kanab Shuttle would leave St. George at 3:15 p.m., arriving in Kanab at 5:25 p.m. This alternative provides for connections to the Greyhound Denver service, and it would allow someone to spend the time between 7:30 a.m. and 3:15 p.m. in St. George.

A later service is also possible, and would allow connections to another Greyhound Denver schedule, but it would primarily serve inbound passengers from Salt Lake City, Cedar City, and Las Vegas on the Aztec Shuttle and St. George Shuttle.



12:05 a.m. Greyhound Lines SLC

12:10 a.m. Greyhound Lines LV

12:40 a.m. Greyhound Lines Denver

12:40 a.m. St. George Shuttle LV




4:30 a.m. Cedar City Shuttle Cedar City







8:00 a.m. Hail Harry SLC

8:00 a.m. St. George Shuttle SLC

8:00 a.m. Aztec Shuttle SLC








11:10 a.m. Kanab Shuttle Kanab



12:00 p.m. St.George Shuttle LV

12:00 p.m. Cedar City Shuttle Cedar City

12:10 p.m. St. George Shuttle LV

12:15 p.m. Hail Harry SLC

12:55 p.m. Go Green Shuttle SLC



2:00 p.m. Go Green Shuttle SLC 2:00 p.m. Cedar City Shuttle Cedar City

2:20 p.m. Greyhound Lines SLC


2:30 p.m. Kanab Shuttle Kanab

2:30 p.m. Greyhound Lines LV

3:00 p.m. St. George Shuttle SLC









6:05 p.m. Aztec Shuttle SLC

6:10 p.m. Greyhound Lines Denver







10:40 p.m. St. George Shuttle LV 75

Table 6-5: St. George Intercity Schedules: With One Round Trip from Kanab75

admin

Typewritten Text

75


















8:00 a.m. Hail Harry SLC


8:00 a.m. Aztec Shuttle SLC











12:00 p.m. St.George Shuttle LV




12:55 Go Green Shuttle SLC



2:00 p.m. Go Green Shuttle SLC 2:00 p.m. Cedar City Shuttle Cedar City


2:20 p.m. Greyhound Lines SLC













6:05 p.m. Aztec Shuttle SLC

6:10 p.m. Greyhound Lines Denver








Table 6-6: St. George Intercity Schedules:With Two Round Trips from Kanab

76


However, if operated together with the mid-day service, it would require a second vehicle and driver.

A related issue for St. George, which really has exceptional service when all of it is considered, is the potential value of a joint terminal which could offer long-term parking and serve all of these carriers. This would facilitate connections by offering a common location with waiting areas. A related need is to provide information about all of these options to potential riders—it is unlikely that anybody locally realizes the number of carriers and options available.

Both Kanab options allow linkages to Greyhound Lines schedules and could therefore be potentially considered for in-kind match. Also, given the number of Tier 2 carriers in St. George, it is likely that an experienced contract operator or grantee could be found locally. The operator of the proposed Kanab Shuttle should be a Greyhound agent and/or interline partner—if it also operated unsubsidized service out of St. George, it might also sell its own tickets as well.

MOAB, WITH MULTIPLE OPTIONS INCLUDING SERVICE TO/FROM BLANDING

AND MONTICELLO, TO GREEN RIVER (AND POTENTIALLY TO PROVO/SALT

LAKE CITY

Moab was identified as a High Need stop based on the lack of Tier 1 bus service, even though it has Tier 2 service provided by Big Horn Express. Two options are readily apparent. One is to provide a connection to and from Greyhound schedules at Green River, and it would appear to make sense for this connection to also serve Monticello and Blanding, both of which appear on the needs list. The other is to provide whatever programmatic assistance might be needed to maintain the existing Big Horn Express service from Monticello to Salt Lake City. The current Greyhound schedules from Green River to Salt Lake City provide for an evening trip to Salt Lake City, and a morning outbound trip, perfectly complementing the inbound morning/outbound evening schedule on Big Horn Express.

Option 1: Blanding/Monticello/Green River Connection to Greyhound at Green River: Table 6-7 presents the schedule required to provide for connecting service to Greyhound. The nearest connecting point is Green River, so the proposed feeder service would need to come from Moab/Monticello and/or Blanding to arrive in Green River before the scheduled Greyhound connections. The existing Greyhound schedule is in Green River at 7:40 p.m. headed for Las Vegas, and a bus from Denver arrives in


Green River at 7:25 p.m., so a feeder service would leave Blanding at 5:20 p.m., Monticello at 5:40 p.m., and Moab at 6:40 p.m.


Time Carrier Destination Time Carrier Origin


4:40 a.m. Greyhound Albuquerque4:55 p.m. Greyhound Albuquerque

7:05 a.m. Greyhound Denver7:25 a.m. Greyhound Las Vegas9:15 a.m. Bighorn Express Salt Lake City 9:15 a.m. Bighorn Express Monticello

10:00 a.m. Blanding Express Blanding10:05 a.m. Greyhound Las Vegas

10:20 a.m. Greyhound Denver10:40 a.m. Blanding Express Blanding12:50 p.m. Greyhound Albuquerque 12:30 p.m. Greyhound Salt Lake City

2:10 p.m. Greyhound Las Vegas2:30 p.m. Greyhound Denver6:15 p.m. Bighorn Express Monticello 6:15 p.m. Bighorn Express Salt Lake City

7:25 p.m. Greyhound Denver7:30 p.m. Blanding Express Blanding

7:40 p.m. Greyhound Las Vegas7:50 p.m. Blanding Express Blanding

11:10 p.m. Greyhound Las Vegas11:25 p.m. Greyhound Denver

Table 6-7: Connection Opportunities in Green River: Blanding/Monticello/Moab to Green River

On the return schedule, the southbound bus for Albuquerque leaves Salt Lake City at 8:45 a.m., arriving in Green River at 12:30 p.m.. It leaves at 12:50 p.m. The eastbound bus for Denver also leaves Green River at 10:20 a.m. Connecting service from Blanding would need to depart at approximately 7:40 a.m., and would arrive back at about 12:50 p.m. So the feeder to Greyhound option requires two round-trips from Blanding/Monticello/Moab, and could be provided with a single vehicle. It would provide connections to Albuquerque, and Las Vegas, but the schedule to Salt Lake City is too early inbound to serve with a connection (so no return from Albuquerque), and the morning outbound is in Green River mid-day.


Option 2: Monticello/Moab/Salt Lake City: Currently there is Tier 2 service from Monticello to Salt Lake City provided by Big Horn Express using vans. The service requires reservations, and it goes near, but not into the Salt Lake City Airport. The schedule leaves Monticello at 7:00 a.m., arriving in Salt Lake City at 12:30 p.m. It has a stop at Green River at 9:15 a.m., which would allow someone to connect to the Denver Greyhound schedule. Outbound from Salt Lake City it leaves at 2:30 p.m., arriving in Green River at 6:15 p.m., too early to pick up Moab/Monticello bound passengers arriving from Denver.

The option here is to maintain this service, which basically complements the Greyhound schedules to Salt Lake City by providing a morning in, afternoon out schedule. Marketing and potentially capital assistance might be two initial support elements that could help sustain this service without ongoing operating assistance (which would require local match).

Greyhound in-kind support for local operating match in this corridor is more likely for Option 1, which provides connections to/from several schedules in Green River. If resources are available, a combination of both options would provide a high level of intercity connectivity for southeast Utah, with service to Salt Lake both morning and evening, and connections to/from Las Vegas, Denver, and El Paso.

POTENTIAL NON-OPERATING PROJECTS CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

There are several routes/services where vehicle capital assistance may make sense to help support rural intercity feeders. These are cases in which subsidized service would be the only service in the corridor, or would support existing unsubsidized services that complement existing/potential Greyhound service. In these cases the likely vehicle is a small bus/van, likely equipped with a wheelchair lift and positions, folding seats, and baggage racks. The corridors are:

• Vernal-Salt Lake City (existing carrier Vernal Shuttle, provides morning inbound/evening outbound)

• Monticello-Salt Lake City (existing carrier Bighorn Shuttle, provides morning inbound/evening outbound service)

• Kanab-St. George (proposed new rural intercity feeder) • Delta-Salt Lake City (proposed new rural intercity feeder)


• Richfield feeder (proposed new rural intercity feeder)

Often carriers will provide the local match for vehicles in cash, if they perceive an option to purchase at the end of the project.

Other capital needs could include assistance for a joint terminal in St. George. This would likely require a separate feasibility study to determine the willingness of carriers to participate, identify a site, estimate costs, etc. The study might be funded out of Section 5311(f), but the capital cost of such a facility would likely require other additional funding sources.

COORDINATION THROUGH MARKETING, INFORMATION, AND TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE

This project is in response to the observation that there is already a significant amount of intercity bus service available in the state, but that information is fragmented and service uncoordinated. Some carriers have worked together to offer coordinated schedules and allow passenger connections beyond a single carrier’s service area, but more could be done, and the option of using some of these services could be brought to public attention by displaying and updating the inventory data collected for this study. This project could include several on-going approaches that could be funded with Section 5311(f) administrative funds, or provided contractually:

• Technical Assistance: As part of State Mobility Management efforts, UDOT would seek to maintain current schedule and service information for the existing unsubsidized carriers. Information could also be provided to local groups such as the tourism bureau and human service agencies seeking information, and the private carriers would be invited to participate in development of transportation options across the state. UDOT (or its contractor) could also work with carriers to identify potential service coordination strategies, basically acting as a broker to bring different operators to the table (recognizing that many of them are also competitors as well). Finally, if newly-funded Section 5311(f) services are funded using Greyhound in-kind miles, then the Mobility Manager could also work to support the development and marketing of interlining arrangements for these services.

• Public Information: UDOT would seek to use the updated (and maintained) service inventory and maps to provide information to the public about the available services. A brochure is possible, but to maintain current information


pages on the UDOT website, or state tourism or Airport websites, could also be possible, showing routes and providing links to carrier websites and phone numbers. Even the small Tier 2 carriers appear to have web pages and information reservation numbers—if the public knows to call or look for service. In addition, UDOT could fund placement of schedules in Russell’s Guide, the national intercity bus timetable guide. Oregon DOT funds this for their Section 5311(f) carriers, and it provides a more complete picture of available services to agents selling bus tickets anywhere in the country. Finally, efforts are underway to provide for uploading schedule and service information to Google Transit or other similar internet search engines. If Google is able to provide for statewide trip information, funding might be needed to provide intercity bus service operation in the required format, and keep it updated. Once this need is defined, this service could be contracted, using Section 5311(f) funding.

• Marketing: For new services, additional marketing efforts might well be required to establish a “brand” and make the public aware of new transportation options. This could be included with operating grants, as a required element, or provided separately along with other elements of statewide intercity bus information.

These activities would likely require UDOT staff time, either as part of an ongoing role in managing the Section 5311 program, or as an additional set of functions associated with the rural intercity bus program. It is likely that during an initial startup phase, more staff time might be required than could be provided by a person who is also overseeing the entire Section 5311 program, so there will be a need for staffing. Depending on other functions, this could be part of a Mobility Manager role, but it is likely to require at least a half-time staff person.

COORDINATION FACILITIES

Utah already has several examples of intercity bus service at intermodal facilities, including those at the UTA facility in Salt Lake City and the transfer center in Logan. The capacity of the UTA Greyhound station could be more fully utilized, and connectivity improved, if it were open for more service by the Tier 2 carriers. In addition, the number and variety of connections possible from St. George suggests a need to focus on a joint facility in that city to provide a common source for tickets, information, and a place to wait for connecting services.


DISCUSSION Table 6-8 presents a summary of the strategy options, including speculative estimates of costs, revenues, and required local match. The estimates of operating costs are based on an assumed fully-allocated cost per mile of $2.00 for a Tier 2 type of contractor. Actual costs could differ. An assumed farebox recovery of 40% is also shown to reflect that there is potential revenue, and typically even rural intercity feeder services can achieve this level.

It is clear that the program cannot provide for all these options, given the limited Section 5311(f) allocation (approximately $700,000 per year), and the likelihood that there is no local match source except for the in-kind Pilot Project option. Use of that option means that federal funds are used for the entire net deficit, so fewer projects can be funded. Given these limitations, a key focus would be on those projects with the likely support for use of the Pilot Project match source. Additionally, projects that maximize benefits (population served), serves people with the fewest available options, and has lower costs should be prioritized. The information and marketing support to enable greater use of the unsubsidized services should be provided in any case.

In examining Table 6-8, it should be noted that there are other possibilities that might enable development of more service as part of a program. All are shown with daily service, 365 days per year, in part because Greyhound favors that level of service to provide connectivity, and this program may have to rely on Greyhound for the in-kind Pilot Project match. But some of these could also operate with lower frequency, and probably would if relying on local cash match sources. Options that offer a second round-trip per day could be implemented if there is ridership on the single round-trip per day service, particularly if the farebox recovery is higher than the 40% assumed in the table. Another possibility to consider is that the farebox recovery levels might well increase over time above the 40 percent level, reducing the net deficit and allowing for more implementation. The success of the Tier 2 carriers in Utah suggests that fares may well cover much of the operating cost after a startup period, particularly for options that provide service to Salt Lake City and its airport on a morning inbound, afternoon outbound schedule.

Corridor/Option One-Way Daily Daily Estimated Estimated Annual Net Local Federal Federal

Route Miles Frequency Bus-Miles Cost per Mile (1) Annual Cost (2) Revenue (3) Deficit Match Share: Share:

(at 50%) (at 50%) (at 100%)

Richfield/SLC Option 1: Greyhound Adds Stop 0 0 0 $4.15 ? ? ?

Richfield/SLC Option 2: Richfield-SLC 173 2 346 $2.00 $252,580 $101,032 $151,548 $75,774 $75,774 $151,548

Richfield/SLC Option 3: Richfield-Cove Fort 42 2 84 $2.00 $61,320 $24,528 $36,792 $18,396 $18,396 $36,792

Delta/SLC Option 1: Delta-Nephi-Provo-SLC 136 2 272 $2.00 $198,560 $79,424 $119,136 $59,568 $59,568 $119,136

Kanab/St. George: Option 1: One-Round Trip/Day 89.2 2 178.4 $2.00 $130,232 $52,093 $78,139 $39,070 $39,070 $78,139

Kanab/St. George: Option 1: Two-Round Trips/Day 89.2 4 356.8 $2.00 $260,464 $104,186 $156,278 $78,139 $78,139 $156,278

Moab: Option 1:Blanding-Monticello-Moab-Green River 127 4 508 $2.00 $370,840 $148,336 $222,504 $111,252 $111,252 $222,504

Moab: Option 2: Monticello-Moab-Green River-SLC(4) 293 2 586 $2.00 $427,780 $171,112 $256,668 $128,334 $128,334 $256,668

(1) Assumed to be operated by contracted Tier 2-type

carrier, cost per mile is estimated.

(2) Assumes 365 day operation.

(3) Assumed at 40% farebox.

(4) Currently operated by Bighorn Express, no subsidy.

83

Table 6-8: Estimated Operating Costs - Year One


ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM SCENARIOS

Given the various options, and treating them as an a la carte menu, one could develop a selection of alternative program scenarios, each with various trade-offs in terms of the funding needed, required policy changes, and likely usefulness to Utah residents. If the summary table can be considered as the “menu”, there are several possible “meals.” Two such meals are explored below to further define how UDOT might consider developing an intercity bus program:

Scenario One: Use Pilot Project for All Match: As mentioned above, one scenario could be built around the assumption that there is no local operating match available, and that all Section 5311(f) service would have to rely on the Pilot Project method of using the value of in-kind match from unsubsidized connecting intercity bus service, likely to be the Greyhound service. Using the Pilot Project means that in effect the entire net deficit can be covered by using federal funds. For that reason, the available federal funding is fully consumed by fewer bus miles than it would be if there was another source of local match (funding 100 percent of the net operating deficit rather than 50 percent). So an initial scenario based on this assumption focuses on feeder services that would provide a meaningful connection to existing Greyhound schedules:

• U.S. 40 service operated by Greyhound-$250,000, • Richfield-Salt Lake City (one round-trip)-$151,548 • Delta-Nephi-Provo-Salt Lake City (one round-trip)-$119,848 • Kanab-St. George (two round-trips)-$156,278 • Information and Marketing-$50,000

This program scenario includes the proposed annual operating cost of the U.S. 40 service operated by Greyhound. Depending on ridership, operating costs, and future decisions by UDOT and CDOT, this amount could change in future years. Overall, this would be a low-cost program, with likely ability to use the Greyhound in-kind match method for all the operating projects. The total amount of operating funding required, $677,674, would allow for an annual marketing and information budget of $50,000. Given Utah’s FTA Section 5311(f) allocation, this would be a sustainable program.

So, this scenario is likely to be affordable, be implementable (in the sense of having local match through the Pilot Project), and address the priority needs areas. The trade-off is that the users will have somewhat more inconvenient schedules required to make


transfers to connecting Greyhound service, even though many of the schedules will generally be supportive of day trips to the state’s largest urban area.

The key issue in using the Pilot Project for funding is the need to match connecting unsubsidized miles on a schedule basis with the proposed subsidized service. This element of project design is generally a detailed matching of schedules, with care taken to avoid double-counting of in-kind match miles. In order to assess the feasibility of using the Pilot Project, an analysis of the required mileage for each of the corridors listed in the above program was developed. Table 6-9 summarizes the results. A detailed calculation for each route is included in Appendix C. The Greyhound connecting schedules are shown in the earlier analysis of the options. As can be seen, the program is feasible with the available in-kind miles—if the subsidized services achieve a 40% farebox recovery, and if the per-mile operating costs of the currently unknown providers are $2.00 per mile (more likely to be typical of Utah’s Type 2 service providers).

Scenario Two: More Service: This scenario is the same as Scenario One, except that it adds service from Blanding, through Monticello and Moab, to connect with Greyhound at Green River—and it has a higher marketing budget:

• U.S. 40 service operated by Greyhound-$250,000 • Richfield-Salt Lake City (one round-trip)-$151,548 • Delta-Nephi-Provo-Salt Lake City (one round-trip)-$119,136 • Kanab-St. George (two round-trips)-$156,278 • Blanding-Green River (one round-trip) $296,672 • Information and Marketing-$100,000

If funded with 100 percent federal dollars, this scenario would cost $1,073,634, well over the available federal allocation.

The benefits of this scenario are additional coverage in the southeast corner of the state, with connectivity from that region to Greyhound services east and west, and the enhanced marketing and communication budget.

The trade-off is the increased coverage and connectivity, against implementation issues in finding local match and the increase in costs above the 15 percent Section 5311(f) sub-allocation.


Scenario Assessment: These are two scenarios, and obviously even with the relatively limited menu of options, other combinations are possible. The challenge posed by the local operating match issue becomes more obvious, because the second scenario does offer potentially better service while exceeding the in-kind match availability. It is recommended that Scenario One be the preferred option, while reserving Scenario Two as the preferred option in the case that local cash match can be found. The advent of frequent commuter rail service from Provo, and the future light link to the Salt Lake City Airport will also impact these scenarios, as the need to drive all the way into Salt Lake City will be reduced and the Delta and Richfield services could terminate in Provo, reducing costs. UDOT could begin consultation with local communities to assess the degree of local interest and support, as an initial step.

SUMMARY This chapter has presented service strategies to meet the needs for intercity transportation identified in this study. It should be pointed out that the recommendations presented here deal with services, and that policy recommendations are dealt with in the next chapter.

Five service options were proposed and analyzed for their feasibility and connectivity to the existing intercity network. These options include:

• The U.S. 40 corridor from Salt Lake City east to the state line (and on to Denver, Colorado), via Heber and Vernal

• The U.S. 89 corridor from Richfield to Provo/Salt Lake City, via Manti and Mount Pleasant

• Delta to Provo/Salt Lake City, via Nephi • Kanab to St. George, via La Verkin and Hurricane • Moab, with multiple options including service to/from Blanding and Monticello,

to Green River (and potentially to Provo/Salt Lake City)

Another strategy recommendation is the provision of public information about both the existing and any new services. The network of available services should be presented to the public to make them aware of the options and able to access specific schedule and fare information. This could be done through existing websites, and in the future additional web services are likely to be available to provide comprehensive information. These are likely to require that service information be formatted in particular ways, uploaded and maintained—all of which should be supported by the


proposed program, although information efforts may need to be initiated with capital funding for trailblazer signs to station stops, maps and links to carrier websites.

The recommended program of strategies is a combination of new service routes and information and marketing. An ideal service program would recommend providing funding for all five of the service options as well as sufficient funding for non-service options. However, given budget constraints, the recommended program of strategies is as follows:

• U.S. 40 service operated by Greyhound-$250,000, • Richfield-Salt Lake City (one round-trip)-$151,548 • Delta-Nephi-Provo-Salt Lake City (one round-trip)-$119,848 • Kanab-St. George (two round-trips)-$156,278 • Information and Marketing-$50,000

This program represents an affordable and pragmatic approach to addressing the statewide intercity bus needs. The fifteen percent rural intercity bus set-aside amount represents enough funding to support the identified routes and services using the Pilot Project funding method if Greyhound Lines is willing to partner with the providers and allow for the use of the value of their unsubsidized services in Utah as match. If local funding sources can be located, it is recommended that this program be expanded to provide service from Blanding to Green River and to expand the amount of money available for information and marketing.

Project: Subsidized One-Way Unsubsidized Match Segments Table Schedule One-Way

Segment Route Number Route

Miles Miles

Salt Lake City-Colorado State Line 173 St. George-Salt Lake City (one-way) 545 6050 303

Salt Lake City-Wendover (round-trip) 550 1347 and 1314 121

Richfield-Salt Lake City 171 Salt Lake City-Wendover (round-trip) 550 1308 and 1345 121

Delta-Salt Lake City 135 Salt Lake City-Idaho State Line 500 1337 and 1300 115

Kanab-St. George (Two Round-Trips 89.2 St. George-Salt Lake City (round-trip) 545 6052 and 6053 303

Blanding-Green River 127 St. George-Green River (round-trip) 555 1302 and 1315 288

Green River-Colorado State Line (round-trip) 555 1302 and 1315 70

Table 6-9: Summary of Match Segments for Use of Pilot Project Funding

admin

Typewritten Text

88


CHAPTER 7: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter provides recommendations for the development of a program to address the needs for rural intercity bus service in Utah. Program approaches used in other states that have implemented Section 5311(f) programs are presented and assessed, and a modified version of the Section 5311 grant program is recommended for initial implementation.

As a grant program, UDOT would solicit applications from potential providers, but it is recommended that the solicitation focus on specific program priorities, including the definition of particular services that have been identified in this study. These recommendations also provide additional direction regarding the role of UDOT in its intercity bus policy, the use of 5311(f) money, as well as specific guidance concerning details of Utah’s intercity bus program.

KEY POLICY ISSUES FOR UTAH NO CERTIFICATION—UTAH HAS UNMET RURAL INTERCITY BUS NEEDS

The question of whether or not there are unmet rural intercity bus needs as an initial policy question is probably the most fundamental, given the way in which the FTA Section 5311(f) program is structured. If there are, then the state cannot certify to FTA that it has no unmet needs. Based on the findings of the needs assessment summarized in Chapter 5, Utah has unmet rural intercity bus needs. UDOT will utilize the 15 percent sub-allocation of its overall Section 5311 program funding to carry out a program to develop and support intercity bus transportation.

It may be that in some years the identified projects that are feasible to implement do not fully utilize the 15 percent allocation. In that case the state may file a partial certification to allow use of the unexpended funds for other rural needs. However, FTA permits states to hold funds in a program reserve for up to three years. Many states do retain their Section 5311(f) funding for use in subsequent years when projects may be ready for implementation, or to deal with unexpected changes in the unsubsidized intercity bus network that may need to be addressed. This strategy is recommended.


CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERCITY BUS PROGRAM PROCESS

UDOT should have a separate program for rural intercity bus service, with separate guidance and a unique application, rather than simply including rural intercity bus in with all other Section 5311 projects. The main reason for this is that if competition exists for available funding between traditional 5311 recipients and intercity bus applicants, it is likely that intercity bus applicants may not receive full consideration for the following reasons:

• Inexperience in grant writing: One reason is that intercity bus projects are likely to be proposed by private for-profit firms or small rural agencies that are inexperienced at developing and articulating a project proposal.

• Lack of comparability in projects: A second factor is that intercity bus projects typically are very different from transit projects, in that they have few passengers (who make long trips)—scoring on the basis of the number of persons served will typically not favor the intercity bus project. Intercity bus projects may have higher potential farebox revenues than transit projects, as passenger fares are based on distance, but often this does not offset the perception that there are few riders compared to local transit. Also, intercity bus projects typically do not carry enough passengers to affect congestion levels.

• Local match may not be available: Also, the public transit programs are typically operated by local governments, with either the transit operator or the local government in the position of using tax revenues to provide the local match. Intercity bus projects proposed by a private for-profit operator currently lack a source of local match and political support, as the carrier is not likely to want to operate a loss-making service if only part of the loss is covered. So intercity bus projects may need to utilize the in-kind match provisions that are only available under Section 5311(f), which will be less confusing if included in a separate application process.

• Intercity bus projects may lack a sponsor: The current grant program offers funding and depends on local interests to develop competitive projects and to present them in the best possible light. There may well be intercity bus needs, but in the absence of a local government sponsor, no project will be developed, and no one will apply for funding to provide it.


THE STATE ROLE

Fundamentally, the reason that intercity bus projects do not fit well into a state public transportation grant program is that the jurisdictional level is not correct. The experience in most states before federal deregulation was that non-local transportation was a state responsibility, to be regulated at the state level. Only a state-level program could maintain unprofitable rural services by enforcing cross-subsidies and ensure that the public interest was met. The public transit programs, with the exception of Section 5311(f), are aimed at local or regional services. But the “locality” of concern for intercity bus services is effectively the state. Recognizing this would require that the state become the grantee or applicant for intercity bus programs and the analogue of the transit authority in terms of managing the system and seeking funding.

This does not mean that the state would need to take over all intercity bus services. Rather, the state would need to identify which services are not being provided by the marketplace and then use available funding to focus on these services.

In recent years, different states have sought to achieve this through different means, either by modifying the grant program to give priority to proposals for services identified as priorities by the state, or by changing the role of the state entirely, making it the grant recipient that in turn contracts for operation of particular routes. In the second approach, the state no longer depends on local sponsors or applicants to respond. The following section outlines these alternative models.

Grant Solicitation with No Project Definition: One approach might be described as a version of the classic state role in managing a program that provides funding to a locality or sub-jurisdiction. The state defines the program purposes, eligibility, funding conditions, application procedures, reporting, etc. as the framework of the program, and presents that as an offer available to eligible parties. Localities, or eligible parties, are free to define their own projects and activities within the guidelines of the program. The eligible parties apply to the state, and if their application meets the criteria defined in the guidelines, the project is funded. If there is more demand for the funds than can be met with existing resources, the state may also have an evaluation process to select projects, or allocate funds by another means based on demographic or performance criteria.

Regardless, it is the applicant that determines local needs and defines a project or program to address the need. In the case of the rural intercity bus program, the


applicant may be a private company (if eligible in a particular state), a private non-profit, or a public entity.

The state role is relatively passive in the sense that it does not define where service should be provided, how much service, or what type of service—only that the sub-recipient meets all the guidelines, provides the service promised in the application, and complies with applicable federal and state regulations.

This model is typically used by states to manage the overall rural public transportation program under Section 5311. It is very appropriate where a significant portion of the funding is provided by the sub-recipient as match and where the program is intended to address local service. The difficulty in relying on it for the intercity bus program is that the state has no direct way of ensuring that any particular link or route is addressed.

For example, if UDOT knew that there was no longer any service to the Uintah Basin area, an unstructured application process might well result in three applications to link St. George to the Salt Lake Airport, but none to serve the Basin area. Or the state could receive an application, but only one, to serve the Basin, and that from an operator that is likely unable to provide the service (based on track record, lack of compliance understanding, etc.). This scenario leaves the state with a choice of a problematic project or no service in that area. The benefit of the open application is that there may be an operator or locality that has a previously unidentified need, or an innovative service. Having the projects defined by the state might well discourage such applications.

The California intercity bus program (until FY 2009) provided good examples of a well-managed application and program with limited state guidance regarding the location or need for service. Guidance was provided regarding the project, eligibility, etc. but project design was entirely driven by local, carrier or regional desires. However, a comprehensive study of the rural intercity bus program identified a number of route corridors that were unserved, had higher unmet needs, or had a role providing a linkage in the network. The study also found that many funded projects were really regional or local in nature. The state modified the program somewhat to tighten the project definitions, including the need for a meaningful connection to the national intercity bus network. The state also identified corridors and routes that needed service and favored applications addressing those needs. Other states including Pennsylvania


and Minnesota also have an application that does not specify projects, but relies on knowledgeable applicants to respond with appropriate applications.

Grant Solicitation for Particular Projects: Some states have continued the approach of having an open grant application for rural intercity bus services, but specify to a greater extent in the solicitation that they are seeking service in a particular corridor, or even with certain characteristics. The grant application offers funding, spells out the program requirements, and then provides necessary background for an applicant to respond to and address the particular service needs. Such service needs include replacing a discontinued service, or intercity bus needs identified through a state or regional planning process. The advantage of using a grant, rather than issuing a request for bids, is that it gives the state more latitude in choosing among competing applications. The state can select one that it feels best meets the overall needs of the project, rather than being forced to select a particular bid because it is lowest in cost. It also allows for more flexibility in the responses. As an example, the state can ask for daily service in a particular corridor, specifying key stops—but leave it open for applicants to propose the timetable, the connections, the type of vehicle, etc. Finally, in many states a grant solicitation process is much easier to conduct than a procurement, which would be the alternative way to define the projects.

The Colorado program exemplifies this approach. In Colorado, responses to an open or undefined grant solicitation had resulted in two firms applying for funds to operate a service from Denver to the state border with Nebraska, continuing on to Omaha. This service had been dropped by Greyhound. However, Greyhound had also dropped service in the U.S. 50 corridor, east-west across the middle of the state, and a study had identified a need for service from Denver to central Colorado as a replacement. No firm had developed such a project, so the state issued a grant solicitation for service from Denver to Gunnison, setting some minimum characteristics regarding frequency and connectivity based on the study. A second solicitation was needed to attract an operator, and the service is now under way.

Similarly, a statewide intercity bus study identified a need to reinstitute service from Denver west to Salt Lake City on the U.S. 40 corridor, which was abandoned by Greyhound. Again, Colorado issued a grant solicitation for the specific corridor, ultimately rejecting all applications as exceeding the available budget. Through a cooperative effort with Utah, a second solicitation effort attracted a proposal that apparently meets the solicitation requirements. The corridor-by-corridor efforts require


that the corridors have been identified and some parameters developed, linking the service levels to the available funding. This approach also requires a fair amount of staff time to administer, as each grant is in effect the startup of a new transit system.

The State as Grantee, Projects Operated Under Contract: The State of Washington has taken this approach to managing its Section 5311f program. A statewide needs assessment and policy study found several corridors that either already had rural intercity bus service funded by the state with Section 5311(f) funds, or were areas of unmet need. However, the state transit program had a single unified application process in which all transit applications were submitted and evaluated together, with the state then determining the appropriate funding for each selected project. The result was that rural intercity bus funding was being used to support a number of projects that were essentially rural or local in nature, largely because there were applicants supporting those projects. Yet links in the state intercity bus network were unserved because there was no locality willing to apply for these long routes serving many jurisdictions, and therefore no local match.

Another issue is that in some cases providers who did apply and receive funding were unable to meet financial and other compliance requirements. The study suggested that the appropriate level of jurisdiction for intercity bus services was the state, rather than regions or localities. The state was identified as the grantee for all Section 5311(f) funding, and it issued requests for bids to operate services on particular corridors with several specifications: the routing, general frequency and characteristics, and the requirements for connectivity with existing national network intercity bus services and other connections as secondary (airport or Amtrak). Marketing requirements were also included, along with reporting and compliance requirements.

The state has branded these services under its own “Travel Washington” logo, with each corridor identified by name as the “Grape Line,” the “Dungeness Line,” the “Apple Line,” etc., reflecting a regional characteristic or product. Thus the subsidized route is not identified with the contractor, who could change over time. The vehicles are supplied by the state, required to stay with the route, and identified in terms of the route name and “Travel Washington.”

The issue of local match was addressed by ensuring that the contracted services interline with a private unsubsidized service that can be used as in-kind match for the federal operating assistance (under the FTA Pilot Project regulations), in effect allowing the state to provide 100 percent federal operating funding for the contracts. With no


local match funding, the available Section 5311(f) funding can only address a limited amount of service, and at the moment there are three funded corridors, with plans for developing a fourth. Putting this program through the state purchasing process to issue requests for bids and following all the procurement processes required took more time and effort than initially anticipated, particularly as combined with the use of a new funding/match program. This administrative and management effort has required a state transit program person as the designated Intercity Bus Program Manager.

The major benefits of this approach come from the ability of the state to designate particular services as the subsidized part of the overall intercity bus network and to specify in greater detail the characteristics of the service. Branding the services and providing the capital allows for continuity of service, even if the contractors change. Use of the Pilot Project funding method eliminates the need for state or local funds for operating match. There are two major disadvantages. One arises from the possibility that some locality, region, or operator has an unmet need or service proposal that the state did not previously identify as part of its study, but may still be worthy of funding. The other disadvantage is the need to utilize the state government’s procurement system to contract for services, which can add significant administrative time or impose requirements on contractor evaluation and selection, which might not be included in a grant selection process.

Combination Program: Accept Grant Applications/Issue Grant Solicitations for Particular Project: One state has addressed these issues by developing a program that has both types of roles. Oregon includes Section 5311(f) in an open application for a discretionary grant program that can be used by operators or local/regional areas to apply for funding for services that they are proposing. The state also has conducted a review of the overall network and identified a number of corridors that are unserved. The state has issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to contract directly for service with defined characteristics on a number of such corridors in southern Oregon. In a general sense the discretionary program is aimed at public transit operators and not for-profit organizations, and the RFP is intended for private for-profit bidders, though in fact neither solicitation document limits the respondents. The discretionary grant program requires local match for the available federal funds, while the contract program provides the operator a reimbursement for losses, subject to disincentives if the farebox recovery falls below 24 percent and to incentives if the farebox recovery is between 30 and 100 percent. If the operator makes a profit (revenues exceed costs), then 25 percent of the profits exceed $500 per month are returned to the state to be used for other


intercity bus projects. The contractor is not required to provide local match, but the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is using the Pilot Project method to provide for in-kind match for the reimbursement program. All contractors are required to interline with Greyhound and/or Amtrak.

This Oregon approach is an effort to provide the best of both worlds, allowing for local initiative (and funding), but using the state’s perspective to identify and contract for services that fill gaps in the overall state network. The main disadvantage is the administrative time required at the state level to manage both a grant program and a contract program using a Request for Proposal. ODOT also has a full-time intercity bus program staff member.

Utah Alternatives: In developing a Section 5311(f) program, Utah has some similarity to Washington in that there are a limited number of corridors, there is no state match available, the likelihood of local cash match is limited, the in-kind match may be critical, and there are a number of regional operators that could be contractors. However, there is no history of UDOT contracting directly for operation of services. The administrative time and effort to develop an RFP process within the state procurement process might well be prohibitive, and the available staffing at UDOT is more limited than that in Washington, or the contracted program in Oregon. Considering the administrative limitations, UDOT may only be able to conduct a discretionary grant program.

A downside of the discretionary grant program approach is that it comes with the possibility that the state might not get applications for particular projects it has identified as desirable, or it might get applications that are for projects that are not rural intercity bus in nature, or are from applicants that do not meet state requirements. To mitigate this risk UDOT could include direction in the application calling for certain types of projects, either in terms of facilities or service in particular areas, and then favor appropriate responses with funding.

Depending on the available funding and the demand for support for rural intercity bus projects, it may be that both approaches are warranted, as in the case of Oregon. This would allow for the possibility that a Park City would want to institute an intercity bus service, providing local match, while UDOT would contract directly to ensure that there are intercity bus connections to the more rural areas previously identified as lacking service. However, as has been mentioned, this combination of approaches requires administrative time and effort that UDOT cannot currently offer. It is recommended that the Washington approach, contracting for service, is something that UDOT can


develop over the next several years, while a discretionary grant program for rural intercity bus service is the initial phase of the program.

SECTION 5311(F) FUNDING AND MATCH

Under the FTA program, the local match generally required for an operating assistance project is 50 percent of the net operating deficit, while that for capital, marketing and planning is 20 percent. Often private providers are willing to provide the 20 percent; particularly to obtain a vehicle. However, private firms generally have not been enthused about providing 50 percent of the net operating deficit themselves, as this means that they continue to lose money providing service under Section 5311(f)— even though it is only half as much as they would lose otherwise.

The requirement for operating match can be addressed by using the in-kind funding method described in Chapter 2. This involves redefining the project to include connecting unsubsidized service. Half of the value of the fully-allocated cost of the unsubsidized service can be used as local match. With careful consideration of project design related to the connectivity and the length of the involved segments, the operating deficit of the subsidized portion of the project can be funded with 100 percent federal operating assistance.

This option is of critical importance to Utah, in that there is no state funding available for local match and there are relatively few local transit providers that have the potential to direct their local match toward projects that could be considered intercity in nature. Consequently the likelihood of local cash match is low, and the need to rely on the in-kind match method is high.

The difficulty in Utah is that use of the in-kind match method necessitates that the unsubsidized connecting carrier, whose costs are counted as match, be included in the project as having agreed to provide these miles. This costs the carrier nothing, but it is their opportunity to make sure that the funded services actually provide a meaningful connection to their services.

Chapter 6 demonstrated that in each of the corridors identified, the project designed with a meaningful connection to the existing Greyhound services (which could be funded with in-kind match) rarely offered service that would be attractive to any other potential users of the service. Schedules providing for a day trip to Salt Lake City (inbound in the morning, outbound in the evening) rarely have any Greyhound service in Salt Lake to connect with (a mid-day departure to Portland), as most Greyhound


services hub in Salt Lake early in the morning, or late at night. To use the in-kind method may require Greyhound to take a more expansive definition of connecting service than it has in the past, a request that Greyhound has indicated it is not will to do. The other option is to develop some kind of state policy regarding funding for local transit service outside the UTA service area—either enabling legislation allowing dedicated local taxes, or some form of state operating subsidy. This is a bigger issue than the intercity bus program and is therefore a topic for another planning and policy effort.

These policy considerations, together with the available funding, lead us to the recommended program policy described in the next section.

INTERCITY BUS PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The recommended Utah Rural Intercity Bus Program can be described in terms of the project priorities, the types of projects that are eligible, and the requirements for local participation (funding match). The program also will need an ongoing planning process, including a consultation process with the state’s intercity transit providers and the public (or agencies representing the public). All of these elements are presented below.

PROJECT PRIORITY

Based on the input to date, it is recommended there be five priorities for Section 5311(f) projects. In order, they are as follows:

• Operating assistance to maintain existing rural intercity bus services. • Operating assistance for new rural intercity bus services that meet the

definition, serve areas identified as having unmet need (based on the analysis in this study) and are currently unserved, and have the potential to generate some level of ridership/revenue (to be determined—one possibility is a set farebox recovery threshold, which would allow some trading off of frequency, route length, and fare level—perhaps 20 percent).

• Marketing assistance for support of the intercity aspects of a statewide travel planner/information system (which would include all the intercity bus networks, not just rural).

• Vehicle capital funding for use on Section 5311(f) funded services as a first priority, and then for maintaining unsubsidized services that are potentially endangered.


• Capital for accessibility improvements.

OPERATING ASSISTANCE

Grantee: It is recommended that the UDOT PTT be the grantee for Section 5311(f) operating assistance and that the PTT use the funding to conduct a rural intercity bus discretionary grant program that is separate from the current 5311 program.

Process: UDOT will monitor the state’s intercity bus network (using the inventory in this study as a base) to determine the routes and services that are being provided by private carriers and need assistance if they are to be operated. For those services, an annual grant application solicitation will be issued requesting that qualified operators provide their qualifications, price, experience, and proposed service design for those services and corridors. The applications will be evaluated by a committee consisting of UDOT staff members, a Motor Carrier Division representative, local (non-bidding) transit operators from the affected region, and representatives of the private bus industry (non-bidding). The applications will present the fully-allocated cost of providing the proposed service, in order to make proposals submitted by private for-profit, private non-profit, and public entities comparable. Fully-allocated costs include the pro rata share of administrative expenses and the full cost of the vehicle capital proposed for use, not including any capital subsidies. In other words, if a bidder proposes using vehicles obtained under another FTA program that has provided 80 percent of the cost of the vehicle, the proposal should reflect the entire cost of the vehicle. An applicant should clarify if they do not have vehicles to run the service in question, but would need a capital grant for equipment. Operating grants would generally be for a one-year period, though UDOT may wish to consider making this a two-year program to reduce the administrative costs involved and allow ridership growth before evaluating a project renewal.

Eligible Services and Service Design: In general, the services that will be contracted are limited to those that are identified as part of the state’s intercity bus network, but are not served by existing intercity providers. As Section 5311(f) is the primary federal funding source, they will be services that are primarily designed to serve rural (non-urbanized) areas, though they will likely have to operate into terminals in urbanized areas to make interline connections. In general, these services will link places of over 2,500 in population (unless a stop at a smaller place can be made en route without deviating the service) that are located more than 25 miles from an existing intercity bus stop. The potential ridership on the service should be sufficient to permit a farebox


recovery of at least 20 percent after an initial year of service (to allow growth in ridership). In general, services should have the following characteristics:

• Fixed-route • Fixed-schedule • Be able to carry baggage and bus package express • Operate at least five days per week (at the recommended farebox recovery level), • Provide for meaningful connections with the national intercity bus network

through physical connections at common terminals, interline ticketing, provision of schedule information, and schedules that minimize connecting times (within 120 minutes before/after designated connecting services)

• Be accessible to persons with disabilities (as required by ADA)

UDOT will facilitate project design prior to the development of the grant solicitation for service by consulting with 1) unsubsidized carriers providing the connection to points outside the region, and 2) local stakeholders including representatives of local public transit systems, private non-profit transportation providers, likely traffic generators such as higher education institutions, correctional facilities, military bases, or major medical facilities, regional planning agencies, and local governments.

Qualified Bidder: A qualified bidder would be a firm or entity that has a project manager with experience in the operation and management of scheduled, regular route services. It should have FMCSA certification allowing interstate transportation of passengers for hire (a USDOT number), along with evidence that it currently meets FMCSA insurance coverage requirements for the types of vehicles proposed for use in the service. It should be able to meet FTA compliance requirements for Drug-Free Workplace, Drug and Alcohol testing, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and all other requirements of contractors on projects receiving federal funds. Unless there are specific reasons that would preclude it or make it unnecessary or inadvisable, the carrier should be a member of the National Bus Traffic Association and have interline ticketing arrangements, which would make it part of the national intercity bus network. Should a bidder not be an NBTA member or an interline partner, it may put forward its qualifications to do so if selected—the contract could then be made contingent on a carrier meeting this qualification.

Operating Match: UDOT intends to make maximum use of the flexibility granted by the FTA to use third-party in-kind capital costs of connecting service as local operating


match. Under FTA guidelines, this would require that the operator of the connecting service be agreeable to use of the capital value of their operating miles as match. Applicants may therefore be required to 1) bid acknowledging that they do not have such an agreement with a connecting unsubsidized carrier, recognizing that the success of their contract may be dependent on obtaining this agreement subsequent to selection, 2) present evidence that they have consulted with a connecting carrier and that they therefore will have this match, or 3) provide the in-kind match from their own unsubsidized routes.

It is possible that the need for match may exceed the available in-kind, or that UDOT may deem it necessary to contract for service on a route for which there is no agreeable connecting carrier. In that case UDOT will require local operating match in cash for the amount not funded under the in-kind program.

CAPITAL ASSISTANCE

The UDOT rural intercity bus program may provide capital funding for the purchase of vehicles; for eligible participation (depending on the project, the funding sources may vary) in publicly-owned intermodal passenger facilities; for equipment needed to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities; and for computers/terminals and other equipment needed to facilitate ticketing, information, and management. Capital funding is to be obtained with 80 percent federal and 20 percent local or carrier funding. Capital requirements will be identified during the project design phase of operating contracts and annually through the intercity bus consultation process.

In general, vehicle funding will be limited to vehicles needed to operate on services funded by UDOT if the operator does not have available, suitable vehicles. Vehicle specifications will be determined by UDOT in consultation with the contractor. UDOT will be the lien holder on the vehicle, providing it to the operator. Disposition arrangements will need to be predetermined, as carriers with an interest in the vehicle may want to retain a vehicle they have maintained. The vehicles will be painted and marked to show that they are provided by UDOT, using logos and the state’s name, along with showing the carrier’s name and any required regulatory markings. They shall be clearly identified as UDOT-funded buses, with state identification numbers visible from both sides and the rear.

Funding for facilities could include funds for trailblazer signage, bus stops, benches or shelters, counters, seats, etc.—or the portion of an intermodal station or facility that is


functionally related to the provision of rural intercity bus service. Capital funding is likely to be limited, and funding from the Section 5311(f) program will be used for facilities in rural areas (under 50,000) as a first priority, and then for facilities in urbanized areas only to the extent that such facilities can be demonstrated to serve routes originating in rural areas. In another approach to financing facilities, the UDOT program may seek local applicants for funding from other sources (such as CMAQ or the Bus and Bus Facilities programs), particularly in urbanized areas, to meet intermodal passenger facility needs within the state’s intercity bus network. Local match could include state funds, local government funds, or carrier funds.

Capital for accessibility improvements could include expenses involved in making intercity bus passenger facilities in rural areas accessible (such as ramps, wider doors, restroom modifications), or the incremental cost of wheelchair lifts and associated equipment (extra doors, sliding seats, restraint systems, interlocks, etc.) on new buses (or as retrofits on existing intercity buses with an anticipated remaining service life of six years). Accessibility capital may be considered for vehicles that operate on the unsubsidized portion of the state’s network, as long as they serve at least some rural stops and operate in the State of Utah at least 50 percent of the time.

Other potential capital projects include terminals/computers needed for interline ticketing, communications equipment, signage, etc. Hardware needed to support the statewide travel information system could also be included in this part of the capital program.

PLANNING

Planning for the UDOT Rural Intercity Bus Program will involve three key elements:

• Annual Consultation and Network/Plan Update: An annual consultation process and needs assessment that will develop priorities for the coming year and update the Statewide Intercity Bus Network,

• Statewide Intercity Bus Plan Update: A more comprehensive statewide intercity bus needs assessment and policy plan to be conducted every four years, and

• The Statewide Traveler Information System: Support for traveler information that includes route, timetable, and station information for the intercity bus network.

Annual Consultation and Network/Plan Update: The annual process will be conducted by UDOT and will involve identifying and contacting intercity carriers to ask


1) what services they are providing in Utah (schedules, routes, terminals) and 2) if they can identify existing or near-term future intercity transportation needs that they cannot meet without some level of assistance (which they will be asked to identify or quantify). If there are any federal or state policy or funding changes that could impact the program, UDOT will identify them and discuss them during the consultation process. The unmet needs assessment by the providers could be based on requests for service, marketing surveys, etc. or on trends for existing service that could require assistance in the future. This information will be analyzed and used as a basis for additional projects or changes in the coming year. The results of the consultation will be documented by UDOT in terms of an updated Statewide Network and projects or changes needed.

Statewide Intercity Bus Plan Update: The second planning effort will be more comprehensive and involve updating the Statewide Intercity Bus Plan. Expanding outreach to a more extensive stakeholder base, including local public transit operators, transit planners, regional transit planning organizations, local governments, and others, will be a key component. The Plan update will include needs identification from the Human Service Coordination Plans. Depending on the availability of current Census information, it may include updating statewide demographic needs. Key destinations for intercity bus services will be identified as well. A complete inventory of existing intercity bus services will be updated and used as a basis for modifying the Statewide Intercity Bus Network as needed. Changes in the policy and funding environment will be identified, and any revisions to the UDOT program policy will be included. Based on this complete reassessment, an updated program policy and four-year plan will be developed. This planning process will include the consultation with the intercity bus operators as well. Funding for consultant assistance to update the Statewide Intercity Bus Plan can be provided through the PTT’s administrative funds.

Statewide Traveler Information System: Whether this involves building and maintaining a UDOT website, or providing updated information to support market-based web information services, this function is key to making sure that the public knows of the availability of services in the Statewide Network. Funding for this information system could go toward:

• Placing all UDOT contracted services in Russell’s Guide, the national intercity bus timetable guide

• Funding/technical assistance as needed to make sure that updated intercity bus network information is provided to Google transit or other websites


• Support for providing information to the state’s 511 transportation information system

• A map with linkages to carrier websites on the UDOT website. Funding should also be included under this element to make sure that there is a website with information on the contracted services with appropriate linkages.

ADMINISTRATION

There will undoubtedly be new staff functions for UDOT in managing this program:

• Project development • Grant solicitation and application development, evaluation and contracting • Technical assistance to applicants, operators and other network providers • Compliance monitoring • Oversight of capital procurements • Monitoring capital—usage, maintenance, incidents, insurance, documentation,

etc. • Maintaining current network information • Outreach and on-going consultation, and documentation of this process • Coordination with other transit providers • Coordination with other state/public transit providers/Amtrak programs

These functions are analogous to the general grant management processes, but will likely require at least a full-time staff member, particularly during the initial year or two of the program and then periodically as the consultation and contracting processes result in more significant program changes.

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

The following timeframe is suggested to implement the recommendations given in this report:

• Immediate Timeframe: It is recommended that UDOT begin preparations immediately to solicit grant applications for the 5311(f) program. If necessary, use a contract employee to assist in making arrangements. UDOT should focus its effort in preparing an application to reflect the policy recommendations and service options provided in this report. Notice about the purpose and timeframe of the grant solicitation period should be sent to intercity transportation carriers.


• Year 1: Conduct grant program management process and activities. This includes the development of program policies and procedures, evaluation of proposals, and providing technical assistance. Work with local governments to build support and identify possible local match. Initiate the strategies regarding the coordination and marketing of intercity bus services.

• Year 2: Build on activities initiated in Year 1. Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of service routes funded through the program and expand the number of routes served if funding is available. Continue coordination and information strategies. Conduct annual consultation and network/plan update.

• Year 3: Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of service programs and conduct annual consultation and network/plan update. Expand or alter the recommended service routes based on planning efforts and the effectiveness of new routes.

SUMMARY Based on the needs assessment in this report, UDOT should not certify to FTA that there are no unmet rural intercity bus needs, and should use the FTA Section 5311(f) set aside portion of Utah’s Section 5311 apportionment to support the development of rural intercity bus services that address these gaps and augment the services provided by the existing carriers.

A review of the alternative models used in other states to implement Section 5311(f) rural intercity bus services suggested that there are several potential options that could be used by UDOT. At least in the initial years of the program it is recommended that Utah offer this program as a grant, similar to its other transit programs. Although proposed costs and revenues demonstrate sufficient resources, the need to develop the forecast ridership and the uncertainty involved suggests that UDOT initiate services sequentially, using a grant solicitation which initially will seek proposals for a single corridor (or perhaps two), in addition to the joint project with the Colorado Department of Transportation to reinstate service in the U.S.40 corridor. The operating subsidy needs will be higher in the initial year of any project, and it would make sense to sequence implementation in order to have an accurate picture of funding requirements before initiating additional services.

It is recommended that the program should have a separate policy guidance document and a separate application, presenting Utah’s intercity bus program priorities and the specific areas (identified in this study) for which service proposals are desired. The


program guidance will also need to be different from the normal Section 5311 program because it will need to explain and offer the Pilot Project funding formula allowed by FTA for this program.

UDOT will need to devote specific staff support to this program to develop policy guidance, develop a grant application, evaluate proposals, develop the grant agreements, provide technical assistance, monitor implementation and conduct an ongoing planning process (including consultation with the carriers and the public). Because this program differs significantly from the provision of Section 5311 grants under the regular program, it will require disproportionate staff involvement, particularly during the start up. If UDOT cannot provide additional state staffing for this effort, it may elect to have these functions performed by a contract employee or consultant supporting UDOT staff and working with them as a team to initiate the program. This approach is recommended as a feasible means of addressing the program support needs. If this program is initiated, and the existing federal policy framework and funding is continued, within a few years many residents of rural Utah will have new opportunities to connect with the national intercity bus network, reach key services and attractions in the Wasatch Front Region, and connect with the commercial airline system. Visitors will be able to reach many more places without having to drive themselves. Intercity bus is the most energy efficient transportation mode, and this fact only adds to the potential value of these services as a significant improvement in basic mobility for rural residents of Utah.

Appendix A

Intercity Carrier Profiles and Schedules

Page intentionally left blank

Utah Intercity Carrier Schedules

GREYHOUND

THE COMPANY

The nation’s largest intercity bus operator provides daily

service throughout the state. Except for the daily trip from

Green River to Salt Lake City along Highway 6, Greyhound only

operates on Utah’s Interstate Highway System. Two of

Greyhounds routes also function as Amtrak Thruway bus

connections.

SERVICE SCHEDULE

Folder # Direction Schedule #Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

360 SLC to Evanston, WY SLC Evanston, WY

1318 7:25 AM 9:00 AM

1300 8:15 PM 9:50 PM

360 Evanston, WY to SLC Evanston, WY SLC

1343 8:05 PM 9:50 PM

1337 8:05 AM 9:55 AM

500 SLC to Tremonton SLC Ogden Tremonton

1337 12:01 PM 12:55 PM 1:45 PM

1343 11:45 PM 12:30 AM 1:15 AM

500 Tremonton to SLC Tremonton Ogden SLC

1318 4:20 AM 5:15 AM 6:05 AM

1300 4:10 PM 5:05 PM 5:55 PM

545 SLC to St. George SLC Provo Cove Fort Cedar City St. George

6053 8:30 AM 9:25 AM 11:45 AM 1:30 PM 2:20 PM

6051 6:30 PM 7:25 PM 9:45 PM 11:15 PM 12:05 AM

545 St. George to SLC St. George Cedar City Cove Fort Provo SLC

6052 10:55 AM 12:25 PM 1:40 PM 4:15 PM 5:10 PM

6050 1:15 AM 2:15 AM 3:30 AM 6:05 AM 7:00 AM

550 SLC to Wendover, NV SLC Wendover, NV

1345 11:00 AM 1:00 PM

1347 10:30 PM 12:30 AM

550 Wendover, NV to SLC Wendover, NV SLC

1308 3:20 PM 5:50 PM

1314 3:50 AM 6:05 AM

469 SLC to Green River SLC Provo Price Green River

410 8:15 PM 9:10 PM 10:45 PM 11:59 PM

469 Green River to SLC Green River Price Provo SLC

411 3:15 PM 4:50 PM 6:25 PM 7:20 PM

555 Green River to St. George Green River Cove Fort Cedar City St. George

1357 7:25 AM 10:05 AM 11:35 AM

1303 7:25 PM 10:20 PM 12:40 AM

1305 2:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:25 AM 7:15 AM

555 St. George to Green River St. George Cedar City Cove Fort Richfield Green River

1302 5:30 AM 7:25 AM 10:05 AM

1344 8:40 AM 9:35 AM 10:50 AM 2:00 PM

1312 6:05 PM 8:15 PM 11:10 PM


SALT LAKE EXPRESSTHE COMPANY

Salt Lake Express provides intercity bus service for parts of

southeast Idaho and northern Utah. The company offers three

scheduled routes in Utah, including:

Rexburg, ID to Salt Lake City, UT

Logan to Salt Lake City

Provo to Salt Lake City

The majority of riders using Salt Lake Express are seeking access to and from the Salt Lake International

Airport. Also, a large percentage of riders are students at BYU-Idaho (BYU-I) University, located in

Rexburg, Idaho. Company officials estimate that approximately 20% of its riders are BYU-I students. The

company does not attempt to coordinate service times and locations with Greyhound.

The company also operates as a Greyhound connection between Salt Lake City and Butte, Montana.

Customers that are traveling to or from Butte are connected to the larger Greyhound national bus

network through Salt Lake Express, which is then reimbursed by Greyhound for providing transportation

for these customers. This is a separate service that operates independently from the other three Salt

Lake Express routes.

Salt Lake Express is part of the Trailways company.

SERVICE SCHEDULE

DirectionScheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Logan to SLC Logan-Univ. Inn Logan-CVTD Brigham City Ogden SLC-Airport SLC-Downtown

4:30 AM 4:40 AM 5:20 AM 5:35 AM 6:25 AM 6:45 AM

10:30 AM 10:40 AM 11:20 AM 11:35 AM 12:25 PM 12:45 PM

4:30 PM 4:40 PM 5:20 PM 5:35 PM 6:25 PM 6:45 PM

SLC to Logan SLC-Downtown SLC-Airport Ogden Brigham City Logan-CVTD Logan-Univ.Inn

7:45 AM 8:15 AM 8:55 AM 9:15 AM 9:55 AM 10:05 AM

1:45 PM 2:15 PM 2:55 PM 3:15 PM 3:55 PM 4:05 PM

7:45 PM 8:15 PM 8:55 PM 9:15 PM 9:55 PM 10:05 PM


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

SLC to Provo SLC-Airport Sandy Orem Provo

9:45 AM 10:10 AM 10:45 AM 10:55 AM

2:15 PM 2:40 PM 3:15 PM 3:25 PM

6:45 PM 7:10 PM 7:45 PM 7:55 PM

Provo to SLC Provo Orem Sandy SLC-Airport

12:00 PM 12:10 PM 12:45 PM 1:10 PM

4:30 PM 4:40 PM 5:15 PM 5:40 PM

9:00 PM 9:10 PM 9:45 PM 10:10 PM



Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Rexburg to SLC Brigham City Ogden SLC-Airport SLC-Downtown

5:25 AM 5:50 AM 6:40 AM 7:00 AM

6:55 AM 7:20 AM 8:10 AM 8:30 AM

8:25 AM 8:50 AM 9:40 AM 10:00 AM

9:55 AM 10:20 AM 11:10 AM 11:30 AM

11:25 AM 11:50 AM 12:40 PM 1:00 PM

12:55 PM 1:20 PM 2:10 PM 2:30 PM

2:25 PM 2:50 PM 3:40 PM 4:00 PM

3:55 PM 4:20 PM 5:10 PM 5:30 PM

5:25 PM 5:50 PM 6:40 PM 7:00 PM

7:55 PM 8:20 PM 9:10 PM 9:30 PM

SLC to Rexburg SLC-Downtown SLC-Airport Ogden Brigham City

7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:40 AM 9:00 AM

9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:40 AM 11:00 AM

11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:40 AM 1:00 AM

1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:10 PM 2:30 PM

2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:40 PM 4:00 PM

4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:10 PM 5:30 PM

5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:40 PM 7:00 PM

7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:10 PM 8:30 PM

8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:40 PM 10:00 PM

10:00 PM 10:30 PM 11:10 PM 11:30 PM


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

SLC to Brigham City SLC Ogden Brigham City

(en route to Butte) 8:15 AM 9:00 AM 9:20 AM

6:15 PM 7:00 PM 7:20 PM

Brigham City to SLC Brigham City Ogden SLC

(en route from Butte) 3:20 PM 3:40 PM 4:25 PM

3:50 AM 4:10 AM 4:55 AM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory:

Fare: The cost of a round-trip fare from Rexburg to Salt Lake City is $82, roundtrip

from Logan to Salt Lake City is $60, and roundtrip from Provo to Salt Lake City is

$50.

Estimated Ridership: Estimated at 115,000 for the Rexburg to Salt Lake City route

Fully Allocated Costs: Confidential information

Contact Person: Jacob Price, Manager, [email protected], 208-656-8824

Mailing Address: PO Box 566, Rexburg, ID 83440


Bighorn Express

THE COMPANY

Bighorn Express operates one daily round-trip route, six days per week, between Monticello and Salt

Lake City. The operator does not have a license to provide service to the Salt Lake City airport. Instead,

the Salt Lake City termination point occurs at a service station near the airport. The passengers of

Bighorn Express include tourists, seasonal employees, College of Eastern Utah students, and travelers to

nearby Native American reservations.

While Bighorn Express provides service cities with Greyhound stops, the company does not use

Greyhound stops as pick-up or drop-off points. However, the driver does have the ability to vary its

stops depending on the request of the passengers.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Monticello to SLC Monticello Moab Green River Price Provo Salt Lake City

7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:15 AM 10:30 AM 11:45 AM 12:30 PM

SLC to Monticello Salt Lake City Provo Price Green River Moab Monticello

2:30 PM 3:30 PM 5:00 PM 6:15 PM 7:30 PM 8:30 PM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: Two vehicles, a 12-passenger van and 7-passenger minivan.

Fare: A one-way trip costs $75, with decreased fares for shorter distances.

Estimated Ridership: The owner doesn’t keep official records, but estimates his monthly ridership at

approximately 200 passengers.

Fully Allocated Costs: No information

Contact Person: Barry, Owner, [email protected], 1-888-655-7433

Mailing Address: PO Box 271565, Salt Lake City, UT 84127


All Trans, Inc (Jackson Hole Express)

THE COMPANY

All Trans, Inc. provides one daily trip between Jackson Hole and the Salt Lake International Airport.

Similar to the other services All Trans offers, this scheduled route is mainly geared towards tourism and

promoting transportation in the Jackson Hole region. However, some of its passengers are local

Wyoming and Idaho residents that use the service to access the Salt Lake City airport.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Jackson Hole to SLC Jackson Hole Wilson Victor Swan Valley Idaho Falls Pocatello Salt Lake City

6:30 AM 6:35 AM 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:30 AM 9:15 AM 12:00 PM

SLC to Jackson Hole Salt Lake City Pocatello Idaho Falls Swan Valley Victor Wilson Jackson Hole

1:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:20 PM 6:30 PM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: Owns a fleet of vehicles, used mainly for transportation in the Jackson Hole

region. Typically a 15-passenger van provides service between the SLC airport

and Jackson Hole.


Estimated Ridership: The owner doesn’t keep official records


Contact Person: John Peirson, Owner, [email protected], 307-733-3135

Mailing Address: PO Box 30304, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, 83001


Vernal Shuttle

THE COMPANY

Vernal Shuttle operates a daily round-

trip route, six days per week, between

Vernal and Salt Lake City. A large portion

of the company’s ridership results from relationships with several human service agencies. Vernal

Shuttle receives payment from these agencies to transport their clients to Salt Lake City for health and

administrative purposes.

Pick-up and drop-off locations vary in each city and are generally found at local schools and retail stores.

For an additional fee the drive will take passengers to a specific drop-off site.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Vernal to SLC Vernal Roosevelt Duchesne Heber Salt Lake City

12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:15 PM 2:30 PM 3:30 PM

SLC to Vernal Salt Lake City Heber Duchesne Roosevelt Vernal

8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:45 AM 11:30 AM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: One vehicle, a 15-passenger van


Estimated Ridership: The owner doesn’t keep official records, but estimates her monthly ridership at



Contact Person: Daniell Sprauge, Owner, [email protected], 801-936-1109

Mailing Address: 511 West 500 North, Salt Lake City, UT 84116


St. George Shuttle

THE COMPANY

St. George Shuttle is one of several companies that offer service

between St. George and Salt Lake City. This route is offered twice a

day, seven days a week. The company also provides service to the

Las Vegas airport, nine times per day.

St. George Shuttle uses motels and service stations as pick up and

drop-off locations. The company makes no special arrangements to coordinate its schedule with

Greyhound, the larger interstate provider in the region. However, the company does have a relationship

with Cedar City Shuttle to provide that company’s passengers with continued transportation to Las

Vegas.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

St. George to SLC St. George Cedar City Beaver Fillmore Nephi Provo Midvale (SLC)

8:00 AM 8:50 AM 9:40 AM 10:35 AM 11:30 AM 12:10 PM 12:50 PM

3:00 PM 3:50 AM 4:40 PM 5:35 PM 6:30 PM 7:10 PM 7:50 PM

SLC to St. George Midvale (SLC) Provo Nephi Fillmore Beaver Cedar City St. George

7:00 AM 7:35 AM 8:15 AM 9:10 AM 10:05 AM 11:00 AM 11:50 AM

2:00 PM 2:35 PM 3:15 PM 4:10 PM 5:05 PM 6:00 PM 6:40 PM


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

St. George to LV St. George Las Vegas

6:00 AM 7:10 AM

7:30 AM 8:40 AM

9:00 AM 10:10 AM

12:00 PM 1:10 PM

2:00 PM 3:10 PM

4:00 PM 5:10 PM

6:00 PM 7:10 PM

7:30 PM 8:40 PM

LV to St. George Las Vegas St. George

7:45 AM 10:55 AM

9:00 AM 12:10 PM

10:30 AM 1:40 PM

12:00 PM 3:10 PM

1:30 PM 4:40 PM

3:30 PM 6:40 PM

5:30 PM 8:40 PM

7:30 PM 10:40 PM

9:30 PM 12:40 PM


OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: 13 vehicles, all 15-passenger vans

Fare: A one-way trip between SLC and St. George costs $55, with decreased fares for

shorter distances. A one-way trip to the Las Vegas airport costs $20.

Estimated Ridership: This information has not been requested. The owner of the company has

requested a meeting with UDOT.


Contact Person: Jeff Calegori, Owner, 435-628-8320

Mailing Address: 254 North 500 West, St. George, UT 84770


Hail Harry

THE COMPANY

Hail Harry is based in Salt Lake City and offers transportation to Park City and St. George. Only the St.

George route offers fixed scheduled service. The owner estimates that half of the company’s ridership

takes the shuttle all the way from St. George to Salt Lake. Hail Harry uses motels and service stations as

pick-up and drop-off locations.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

St. George to SLC St. George Cedar City Meadow Provo Salt Lake City

8:00 AM 8:45 AM 10:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:15 PM

1:45 PM 2:30 PM 3:45 PM 5:30 PM 6:15 PM

SLC to St. George Salt Lake City Provo Meadow Cedar City St. George

8:00 AM 8:45 AM 9:45 AM 11:30 AM 12:15 PM

1:45 PM 2:30 PM 3:45 PM 5:15 PM 6:00 PM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: Five vehicles, unknown type.


Estimated Ridership: The owner estimates that five passengers per day take the shuttle.


Contact Person: Jeff Meley, Owner, [email protected], (800) 966-4245

Mailing Address: 1000 Bluff View Dr., Unit 72, St. George, UT 84780


Cedar City Shuttle

THE COMPANY

Cedar City Shuttle offers scheduled service between Cedar City and St. George. They operate on

weekdays with Saturday service available by request. They hope to offer scheduled service during the

winter months to Brianhead Ski Resort. The majority of their ridership consists of commuters between

the two cities and travelers interested in going to the airport, shopping, visiting family, and attending

the LDS temple. For passengers interested in going to Las Vegas, Cedar City Shuttle makes a connection

with the St. George Shuttle in St. George.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

St. George to Cedar City St. George Cedar City

5:40 AM 6:30 AM

8:40 AM 9:40 AM

12:00 PM 1:00 PM

3:20 PM 4:20 AM

5:30 PM 6:15 PM

7:40 PM 9:00 PM

Cedar City to St. George Cedar City St. George

4:30 AM 5:20 AM

6:50 AM 8:10 AM

10:40 AM 11:40 AM

2:00 PM 3:00 PM

4:30 PM 5:20 PM

6:30 PM 7:30 PM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: Two vehicles, a 12-passenger and 15-passenger van

Fare: A one-way trip costs $10


approximately 30-40 passengers.


Contact Person: Wade, Owner, [email protected], 435-590-4848

Mailing Address: 4948 Enoch Rd. Enoch, UT 84721


Go Green Shuttle

THE COMPANY

Go Green Shuttle provides scheduled service between Salt Lake City and

St. George. The company markets itself as an environmentally friendly

company that caters to college students. The company is new and has

only been operating for one month.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

St. George to SLC St. George Cedar City Fillmore Provo Orem Salt Lake City

2:00 PM 2:55 PM 4:25 PM 6:05 PM 6:20 PM 6:55 PM

SLC to St. George Salt Lake City Orem Provo Fillmore Cedar City St. George

8:00 AM 8:40 AM 8:55 AM 10:35 AM 12:05 PM 12:55 PM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: Two vehicles, both 15-passengers vans


Estimated Ridership: Only in business for one month, approximately 50 passengers per month


Contact Person: Scott Duffin, Owner, [email protected], 435-313-7071


Utah Trailways

THE COMPANY

Trailways is a national company that provides

transportation services around the country and enjoys

name brand recognition because of its long history. The

company consists of numerous privately owned and

independently operated motor coach companies,

including Utah Trailways.

The majority of services offered by Utah Trailways are charter bus transportation for private groups.

However, they do offer a scheduled route to Wendover from Ogden and Salt Lake City twice a day. The

company has a business relationship with a Wendover casino that allows Utah Trailways to sell heavily

discounted travel tickets.

Utah Trailways offered a scheduled route between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas in 2002. However, that

route was discontinued after nine months due to lack of ridership.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Ogden to Wendover Ogden (Marriott) Ogden (Newgate) Riverdale Layton Bountiful Wendover

7:40 AM 7:50 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:40 AM 11:00 AM

Wendover to Ogden Wendover Bountiful Layton Riverdale Ogden (Newgate) Ogden (Marriott)

5:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:40 PM 7:50 PM 8:00 PM


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

SLC to Wendover SLC (Bluffdale) SLC (Midvale) SLC (Kearns SLC (Downtown) Wendover

8:00 AM 8:20 AM 8:40 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM

5:00 PM 5:20 PM 5:40 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM

Wendover to SLC Wendover SLC (Downtown) SLC (Kearns SLC (Midvale) SLC (Bluffdale)

5:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:20 PM 7:40 PM 8:00 PM

1:00 AM 4:00 AM 4:20 AM 4:40 AM 5:00 AM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: Fleet consists of 56-, 57-, and 20-passenger buses.

Fare: $15 round trip

Estimated Ridership: Monthly estimated ridership between 2,500-3,500


Fully Allocated Costs: Confidential information

Contact Person: Dick Mabel, Owner, [email protected], 801-466-5001

Mailing Address: 3091 South Main St., Salt Lake City, UT 84115


Aztec Shuttle

THE COMPANY

Aztec Shuttle offers scheduled service between Salt Lake City and St. George. The company also

provides charter from St. George to locations in Nevada. The company intends to start a second daily

trip back and forth between St. George and Salt Lake City in March in addition to its one existing daily

trip.

Aztec Shuttle coordinates its Salt Lake service with Salt Lake Express to allow passengers to easily ride

from Idaho to Nevada. Both companies stop in downtown Salt Lake at the LDS Church Conference

Center with coordinated drop-off and pick-up schedules. Both companies have found this to be a

beneficial connection that has contributed to increased ridership.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

St. George to SLC St. George Cedar City Beaver Fillmore Nephi Orem SLC (Sandy) SLC (Murray) SLC (Downtown)

8:00 AM 9:00 AM 9:45 AM 10:35 AM 11:30 AM 11:50 AM 12:30 PM 12:50 PM 1:05 PM

SLC to St. George SLC (Downtown) SLC (Murray) SLC (Sandy) Orem Nephi Fillmore Beaver Cedar City St. George

1:05 PM 12:50 PM 1:30 PM 1:50 PM 2:40 PM 3:35 PM 4:25 PM 5:10 PM 6:05 PM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: Five Dodge Sprinter vans





Contact Person: Todd Williamson, Owner, [email protected], 435-656-9040

Mailing Address: 1638 West 3530 South, St. George, UT 84790


St. George Express

THE COMPANY

St. George Express operates regularly scheduled shuttle service between St. George and Las Vegas.

WCEC was unable to reach this company by phone.

SERVICE SCHEDULE


Time

Scheduled Stop

Time

St. George to LV St. George Las Vegas

5:00 AM 6:10 AM

7:30 AM 8:40 AM

10:00 AM 11:10 AM

12:00 PM 1:10 PM

2:00 PM 3:10 PM

4:00 PM 5:10 PM

LV to St. George Las Vegas St. George

8:00 AM 11:10 AM

9:30 AM 12:40 PM

12:00 PM 3:10 PM

2:00 PM 5:10 PM

3:45 PM 6:55 AM

6:00 PM 9:10 PM

OTHER INFORMATION

Vehicle Inventory: N/A

Fare: A one-way trip costs $19

Estimated Ridership: N/A


Contact Person: N/A

Mailing Address: 1140 South Bluff St., St. George, UT 84770


CDOT-UDOT Partnership for Denver-Salt Lake City Route

THE COMPANY

UDOT and CDOT have partnered to select a private operator for subsidized public transportation

services on U.S. 40 between Salt Lake City, Utah and Denver, Colorado. CDOT will take the lead in

soliciting applications and conducting a competitive selection process. UDOT will participate in the

competitive selection process to help select an operator. Once an operator has been selected, UDOT

and CDOT will negotiate separate contracts with the operator. Although UDOT will seek to match CDOT

contract requirements, the actual negotiated requirements may differ between the two states.

Operators will receive separate 5311(f) awards, and will be subject to separate agreements with each

individual state.

The applications are due in mid February. An operator will be selected this spring, and contract

negotiations will go into the early summer. No date for startup has been set. Service stops and

schedules have not been finalized and will not be until an operator is selected.


Utah Transit Authority

THE AGENCY

UTA offers urban bus service along the Wasatch Front in Box Elder,

Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Tooele counties. The multi-modal

agency was established in 1970 and has 69 light rail vehicles, 30

commuter rail cars, and more than 600 buses.

Although UTA’s purpose is to serve the urban region around Salt Lake City, it is an important resource in

accessing intercity bus services in the area. Salt Lake City and Ogden have an intermodal center that

accommodates both UTA and Greyhound services. In Salt Lake City, the intermodal center serves as an

important stop for bus, light rail and commuter rail service. The Greyhound station in Provo can also be

accessed through UTA.

From north to south, UTA covers Payson to Brigham City, a distance of approximately 115 miles. The

agency also provides service between Tooele and the Salt Lake Valley, a distance of about 30 miles. UTA

is considered intercity because of the length of routes and connection to the national intercity bus

system.

Contact Person: Chris Chestnut, Strategic Planner, [email protected], 435-656-9040


Cache Valley Transit District

THE AGENCY

CVTD offers service throughout the entire Cache Valley area, from

Preston, ID in the north, to Hyrum, UT in the south. The agency

receives grants made available through the Section 5311 program and is

a fare-free service to passengers.

Cache Valley offers an important connection for the intercity bus network. Tickets for Greyhound can be

purchased at the ticket office located in the intermodal Transit Center in Logan. Transportation to the

Salt Lake City Greyhound station is provided by Salt Lake Express and leaves from the Transit Center.

Contact Person: Todd Beutler, General Manager, [email protected], 435-713-6968

Appendix B

Outreach Workshop Meeting Summary

I. IntroductionTracy Young, UDOT 5311 Program Manager, welcomed everyone and briefly explained that

the purpose of the workshop is to learn about the Rural Intercity Bus Program and to discuss

Utah’s intercity transportation needs and solutions. Ross Peterson, WCEC Engineers,

summarized the agenda. Ms. Young then led everyone around the room in introducing

themselves.

The agenda (Attachment 1) and participant list (Attachment 2) is attached.

II. Intercity Bus Overview PowerPoint PresentationFred Fravel, KFH Group, presented the history and definition of intercity bus service as well

as a brief overview of the Section 5311 (f) Program. He also gave examples of how the

program funding has been used in other states.

Jeff Sanders, WCEC Engineers, followed Mr. Fravel with a presentation that summarized the

intercity transportation needs evaluation that had taken place thus far. Mr. Sanders

reviewed previous intercity bus need studies, presented an inventory of current intercity

bus providers, reviewed statewide demographic data, and listed destinations that attract

intercity bus traffic. Lastly, he explained the outreach goals of the UDOT Statewide Intercity

Bus Study and the purpose of the workshop’s regional sub-group discussion.

III. Sub-Regional DiscussionParticipants broke into three sub-groups (Northern Utah, Southern Utah, and the US-40

Corridor) to discuss Utah’s intercity bus needs and potential solutions to meet the needs.

The discussion in each group has been summarized and included as Attachment 3.

IV. Group Presentation and Wrap-UpEach sub-group’s discussion was summarized and presented to all workshop participants by

each group’s facilitator. Mr. Peterson then described the next steps for the UDOT Statewide

Intercity Bus Study. The study will conclude within two to three months with a policy

recommendation on the most appropriate method to spend UDOT’s 5311(f) funds.

Event: Utah Intercity Bus Transportation Planning Workshop, held on March 4, 2009, 11:30 AMto 2:30 PM, at the UTA Frontline Headquarters (669 West 200 South, SLC, UT)

Sponsor: Public Transit Team, a division of the Utah Department of Transportation

Subject: Workshop Summary

Agenda for Intercity Bus Transportation Planning Workshop

March 4, 200911:30 AM

UTA Frontline Headquarters

I. Introduction (20 minutes) (Tracy Young, UDOT 5311 Program Manager)1.Why are you here?

a. Learn about the projectb. Provide input on needsc. Suggest solutions to intercity bus needs

2. Introductions

II. Lunch (30 minutes)

III. Intercity overview and PowerPoint presentation (40 minutes)1.What is the Section 5311(f) Program? (Fred Fravel, KFH Group)

a. Definition of intercity busb. How funds can be usedc. Examples of 5311(f) projects in other statesd. Relevant history

2. Findings from needs assessment and inventory (Jeff Sanders, WCEC Engineers)a. Previous workb. Inventory of current providersc. Demographic datad. Destinations analysise. Input from statewide officials and transportation professionals

IV. Sub-regional discussions of needs and preliminary concepts (50 minutes)1. Break into groups representing sub-regions

a. Northern Utah (Fred Fravel)b. Southeastern Utah (Utah County, Southeastern region, Vernal) (Ross

Peterson, WCEC Engineers)c. Southwestern Utah (St. George, Cedar City, Nephi, Richfield) (Jeff

Sanders)

V. Break (10 minutes)

VI. Group presentation and statewide discussion (25 minutes) (Ross Peterson)

VII. Wrap up (5 minutes) (Tracy Young)

Administrator

TextBox

Attachment 1

NAME AGENCY/ORG. PHONE EMAILMike Timlin Greyhound Lines 312-408-5993 [email protected] Mickelsen Wasatch County Planning 435-657-3205 [email protected] Davis Park City Municipal 435-615-5551 [email protected] Sabula Utah Transit Authority 801-237-1973 [email protected] Long Utah Developmental Disability Council 801-533-3965 [email protected] Taylor Park City Premier Transportation 435-640-3144 [email protected] Oneill Park City Premier Transportation 435-640-3144 [email protected] Spackman Vernal Shuttle 208-351-8169 [email protected] Mashburn Vernal City 435-789-2255 [email protected] Kilpatrick Greyhound Lines 503-347-0515 [email protected] Callahan Summit County 435-336-3978 [email protected] Dunford Summit County 435-336-3983 [email protected] Wood Duchesne County 435-738-1132 [email protected] Pera RTW Management 801-746-2417 [email protected] Pera RTW Management 801-746-2417 [email protected] Hattery Wasatch Front Regional Council 801-363-4230 ex. [email protected] Coulam Uintah Basin AOG 435-722-4518 [email protected] Bruder Utah Department Human Services 801-538-4202 [email protected] Peterson WCEC Engineers 801-916-5464 [email protected] Frischknecht Sanpete County Commission 435-835-8561 [email protected] Binggeli Pocatello Regional Transit 208-234-6248 [email protected] Bush Clearfield City 801-525-2785 [email protected] Williamson Business and Leisure Transportation 801-282-8444 [email protected] Holman Cedar City 435-586-2912 [email protected] Morris Weber County Planning 801-399-8763 [email protected] Whatcott South Jordan City 801-254-3742 [email protected] Florence South Salt Lake City 801-412-3225 [email protected] Woodland Juab County 435-623-3400 [email protected] Pasic Ted Transportation 801-541-3736 [email protected] Pasic Ted Transportation 801-706-5800 [email protected] Peterson Pallsade Pals, Inc. 435-835-0531 [email protected] Hackwell Pallsade Pals, Inc. 435-835-0531 [email protected] Williamson Aztec Shuttle 435-632-1994 [email protected] Kovac Salt Lake City Corporation 801-908-7195 [email protected] Bradley Brigham City Corporation 435-734-6616 [email protected] Blackwell Piute County Commission 435-231-1950 [email protected] Bryant Southeastern Utah ALG 435-637-5444 [email protected] Bentler Cache Valley Transit 435-713-6968 [email protected] Sorenson Ryan's Express 801-746-4870 [email protected] Bartholomew Utah Transit Authority 801-287-1953 [email protected] Polelonema Six County AOG 435-893-0713 [email protected] Preece South Jordan City 801-254-3742 [email protected] Allen St. George City 435-680-0853 [email protected] Wall Taylorsville City 801-963-5401 [email protected] Guy-Sell Utah Department of Transportation 801-965-4872 [email protected] Bowers Salt Lake City Dept. of Airports 801-575-2788 [email protected] Duffin Go Green Shuttle 435-313-7071 [email protected] Rushton All Resort Group 801-259-2642 [email protected] Thomas Wasatch Front Regional Council 801-363-4230 ex. [email protected] Hutchings Five County AOG 435-673-3548 [email protected] Smith Division of Workforce Services/CTAA 801-526-9882 [email protected] Ferrin Ryan's Express 801-746-4870 [email protected] Sanders WCEC Engineers 801-671-7563 [email protected] Young Utah Department of Transportation 801-965-4360 [email protected] Gibson Utah Department of Transportation 801-964-4508 [email protected] Devaney WCEC Engineers 435-659-6822 [email protected] Meredith Utah Department of Transportation 801-965-4347 [email protected] Fravel KFH Group [email protected]

UDOT INTERCITY BUS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING WORKSHOP

March 4, 2009 - Participant List

Administrator

TextBox

Attachment 2

UDOT Statewide Intercity Bus WorkshopMarch 4, 2009Northern Utah Sub-Group Discussion

Participants were representatives from:Weber CountyClearfield CityUDOT Statewide Transit CoordinationCache Valley Transit DistrictSalt Lake City AirportSalt Lake City Ground TransportationRyan’s Express (Private Charter Carrier)Brigham CitySouth Salt Lake CityRTW Management (Private Transportation Contractor—operating Veteran’s Hospital medical trips)

The Northern Utah group provided a number of ideas about transportation needs in this part of thestate that are not met by either UTA or other current services. In general the needs were defined aspotentially intercity in nature (purple sticky notes), or more local/regional (green notes).

Intercity Needs and Issues:

Huntsville - Ogden Valley (residents and recreation, tourists- ski resorts): This was brought upby several people, focusing on two potential markets, one connecting the three resort areas inthe Valley, and the other on connecting the Valley residents to destinations in Ogden (orperhaps all the way into Salt Lake City).

Grantsville and Tooele: It was noted that the existing UTA service from the Grantsville area intoSalt Lake City meets local needs only for trips to points east (and return), and that the existingwestbound Greyhound service to Nevada does not make any stops at Grantsville. Passengershave to drive east to Salt Lake to connect to intercity services.

Demand/Need from Idaho: several people mentioned the need for additional intercity servicesfrom Idaho to Salt Lake City and particularly the airport. A lot of people drive down to Salt Lakefrom Idaho for cheaper flights. Areas of potential trip demand include:

o southern Idaho and colleges (Pocatello, Rexburg)o but even further up to Boise

Demand/Need from Wyoming: Similarly the plan needs to make sure that there is servicebetween Salt Lake City, the airport and Jackson Hole. Alltrans may be a continuing providerserving this market.

Demand/Need from Northern Utah: A number of different service needs and concepts wereidentified:

o Connections from Ogden to the Salt Lake airport—once provided by Ogden Express, thislink needs to continue.

o Tremonton to Brigham City, Logan to Brigham City. This is a key link since Brigham City isa northern terminus for service into Salt Lake.

o Cache Valley Transit has a service concept that would connect Ogden to Logan viaBrigham City, but has not had funding to operate this service.

Administrator

TextBox

Attachment 3

VA Hospital: There is a new VA Hospital being built in the Salt Lake area, and there will be a needto provide trips from outside the urban area. RTW Management is a contract provider togovernment agencies, including VA hospitals. RTW will be providing service from the oldhospital to the new one. But, there is a need for areas outside of the urban area to the newhospital.

Demand/Need from the US 89 corridor: Although perhaps not generally thought of as northernUtah, this group recognized a need for routes that would link the US 89 corridor in the centerpart of the state to Provo and Salt Lake City.

Demand/Need to Park City: Although there are a number of services between the Salt Lakeairport and Park City, a connection is needed from Salt Lake City to Park City, in part to meet theneeds of workers who cannot afford to live in Park City. It should be noted that anotherprovider at the meeting provides such service under contract to particular resorts, bringing theiremployees to work on schedules that match employer needs—but this service is not open toanyone who is not a current employee at those particular resorts.

Demand/Need to and from Tribal lands: Transportation linking Salt Lake City to the tribal landsin northeastern Utah was identified as a potential need, and linking tribal lands to energydevelopment in that region for employees.

Morgan County and Morgan City: This area is underserved, as it has no general public service(only transportation for seniors). Morgan County (Morgan City) needs service, especially sincethe population is getting older.

Based on this discussion, key needs are for intercity services from Idaho, particularly towns insouthern Idaho, and from Jackson Hole in Wyoming. From northern Utah, service linking Logan(connecting with the Cache Valley transit hub), Tremonton, Brigham City, and Ogden are needed.All of these need to connect to the airport as well as Salt Lake City. Some of these may be servedalready by existing providers, and that service should be assessed and the operators made aware ofpotential funding if needed to sustain these services. This group also identified needs for services inthe Ogden Valley, linking resorts and residents with Ogden (and Salt Lake). The service needs forthe VA Hospital could be addressed in part by some of these scheduled intercity routes if the newhospital could be a stop location, or if a shuttle linked the intercity bus terminal with the hospital.The need for Park City services to and from Salt Lake was primarily seen to be a commuter issue,and one needing coordination with existing privately-provided services. Another intercity need thatis likely addressed by the other groups include the intercity linkage to and from tribal lands in theUintah Basin area, and employee commuter routes between the tribal lands and energyemployment sites in that area. Service from the south on the 89 corridor is another intercity needidentified by this group. Another need that became apparent in the discussion is a need for reliableinformation about existing services. Many of those in the group were unsure about current servicesand operators—it may be that some of these needs are met now, but even a knowledgeable groupwas not sure. A comprehensive source of public information would at least allow potential users toknow what is available, or even where to look (links to potential operators, etc.)

Local/Regional Needs and Issues:

The discussion also included a number of needs and issues that are not necessarily intercity innature, but reflect mobility needs nevertheless. These include:

Bear Lake: This area has no service at all. There is a need for commuters from the Logan Valleyto the lake, and for Bear Lake residents to get to Logan for services. Recreation and tourismtrips also need to be served.

West side of Cache Valley: This area is currently underserved, including towns in rural areas onthe west side of Cache Valley (Clarkston, Lewiston).

South Salt Lake: Public facilities there are likely destinations for intercity riders. South Salt Lakeis covered by UTA services. Intercity riders could use UTA to access destinations if theconnections are usable.

Clearfield: This area already has Frontrunner commuter rail service, but there is a need forservice from the Frontrunner stop onto Hill AFB. Non-military drivers cannot drive onto thebase, so even if the service gets them to the AFB gate, their building may be another 2-3 milesinto the base. There are no quick connections to an internal AFB service.

Salt Lake City: Enforcement of security requirements of the Transportation SecurityAdministration (TSA) that are being implemented by the City will require more City control overoperators coming into the City, including licensing requirements. .

Coordination efforts should include the UDAV services that transport veterans to medicalservices, so that available seats could be provided to non-vets.

Coordination efforts should address Non-Emergency Medical Transportation statewide,including potential use of existing and planned intercity services.

Potential Solutions:

There was less discussion about the means of addressing these needs, though it was noted thatin this area people rely more on friends and neighbors than transit. Maybe the demand is lower inthis area due to the nature of the community in this respect. However some funding for services onparticular routes would be one way to provide for these services.

Both of the private carriers indicated an interest in beginning to operate fixed-route, fixed-schedule services and they had come to the meeting to gather information about potential marketsand funding. Ryan’s Express works with airlines a lot to serve passengers with missed connections,they are contracted for vehicles and drivers occasionally with Greyhound to meet overloads orprovide spare vehicles. They want to get into the fixed route market as well. A general observationwas that efforts to improve services should begin with existing operators (existing potentialoperators) to identify vulnerable services and provide information about potential assistance.

The issue of service needs to Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake airport, including southern Idahoand Wyoming, needs further exploration. The airport has marketing studies that may help inidentifying potential markets. (Larry can get them from the marketing department if needed).Idaho DOT is currently conducting regional coordination plans statewide, and IDOT should beconsulted to see if intercity needs to Salt Lake are being included in their needs assessment, and thepotential for coordination between UDOT and IDOT on interstate routes, if warranted, should beexplored.

Cache Valley Transit is already a ticket agent for Salt Lake Express, and offers connections fromits local services. It has studied the Logan-Brigham City-Ogden service, and has developed serviceplans and estimated costs, but does not have funding. Such service should be considered to seehow it would relate to the existing private carriers services, and if it is eligible for consideration as arural intercity service for state funding.

Another issue that was mentioned is insurance. Under FMCSA rules interstate providers arerequired to have insurance at particular levels of liability, and interlining with interstate carriers alsorequires higher insurance levels. This insurance costs more than that required by the state forintrastate providers, and so may be a barrier to interstate service or to interlining. Funding toaddress this insurance cost increase would also be an obvious solution, if tied to carrier actions tointerline or provide interstate service (that would benefit citizens of Utah).

UDOT Statewide Intercity Bus WorkshopMarch 4, 2009Southern Utah Sub-Group Discussion

The Southern Utah group included the following workshop participants:

Steve Frischknecht Sanpete County Commission

Rick Holman Cedar Area Transit System

Byron Woodland Juab County

Bill Peterson Palisade Pals

Kim Hackwell Palisade Pals

Todd Williamson Aztec Shuttle

Kay Blackwell Piute County Commission

Michael Bryant Southeastern Utah ALG

Emery Polelonema Six County Utah AOG

Suzanne Allen St. George City

Scott Duffin Go Green Shuttle

Troy Rushton All Resort Group

Curt Hutchings Five County Utah AOG

Leone Gibson UDOT

Jeff Sanders WCEC Engineers

General Discussion:

Needs and potential solutions were jointly discussed throughout the entire sub-group meeting.Frequently, as a need emerged, the discussion naturally focused on potential solutions. The followingsummarizes both the needs and the solutions discussed:

Needs Assessment:

Some general needs of southern Utah were first reported. In general, southern Utah has a greaterproportion of lower income people than northern Utah. Also, there are a number of people that havemoved to the area and now find themselves more transit dependent with fewer family around forassistance. These two characteristics likely increase the need and ridership for intercity bus.

Several participants expressed the need for better commuter service around the St. George area. LaVerkin and Hurricane, outside of St. George, were noted as locations pointed out in the presentation.Also, Zion National Park needs transportation for its employees.

It was noted that there are no transportation services in Sanpete County at all, whether for generalhuman services or for intercity bus. Any attempt at improving intercity transportation would have tolook at coordination of transportation services overall. There is a strong need for intercity movementalong Highway 89 between Salina and Fairview. This should be continued westward along Highway 6 toUtah County. Sanpete County has several strong intercity needs and locations such as Snow College andtransportation to major hospitals in Nephi and Utah County.

The participants assisted in identifying corridors where intercity bus is particularly essential. Thisincluded a link from Kanab to St. George, the Highway 89 corridor from Spanish Fork to Kanab, and theHighway 10 corridor from Price to I-70.

In addition, participants identified intercity needs between larger regional cities. This includesconnections between cities that are not all in Utah. Examples included Panguitch-Cedar City, Delta-Fillmore, Nephi-Manti, Moab-Grand Junction, and Monticello-Cortez.

Potential Solutions:

The participants discussed the idea of the Washington state model where the state identifies intercityroutes and private companies bid to provide service. The group had already identified potential routesin southern Utah with documented need for intercity services. Many in the group thought there areadvantages to this policy, particularly the private transportation companies.

There were some questions about the role of rural transportation agencies and their ability to apply for5311(f) money. Sun Trans and CATS would be interested in expanding their routes to meet regionalintercity needs if additional funding was available to do so.

A theme touched on several times was the need for better coordination of intercity providers. Bothprivate and public transportation providers agreed that it would be better for everyone if schedules andlocations were coordinated. Participants were surprised at the number of services available, butbelieved the statewide network effectiveness is lost when no one is talking to each other or to otherpublic transportation agencies. It would help to create a central intercity transportation hub withinpopulation centers to help customers find out how to get around the state.

It was suggested that better marketing would be immensely useful to make people aware of existingservices. One way to address several of the ideas mentioned was for a central clearinghouse ofinformation. A “one-stop shop” would provide a convenient and easily marketable location for thepublic to learn about services. This could likely also lead to better coordination of schedules and stops.

One participant noted that some agencies have taken matters into their own hands to deal with intercityneeds. There is a group from a human-service agency in Kanosh running a trip to the IntermountainPower Plant near Delta, a considerable distance away. Taking from this example, a good use of moneymight be to help assist and support human service agencies in providing longer intercity trips.

In the Park City area it was suggested that 5311(f) funds could be used to pay private resort companiesto open up their transportation services to the general public.

UDOT Statewide Intercity Bus WorkshopMarch 4, 2009U.S. 40 Sub-Group Discussion

The U.S. 40 Corridor group included the following workshop participants:

Mike Timlin Greyhound Lines

Al Mickelsen Wasatch County Planning

Darren Davis Park City Municipal

Julianne Sabula Utah Transit Authority

Frank Long Utah Developmental Disability Council

Rob Taylor Park City Premier Transportation

Chris Oneill Park City Premier Transportation

Ryan Spackman Vernal Shuttle

Allan Mashburn Vernal City

Shanna Kilpatrick Greyhound Lines

Kevin Callahan Summit County

Rick Dunford Summit County

Kirk Wood Duchesne County

Walter Pera RTW Management

Ryan Pera RTW Management

Doug Hattery Wasatch Front Regional Council

Brett Coulam Uintah Basin AOG

Chuck Bruder Utah Department Human Services

Tracy Young Utah Department of Transportation

Ross Peterson WCEC Engineers (Facilitator)

While the other sub-group discussions were organized around a discussion of needs and potentialstrategies, this group focused on specifically discussing the UDOT/CDOT partnership to reestablishintercity bus service along the U.S. 40 corridor.

Discussion Summary:

Re-Introductions: A round of re-introductions was made at the beginning of the discussion to allow theparticipants to become further acquainted with one another.

Overview of U.S. 40 Partnership:

Following the reintroductions, R. Peterson gave a brief overview of the UDOT/CDOT U.S. 40 partnership.During the overview he explained that the project initially emerged from the Uintah Basin Public TransitBusiness plan, and entered the implementation process when CDOT contacted UDOT because CDOT hadplans to establish a route from Denver to the state border on U.S. 40. He explained that the partnershiphas resulted in a joint RFP for an operator to provide subsidized service on U.S. 40. The RFP wasadvertized in December 2008 and closed in February 2009. He indicated that Greyhound was the onlyapplicant, but that negotiations had not yet been conducted. As such, He suggested that the discussionregarding the route should focus on what Greyhound proposes to do, rather than what actually will be

done, because the contract is not in place and what will actually be carried out in the contract will notbe known until after negotiations.

General Discussion

Following the overview a general discussion of the route ensued. Although it was not intentionallyorganized this way, the discussion generally addressed three common themes: Coordination, Marketingand Connections.

Coordination- There are various transit needs and markets (medical, incoming and outgoing oil workers, pass-

through travelers, etc) along the corridor and several existing providers are already in place to

serve those needs. Coordination among the existing providers will help ensure that resources

are being used in the most effective manner possible.

- The following services were identified during the discussion:

o Disabled American Veterans (DAV) provides trips to veterans in and out of the Uintah

Basin to bring passengers to the VA hospital in Salt Lake City.

o Tri-County Health Department has a donation supported van program called Radiation

Vacation that transports passengers from the Uintah Basin to the Huntsman Cancer

Center in Salt Lake City.

o Vernal Shuttle is a private company that provides a general public route between the

Uintah Basin and Salt Lake City.

Marketing- During the discussion above about the number of small transportation providers already

providing service into and out of the Uintah Basin area, the concept of a regional transportation

directory was brought up as a possible way of coordinating services and getting the word out

about the various ways to travel between the Wasatch Front and the Uintah Basin.

- Potential links to tourism were also explored for the U.S. 40 route. Since the route travels

through relatively mountainous terrain with numerous ski resorts and other recreational

destinations, it was suggested that the route could be marketed in a way that would attract

additional ridership because of these amenities. Participants felt that this was a concept that

should be discussed with local chamber of commerce officials, and that there may be support

from local communities for an approach that improves tourism.

- It was suggested that the route could be branded as a clean fuel route by using natural gas

vehicles and that this may be a way to gain additional support/sponsorship for the program

because of the presence of the natural gas fields along the route in Utah and Colorado.

Connections- Stop locations were discussed for each of the major areas along the route. Chambers of

commerce were identified as potential stop locations in Heber, Roosevelt and Vernal.

- It was suggested that the participants of the sub-group could also be used for future discussions

regarding stop locations if additional input was needed.

- Representatives of Park City Transit expressed a willingness to coordinate schedules and stop

locations with the ICB route in the Kimball Junction area. It was noted that PCT is currently

developing plans for a transit hub in Kimball junction. The site will have room for 12 – 14 buses

and will be adjacent to a park and ride facility.

o This discussion lead to further discussions about other regional connections in the

Wasatch back area (Morgan, Summit, and Wasatch Counties). A circulator from Ogden

through Morgan County to Park City and Heber, and back to the Wasatch Front through

Provo was discussed.

- The previous ICB route on U.S. 40 served both Provo and Salt Lake City. The group participants

were asked if this should be the case for the new route. It was generally felt that the majority of

trips are directed toward Salt Lake City and that from there, passengers can use public transit

(especially after the Frontrunner South line opens) to travel to Provo.

o It was noted that many medical trips that don’t require radiation treatment are directed

toward the Provo/Orem area.

Appendix C

Pilot Project Funding Feasibility by Route

Cost Revenue Deficit

Salt Lake City to CO State Line 536,733$ 286,430$ 250,302$In-kind Capital Match Available 422,716$(Greyhound connecting service) Excess Match

172,413$

Project Description: Provides One Round-Trip Per Day to Connect Salt Lake City with eastern Utah and on to Denver, Colorado via U.S. 40Connects with Greyhound Services in Salt Lake City and Denver. Connecting Schedules shown on attached table.

Operating Deficit

New Route Round Trip Miles 346 Daily Trips 22 250,302.40$

Daily Trips 1 Annual Trips (1) 8,030Daily Miles 346 Fare (2) 35.67

Operating Days 365 Annual Revenue 286,430$Ann. Miles 126,290 Farebox Goal: 0.4 $214,693Cost/Mile 4.25$

Total Cost 536,732.50$

Connection

Greyhound Round Trip Miles 545 Capital costs (50% of operating cost)Services SLC Daily Trips 1 422,716$

Operating Costs Eligible Match

Table A-1: SALT LAKE CITY-PARK CITY-VERNAL-COLORADO STATE LINE--Rural Intercity ServiceUSING IN-KIND GREYHOUND LINES EXPENSES AS LOCAL MATCH

Annual

Operating Costs Operating Revenue

Greyhound Round Trip Miles 545 Capital costs (50% of operating cost)Services SLC Daily Trips 1 422,716$

to St. George Daily Miles 545

(one way) and SLC Operating Days 365Wendover (round Ann. Miles 198,925-trip). Cost/Mile (4) $4.25

Total Cost $845,431.25

Notes:

(1) Ridership estimated based on 40 percent farebox recovery goal, incremental feed ridership and revenue.

(2) Fare estimated based on typical $0.145 per passenger per mile intercity bus fares. Estimated average trip lengthis half of one-way route length, or 246 miles(3) For purposes of determining the value of in-kind capital, only one round-trip per day of the Greyhound miles from Salt Lake City to St. George (and return)

were used )(606 miles). The attached timetable shows the schedules used as connecting in-kind.

(4) Estimated at $4.00 per mile based on recent Greyhound reports.


Richfield to Salt Lake City 249,660$ 99,864$ 149,796$In-kind Capital Match Available 176,660$(Greyhound connecting service) Excess Match

26,864$

Project Description: Provides One Round-Trip Per Day to Connect Richfield, Gunnison, Manti, and Mount Pleasant with Salt Lake City, where connectingGreyhound service provides a link to Wendover, Utah.

Operating Deficit

New Route Round Trip miles 342 Daily Trips 22 149,796.00$Daily Trips 1 Annual Trips (1) 8,053Daily miles 342 Fare (2) 12$Operating Days 365 Annual Revenue 99,864$Ann. Miles 124,830 Farebox Goal: 0.4Cost/Mile 2.00$Total Cost 249,660.00$

Connection:

Greyhound Round Trip miles 242 Capital costs (50% of operating cost)Service-SLC Daily Trips 1 176,660$to Wendover Daily miles 242(121 miles) Operating Days 365

Ann. Miles 88,330Cost/Mile (4) 4.00$Total Cost 353,320$

Notes:

(1) Ridership estimated based on farebox goal of 40 percent.(2) Fare estimated based on half the one-way distance, times $0.145 per mile intercity fare level.(3) For purposes of determining the value of in-kind capital, the Greyhound miles from SLC to Wendover were used.(4) Estimated at $4.00 per mile based on Greyhound Lines data.


Table A-2: RICHFIELD-SALT LAKE CITY S.5311(f) RURAL INTERCITY SERVICEUSING IN-KIND GREYHOUND LINES EXPENSES AS LOCAL MATCH

Annual



Delta to SLC 198,560$ 79,424$ 119,136$

In-kind Capital Match Available 178,394$(Greyhound connecting service) Excess Match

59,258$

Project Description: Provides One Round-Trip Per Day to Connect Delta with Salt Lake City.

Connects with Greyhound services in Yakima (continuing to Seattle). Connections shown on attached proposed timetable.

Operating Deficit

New Route Round Trip Miles 272 Daily Trips 21 119,136.00$

Daily Trips 1 Annual Trips (1) 7,490

Daily Miles 272 Fare (2) 10$

Operating Days 365 Annual Revenue 79,424$

Ann. Miles 99,280 Farebox Goal: 0.4

Total Annual Miles 99,280

Cost/Mile 2.00$


Connection

Greyhound Round Trip miles 230 Capital costs (50% of operating cost)

Service Daily Trips 1 178,394$

SLC-ID state Daily Miles 230

line (115 mi.) Operating Days 365

Ann. Miles 83,950

Cost/Mile (4) 4.25$Total Cost 356,788$

Notes:

(1) Ridership estimated based on ten percent farebox recovery goal.

(2) Fare estimated based on typical $0.145 per passenger per mile intercity bus fare, times half the one-way trip distance (67.5 miles).

(3) For purposes of determining the value of in-kind capital, one round-trip from SLC to the Idaho state lines was used.

(4) Estimated at $4.25 per mile based on Greyhound Lines data.


Table A-3: DELTA-SALT LAKE CITY S.5311(f) RURAL INTERCITY SERVICE --

USING IN-KIND GREYHOUND LINES EXPENSES AS LOCAL MATCH

Annual



Kanab-St. George 260,464$ 104,186$ 156,278$Greyhound Lines Local Match 470,029$(Capital cost) Excess Match

313,750$

Project Description: Provides Two Round-Trips Per Day to Connect Kanab, Hurricane, La Verkin and St. George (connections to Las Vegas, Denver andSalt Lake City)

Operating Deficit

New Route Round Trip Miles 178.4 Daily Trips (1) 44 156,278.40$Daily Trips 2 Annual Trips 16,028Daily Miles 356.8 Fare 7$Operating Days 365 Annual Revenue 104,186$Ann. Miles 130,232 Farebox Goal: 0.4Cost/Mile 2.00$Total Cost 260,464.00$

Greyhound Round Trip Miles 606 Capital costs (50% of operating cost)St. George to Daily Trips 1 470,029$Salt Lake City Daily Miles 606One Round-Trip Operating Days 365per day. Ann. Miles 221,190

Cost/Mile (2) 4.25$Total Cost 940,058$

Notes:(1) Estimated based on target farebox recovery amount divided by estimated average fare.(2) Estimated at $4.25 per mile based on Greyhound Lines data.

Table A-4: KANAB-ST. GEORGE S.5311(f) RURAL INTERCITY SERVICE --USING IN-KIND GREYHOUND LINES EXPENSES AS LOCAL MATCH


Annual



Blanding-Green River 370,840$ 148,336$ 222,504$

Greyhound Lines Local Match 555,348$(Capital cost) Excess Match

332,844$

Project Description: Provides Two Round-Trips Per Day to Connect Blanding, Monticello, Moab and Green River (connections to Las Vegas, Denver and

Salt Lake City)

Operating Deficit

New Route Round Trip Miles 254 Daily Trips (1) 22.00 222,504.00$

Daily Trips 2 Annual Trips 8,018

Daily Miles 508 Fare 19$

Operating Days 365 Annual Revenue 148,336$

Ann. Miles 185,420 Farebox Goal: 0.4

Cost/Mile 2.00$


Greyhound Round Trip Miles 716 Capital costs (50% of operating cost)

St. George to Daily Trips 1 555,348$

Green River Daily Miles 716

Two Round-Trips Operating Days 365

per day, Green Ann. Miles 261,340

River to Colorado Cost/Mile (2) 4.25$State Line, Two Total Cost 1,110,695$

Round-Trips per

Day

Notes:

(1) Estimated based on target farebox recovery amount divided by estimated average fare.

(2) Estimated at $4.25 per mile based on Greyhound Lines data.


Table A-5: BLANDING-GREEN RIVER S.5311(f) RURAL INTERCITY SERVICE --

USING IN-KIND GREYHOUND LINES EXPENSES AS LOCAL MATCH

Annual


udot statewide intercity bus study

Documents