Travel Washington Intercity Bus Plan Update - Study Advisory Committee Meeting #2 August 28, 2018 - KFH Group
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Travel Washington
Intercity Bus Plan
Update
Study Advisory Committee Meeting #2
August 28, 2018
Revised 9/10/18
Today’s Agenda
• Re‐Introductions
• Purpose of Study‐Reminder
• Brief Review of Scope, Schedule and Deliverables
• Tech Memo #1: Service Inventory
• Tech Memo #2: Analysis of Need
• Tech Memo #3 (forthcoming): Public and Stakeholder Engagement
Results:
• User surveys
• Community (non‐user) survey
• Regional public meetings
• Intercity bus operator interviews
• Tech Memo #4 (forthcoming): Evaluation of Current Network
• Input for Tech Memo #5/Draft Final Report: Potential Strategies‐
Available Funding, Policy Issues
• Next Steps—Analysis of Options
2
Study Purpose
• WSDOT Project Needs
• System performance review of existing Travel Washington
routes using updated TCRP 147 model
• Review, prioritize and recommend future network
expansion among alternatives identified in 2014 Draft
Update
• Identify and prioritize among additional alternatives for
addressing unmet needs or gaps for a new fifth line.
• Meet FTA requirements
• Consultation process (every four years)
• Public participation
3
Scope Overview
• Task 1 – Project Initiation, Consultation, Management
• Task 2 – Inventory of Intercity Bus Services in
Washington
• Task 3 – Needs Assessment‐
Demographics/Destinations
• Task 4 – Operations and Financial Data for Existing and
Proposed Services
• Task 5 – Evaluation of Existing and Proposed
Services—Performance Measures and Route
Recommendations
• Task 6 – Other Program Needs
• Task 7 – Draft and Final Reports
4
Revised Schedule
5
Technical Memorandum #1:
Inventory of Existing Services
xisting
What do we mean Services
by “Intercity” ?
• Long‐distance
• Meaningful connection to national
intercity bus network
• Shared stations
• Coordinated schedules
• Interline ticketing if
appropriate
• Fixed‐route, fixed‐schedule (except
feeder services)
• Has space for baggage—think
overnight trips
• To receive Greyhound in‐kind
match must operate five to seven
days per week
6
Technical Memorandum #1:
Inventory of Existing Services
7
Technical Memorandum #1:
Inventory of Existing Services
Statewide
Intercity Bus
Network‐1983
8
Technical Memorandum #1:
Inventory of Existing Services
Transit Services
• Transit routes included because they appeared to offer the option
to make intercity trips:
– Gray’s Harbor Transit Route 40
– People for People Yakima‐Prosser Connector
– Clallam Transit Strait Shot
– Link Transit Routes 20,21,22,23,24,25,26
– Whatcom Transit/Skagit Transit 80X, 90X, 40X, 411C, 411W, 412
• There is no “meaningful connection” with intercity services:
– May or may not serve common terminals
– No through ticketing
– No common information system except possibly Google Transit
• Should these be included? Are there other similar services? Should
policy consider how to link them up with intercity network?
9
Technical Memorandum
#2: Needs Assessment
• Analysis of Density of Populations with Higher Propensity for Transit Use
are mapped:
• Young adults (18 to 24)
• Older adults (65 and older)
• Persons living at below the poverty line
• Autoless Households
• Potential key destinations are identified and mapped:
• Colleges and universities
• Military bases
• Major medical centers
• Correctional facilities
• Commercial airports
• Areas with a high density of need and key destinations are mapped to
see whether the existing network (from TM#1) connects these places:
• Are they within ten miles of an intercity stop, 10‐25 miles, or further
away?
10Technical Memorandum
#2: Needs Assessment
Population Density
Revised 9/10/18
11Technical Memorandum #2:
Needs Assessment
Population covered by this network
• Washington total population: 7,073,146
• Population within 10 miles
of intercity stations/stops: 5,488,411
• Population within 25 miles
of intercity stations/stops: 6,855,512
• 77.5% of Washington residents live within 10 miles
• 96.9% live within 25 miles
i.e. a high level of coverage
Revised 9/10/18
12Technical Memorandum #2:
Needs Assessment
What is not served?
• 34 places more than 25 miles from an intercity stop
• Total population is 59,796, average population 1,759
• Seven places have a population over 2,500:
City Population
Clarkston Heights-Vineland 6,531
Connell 5,414
Forks 3,729
Goldendale 3,445
Eatonville 2,862
Carson 2,657
13Technical Memorandum #2:
Needs Assessment
Unserved Places (continued)
• 255 places are more than ten miles but less than 25
miles from an intercity stop.
• Total population of these places is 911,701,
average population is 3,575.
• 79 of these places have a population over 2,500,
33 of these places have no local transit service
that could potentially connect to an intercity stop.
• 107 of these places have a population under 500.
14Technical Memorandum #2:
Needs Assessment
Intercity Network
and Trip
Generators/Attractors:
• Colleges and
Universities
• Commercial
Airports
• Hospitals and
Medical Centers
• State Prisons
• Military Bases
• Tribal Lands
Revised 9/10/18
15Technical Memorandum #2:
Needs Assessment
Destinations/Attractors Unserved
• More than 25 miles from an intercity stop:
• Clallam Bay Corrections Center
• Makah Reservation
• Coyote Ridge Corrections Center
• Between 10 and 25 miles from an intercity stop:
• Five airports
• Six correctional facilities
• Two colleges and universities (including
Green River College ‐ 18,900 students)
• Ten hospitals (in Washington). Only two of them have
more than 25 beds.
16Technical Memorandum #2:
Needs Assessment
Tribal Lands
• More than 25 miles from an intercity stop:
• Makah Reservation
• All other tribal lands partially within 25 mile coverage:
• 46% of the Colville Reservation
• 52% of the Yakama Reservation
• 66% of the Spokane Reservation
17Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Consultation/Outreach Process
• Public/stakeholder meetings
• On‐board surveys of Travel Washington riders
• On‐line community survey
• Surveys of public transit agencies, regional planning
agencies
• Telephone consultation interviews with intercity
carriers
• Review of Washington State Human Services
Transportation Plan, Regional Human Services plans,
other plans
18Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Public/stakeholder Meetings
• Meetings held between June 11 and June 25
• Aberdeen
• Centralia
• Yakima
• Walla Walla
• Omak
• Port Angeles
• Mount Vernon
• Colville (discussed at general Public Transportation Open House)
• Invitations/press releases sent to regional planning agencies, transit
systems, human service agencies, tribes, tribal transportation list serve,
WSDOT list serve, Northwest Motor Coach Association, universities,
health departments—in multiple waves
• 73 attendees total, 27 were WSDOT or consulting staff
19Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Desired Routes‐Coverage
• Southwest‐Coast
– More direct line from Aberdeen to Olympia, intercity would accommodate luggage
– Pacific Transit service area/Long Beach and nearby communities to closer intercity connection (Centralia?)
– Seattle to coast for tourists
– Highway 12 corridor from Centralia to Aberdeen, via Packwood and Yakima (White Pass route)
– Yakima to Vancouver/Portland
– Interstate connections to Oregon: I‐84/Highway 14 corridor to Biggs Junction and Hood River
– Klickitat to Goldendale—need more local transportation options
• Olympic Peninsula
– Port Angeles‐Bremerton‐Tacoma
– Day trip schedule from Seattle to Clallam Bay Correctional Center/Olympic Work Camp
• Northwest
– Rural portions of Whatcom, Skagit and Snohomish counties to urban areas‐Concrete to larger city/Mount Vernon,
Highway 20 in Skagit County and Maple Falls in Whatcom County to health care
– Highway 9 corridor connecting to State Highway 203 and Highway 2
– Service to Paine Field in Everett (Airporter Shuttle will provide, existing transit connections)
– Local transit connections to Coupeville ferry in Island County
– Mount Vernon to Oak Harbor (commuter)
20Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Desired Routes‐Coverage (continued)
• Central
– Cle Elum, Roslyn and Ronald, with weekly connector to Easton
– Ellensburg to Kittitas and Vantage
– Commuter service between Cle Elum and Ellensburg
– Republic, Tonasket, Ferry County and Okanagan County connections to intercity network
– Highway 97 Orondo‐Sun Cove‐Chelan Falls‐Chelan (operated by Apple Line?)
• East
– More service between Pullman and Moscow, Idaho
– Walla Walla and the Tri‐Cities to Pullman (Washington State University)
– Walla Walla to Clarkston to Pullman/Moscow
– Dayton to Walla Walla
– Moscow‐Pullman to the local airport, Spokane, Spokane Airport, Lewiston and Grangeville, ID
– Highway 26 Pullman to Pasco
– Route 2 Spokane to/from Newport, and Spokane to/from Davenport
21Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
• Mapped all
desired
routes:
• Population
coverage
does
increase:
– Within
10 miles:
81.4%
– Within
25 miles:
99.4%
22Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input—Groups/markets with
potential service needs:
• Quinault Nation to I‐5 corridor
• Agricultural workers from Mexico to Yakima
region: SeaTac to Brewster, Wenatchee to
Prosser
• University students in Toppenish and Terrace
Heights
• Veterans in Whatcom, Snohomish to VA hospital
• University students making intercity trips
23Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input—Destinations potentially
needing service:
• Olympic Corrections Center near Forks (may have local transit)
• Connell stop for Greyhound (state prison)
• Dayton and Waitsburg intercity connection
• Western Washington University Bellingham students to
Shannon Point Marine Center by Anacortes ferry terminal
• Vancouver, WA Greyhound stop
24Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input— Other Issues: Terminals,
Transfers and Connections
• Ensure timed connections between modes (including Amtrak, ferry
and air service)
• Convenient, safe, comfortable transfer locations
• More Bolt Bus stops: Mount Vernon
• Transit to ferry connections in Anacortes
• Multimodal transit center in Ellensburg to service Apple Line,
Greyhound, Central Washington Airporter (Bellair)—and Central
Transit
• Yakima intermodal terminal to serve Greyhound, Bellair Central
Washington Airporter, Yakima‐Prosser Connector
• Bicycle accommodations on buses, maybe for more than two
25Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input— Other Issues: Regional/local
Service and Funding
• Avoid duplication among intercity/transit routes to allow funding for
expansion
• Use 5311(f) for Yakima‐Prosser Connector to free up local regional resources
• More local transit to allow people to access intercity stops within 25‐mile bus
• Combine inter‐library loan with bus service, or package express with bus
service
• Need for cross‐regional service coordination to be better, more extensive
• Central Transit needs larger buses, more frequency on the Orange #5
• Twin Transit expansion and potential connection to intercity
• Pullman Transit unable to service outside City, hence need for intercity to
Moscow, Idaho
• Locally generated sales tax cannot be used for regional service
26Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input— Information, Marketing, Ticketing:
• Ticketing assistance/more interlining with transit operators‐‐may need concierge to help some users (mobility managers?
• Consistent pricing structure
• Information and marketing:
– To students and university populations
– To local agencies
– Public Service Announcements
– Advertising on buses and in theaters, etc.
– A WSDOT video
– Links to Travel Washington from all transit websites
• 211 information on intercity bus
• Real‐time Travel Washington bus schedule information
• Consistency in schedule information between Grape Line website, Grape Line office and Greyhound website
• Maps with all routes, including all Amtrak stops
• Greater WSDOT outreach, improved Travel Washington online presence:
– User‐Friendly
– Show broader intercity network
– Trip planning tools
– Maybe single umbrella site, rather than individual
– Online information to be mobile optimized
• Lower fares on Dungeness Line (note impact of low fare Strait Shot) and Gold Line –affordability issue
• Improve Dungeness website schedule information on westbound services
• Need to tie into mobility managers across the state
27Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input— Changes in Existing Travel Washington Routes:
• Apple Line
– Late Apple Line schedule from Omak/shorter layover to Spokane‐bound bus in Ellensburg
– Mid‐day run from Pateros to Wenatchee, maybe shorten Apple Line to offer two round‐trips, have
Okanogan Transit serve Omak
• Dungeness Line
– Lower fares on Dungeness Line (note impact of low fare Strait Shot)
– Dungeness Line stop at UW Medical Center Link Light Rail station to SeaTac
– Later Dungeness departure out of Port Angeles after transit routes arrive
– Reroute Dungeness on its way to the Kingston‐Edmunds Ferry
– Reroute Dungeness via Tacoma, improve travel times
• Gold Line
– Extension of Gold Line to Republic in Ferry County
– Deviation in Gold Line off US 395 at SH 231 and then SH 292 back to US 395 to serve Valley and
Springdale
– Lower fares or voucher to lower fares for specific groups (human service clients, low income)
• Grape Line
– Grape Line service to College Place and Walla Walla University (since reinstated)
– Earlier Grape Line bus from Walla Walla to make Amtrak connection, improved Grape Line Amtrak
schedule connections
28Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input—Dungeness Line User Survey (184
responses):
• 60% driven and dropped off, 19% walked to bus
• 61% traveled less than 5 miles to reach the bus, only 19% more than 25 miles
• 42% got on a plane, 29% were picked up, 8% transferred to intercity bus, 5% to a train
• 51% traveled to visit friends or relatives, 14% personal business
• If Dungeness Line was not available, 21% would not have made trip, 31% would have driven
themselves, 34% would have taken another bus (Strait Shot?)
• 91% have valid drivers license
• 32% 65 and above, 25.27% 55‐64, 14.29% 45‐54 years of age
• 59% got information from Dungeness line website, 48% got ticket on‐line
• Desired improvements:
– Different schedules (more frequency, different times)
– 10.7% better information sources, 7.38% better ticketing
– 9.84% more amenities (Wi‐Fi, better seating, baggage space, etc.)
– 9.02% more stops
• 99.43% would recommend this service to others
29Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input—Gold Line User Survey (88 responses):
• 59% driven and dropped off, 15% walked to bus
• 44% traveled less than 5 miles to reach the bus, 57% under 10 miles, 27% more than 25
• 19% got on a plane, 41% were picked up, 22% to local transit, 10% transferred to intercity bus, 1% to a
train
• 52% traveled to visit friends or relatives, 29% personal business, 8% medical
• If Gold Line not available, 55% would have had to ride with someone else, 31% would not have made trip,
16% would have driven themselves, 3% would have taken another bus
• 65% have valid drivers license
• 51% had no vehicle, plus 6% vehicle not available for this trip. 35% chose not to drive
• 18% of riders were 65 and above, 19% 55‐64, 16% were 25‐34 years of age
• 42% had income under $20,000, 28% between $20,000 and $40,000
• 35% got information from the Gold Line website, 25% got ticket on‐line
• Desired improvements:
– 54% different schedules (more frequency, different times)
– 16% better information sources, 7.38% better ticketing
– 54% more amenities (Wi‐Fi, better seating, baggage space, etc.)
– 31% more stops
– 8% bike racks
• 100% would recommend this service to others
30Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input—Grape Line User Survey (50 responses):
• 35% driven and dropped off, 25% walked to bus, 18% on local transit, 10% intercity bus
• 55% traveled less than 5 miles to reach the bus, 69% under 10 miles, 24% more than 25
• 8% got on a plane, 46% were picked up, 32% to local transit, 8% transferred to intercity bus, 3% to a train
• 60% traveled to visit friends or relatives, 24% personal business, 5% medical
• If Grape Line not available, 40% would have had to ride with someone else, 42% would not have made
trip, 7% would have driven themselves, 7% would have taken another bus
• 57% have valid drivers license
• 57% had no vehicle, plus 5% vehicle not available for this trip. 31% chose not to drive
• 19% of riders were 65 and above, 12% 55‐64, 21% were 25‐34 years of age
• 55% had income under $20,000, 20% between $20,000 and $40,000
• 21% got information from the Grape Line website, 44% from the Greyhound website, 7% Google
• 50% got ticket on‐line, 17% paid cash to driver, 26% bought ticket at the station
• Desired improvements:
– 30% different schedules (more frequency, different times)
– 13% better information sources, 17% better ticketing
– 37% more amenities (Wi‐Fi, better seating, baggage space, etc.)
– 27% more stops
– 20% bike racks
• 100% would recommend this service to others
31Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input—Intercity Bus Carrier Consultation Key Points
(so far)
• Rural connections require subsidy to be viable
• Demand driven by gas prices and the economy
• Rural demand may be fixed, i.e. more frequencies spreads the ridership over more trips,
results in higher subsidy need, yet
• Riders desire more frequency, more than two daily round‐trips, or even three—particularly
those connecting to airports (airlines have frequency)
• Limited subsidy funds should not be used by transit operators in markets where private
sector can provide service, or to duplicate service provided by Travel Washington
• The key to success is the interline connection 2/3 to ¾ of ridership is making an intercity
connection, intermodal terminals work well for that purpose
• Travel Washington ridership is largely origin to end (little traffic between on‐line stops)
• May be a need for some subsidy to support route segments or schedules currently
unsubsidized
• Greyhound frequency cuts/route reductions may mean limited scope for additional in‐kind to
expand Travel Washington. Availability of in‐kind miles will depend on what is already
committed and schedules at connecting points.
32Technical Memorandum #3:
Consultation/Outreach
Overview of Input—Intercity Bus Carrier Consultation Key
Points—Continued (so far)
• More coordination with transit operators. Generally see possibility for more transit connections to be
included as interline in the Greyhound/NBTA ticketing system, in some cases would need employees at
transit hubs to sell tickets, provide information on intercity options.
• Improved marketing needed for Travel Washington
– Consistent web sites
– Network map with all carriers, could be simple to start, maybe later things like pop‐up links to
individual web sites
– Maybe unified Travel Washington site?
• Unmet needs identified by carriers (to this point)
– Moses Lake‐Ellensburg‐Cle Elum‐North Bend‐ Seattle (I‐90 the whole way)
– Improved stop/connection in Yakima
– Yakima to Tri‐Cities intermodal connection [(note already served by Greyhound, Yakima‐Prosser
Connecter/Ben Franklin connection (two transfers?)]
– More service Pullman‐Spokane (to airport)
– Aberdeen‐Olympia (served by Grays Harbor Transit
– Possible additional Greyhound or NWT schedules where seats sold out at intermediate points
(Ellensburg?)
– Omak‐Wenatchee Local (five day per week pilot?)
– Northwestern Trailways shared stop at Grant Transit in Quincy to allow connection with Ephrata
33Technical Memorandum #4:
Evaluation of Travel Washington
Coverage Impact of Current Travel Washington
Routes
• Population coverage of the unsubsidized network plus transit
routes:
– Within 10 miles: 67.1%
– Within 25 miles: 92.7%
• Population coverage of the unsubsidized network, transit routes
and Travel Washington routes:
– Within 10 miles: 77.5%
– Within 25 miles: 96.9%
• Travel Washington adds over 10 percent of the state’s
population to the 10‐mile coverage area, but only
about 4.2% to the 25‐mile coverage area.
Revised 9/10/18
34Technical Memorandum #4:
Evaluation of Travel Washington
Travel Washington Operating Statistics
12 Months: July 16‐June 17
Net
Vehicle Operating Operating
(1) (2)
Riders Miles Trips Cost Revenue Cost
Apple Line 4,296 133,115 726 $ 253,407.30 $ 90,246.19 $ 163,161.11
Dungeness Line 16,824 160,389 1,460 $ 1,053,814.00 $ 632,876.30 $ 420,937.70
Gold Line 5,098 131,040 1,460 $ 305,921.30 $ 86,003.50 $ 219,917.80
Grape Line 5,023 118,580 2,190 $ 314,283.70 $ 51,593.00 $ 262,690.70
Total 31,241 543,124 5,836 $ 1,927,426.30 $ 860,718.99 $ 1,066,707.31
(3)
Operating Cost plus "Profit" $ 1,573,829.84
Billable Cost $ 1,490,268.70
(1) Gross Operating Expense
(2) Gross Operating Expense less Revenues
35Technical Memorandum #4:
Evaluation of Travel Washington
Travel Washington Performance: Actuals based
on 2016‐2017 Costs, Ridership and Revenue
36Technical Memorandum #4:
Evaluation of Travel Washington
Travel Washington Performance: FY 16‐17
Ridership and Revenue with New Contract
Costs:
37Technical Memorandum #4:
Evaluation of Travel Washington
Travel Washington Performance (continued)
• Standards are needed to evaluate potential new routes.
• Based on projected performance under new contracts,
possible standards might be:
– Minimum farebox recovery = 10% ?
– Maximum subsidy per passenger = $100 ?
– Minimum average boardings per trip = 2 ?
• With these standards the Grape Line is close to the
thresholds.
• If Dungeness Line ridership and revenue hold up, may not
need a subsidy.
38Technical Memorandum #4:
Evaluation of Travel Washington
• Application of updated TCRP 147 rural intercity demand model to
existing services—is there latent demand?
• Travel Washington Route Demand Using TCRP 147 Model Updated to
2010 Census:
• TCRP 147 Demand is a function of population and number of stops:
– More population means more trips
– But more stops discourage ridership
– So average population per stop is key factor
2017 2010 Average Pop. Estimated Demand
Line: Ridership Population Per Stop Regression Trip Rate Mean
Apple Line 4,296 47,900 4,790 7,100 2,500 4,800
Dungeness Line 16,824 127,686 21,281 14,000 11,600 12,800
Gold Line 5,098 15,960 2,280 10,600 2,300 6,450
Grape Line 5,023 74,620 14,924 6,600 4,700 5,650
39Technical Memorandum #4:
Evaluation of Travel Washington
Average Population per New Stop for Proposed Routes:
New Stops New Population Average
Proposed Route Added Served Per Stop
Bellingham to Anacortes Ferry 1 16,229 16,229
Concrete to Mt. Vernon 1 744 744
Dungeness Line through Tacoma 2 59,934 29,967
Ellensburg to Cle Elum and Easton 4 3,835 959
Forks to Port Angeles 1 3,729 3,729
Gold Reroute Valley-Springdale 2 451 226
Goldendale to Klickitat 2 3,878 1,939
Lentil Line (Pasco to Pullman/Uniontown) 7 9,123 1,303
Long Beach to Aberdeen 2 4,220 2,110
Lynden to Bellingham 2 14,967 7,484
Pullman to Pasco 3 5,000 1,667
Quad-City Route* 2 39,825 19,913
Republic to Kettle Falls 1 1,023 1,023
Republic to Tonasket 2 2,074 1,037
Spokane to Davenport 2 2,289 1,145
Spokane to Newport 1 2,454 2,454
Tonasket to Omak 1 1,051 1,051
Tri-Cities to Connell 1 5,414 5,414
Walla-Walla to Clarkston 4 12,341 3,085
Yakima to Goldendale to The Dalles 1 3,445 3,445
Yakima-Centralia-Aberdeen 5 4,970 994
40Looking Ahead: Policy Questions
and Issues: Constraints
• FTA Section 5311(f) Program Requirements:
– Must make meaningful connection with the national intercity bus
network
– Commuter service not to be funded from this source
– In‐kind match available, but must have carrier letter valuing in‐kind
for a specific connecting schedule
• Greyhound Requirements for In‐Kind Match:
– Subsidized service must make connection within a two‐hour
schedule window
– Subsidized service must operate at least five days per week,
Greyhound prefers seven days
– Availability of miles depends on the specific project and miles
already committed
• These requirements eliminate most regional/commuter
concepts from the program.
41Looking Ahead: Policy Questions
and Issues: Funding
• How much funding is available?
– FY 2018 Section 5311(f) 15% Allocation is $2,001,816
– With new contracts that include carrier provision of buses,
the annual contract cost for the four routes is $1,875,903
– Difference is $125,913
– Expanding service is likely to require use of unexpended
funds for operation—what happens when those funds are
gone?
• Availability of in‐kind miles from Greyhound may be
limited:
– Depends on the specific project
– Some states are using Toll Credits as in‐kind match—this may
be possible in Washington
42Looking Ahead: Policy Questions
And Issues: Feasibility
• To expand coverage, it would require new routes, but
there are a number of potential issues:
– Many of the unserved areas have very low populations, and
would require long routes, i.e. their performance would be
lower than the current routes
– They would be more feasible if operated two or three days
per week
– But Greyhound only provides in‐kind match for five‐ or seven‐
day per week service
– So another source of local match would be required
– Many of them are not located where potential contractors
have garages, so they could require a lot of deadhead miles
(or potentially be operated by rural transit providers already
located in these areas)
43Looking Ahead: Policy Questions
And Issues: Program Options
• The Travel Washington model is based on having WSDOT as
the grantee, and private for‐profit carriers as third‐party
contractors. Providing new coverage in very rural areas
might require a change, or an additional model:
– Many of the unserved areas are not located where potential contractors
have garages, so they could require a lot of deadhead miles (or potentially
be operated by rural transit providers already located in these areas)
– Providing Section 5311(f) funding to public transit operators or private non‐
profits using grants could require changes in the consolidated grant model
(which includes all transit except Section 5311(f) in which the state is the
grantee)
– Oregon’s program includes both state‐selected routes operated by private
carriers under contract to the state, and locally‐developed routes operated
by public transit or private non‐profit entities as subgrantees
44Looking Ahead: Policy Questions
And Issues
• Goals
– Is it coverage, to make sure that as many citizens as
possible have access to an intercity link within a defined
distance?, or
– Is it ridership, within a set of defined performance
parameters (such as farebox recovery, cost per rider,
riders per trip)?
– If it is the latter, there might be cases in which expansion
could be an added frequency on an existing route (even
a Greyhound or Northwest Trailways route) rather than
a new route.
45Looking Ahead: Policy Questions
And Issues
Example: Southeast Washington
– Context: Northwestern Trailways operates a route from
Spokane to Boise, which serves Pullman (Washington State
University). Idaho uses Section 5311(f) to subsidize its portion
of the route (Moscow‐Boise). The Washington portion is
unsubsidized. There are two buses per day each way.
– Input from the region calls for more service between Moscow
and Pullman, and more between Pullman and Spokane.
Neither would add coverage.
– Other regional input calls for new service between Pullman
and Walla Walla to the Tri‐cities—this would have new
coverage but likely low ridership
– Do we prioritize the ridership, or the coverage?
46Looking Ahead: Policy Questions
And Issues
Next Steps:
• Review route/coverage concepts to eliminate ineligible
services, refine remaining concepts
• Estimate demand, revenue and cost for those
remaining
• Apply minimum performance standards
• Prioritize based on multi‐factor analysis:
– Likely performance
– Presence/absence of alternative existing service
– Serves high density of need area
– Makes meaningful intercity connection
– Operating feasibility—availability of potential operators
47Contacts:
• KFH Group:
• Fred Fravel
• ffravel@kfhgroup.com
• 301‐951‐8660
• Beth Hamby
• bhamby@kfhgroup.com
• 206‐251‐6859
• Plangineering: Northwestern Trailways Website
• Carole Richardson
• plangineering@comcast.net
• Mobile: 208.277.4600
• Office: 509.279.2875
• Washington State Department of Transportation
• Greg Wright
• Wrightg@wsdot.wa.gov
• 360‐791‐1170
• Gayla Reese Walsh
• walshga@wsdot.wa.gov
• 360‐705‐7011 Photo: Greg Gilbert/The Seattle Times
48You can also read
