Travel Washington Intercity Bus Program - 2019 PLAN UPDATE
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Travel Washington Intercity Bus Program 2019 PLAN UPDATE
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
CONTENTS
About this study ......................................................................................................................... 3
Overview...................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5
Study purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Travel Washington overview ................................................................................................................ 6
Relationship to the Washington State Public Transportation Plan and
Washington Transportation Plan ......................................................................................................... 7
Section 2: Inventory of existing services................................................................................ 8
Existing intercity bus services .............................................................................................................. 8
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Section 3: Needs assessment ................................................................................................... 12
Demographic analysis ............................................................................................................................ 12
Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 14
Section 4: Consultation and outreach .................................................................................... 16
Rider characteristics and insights from the rider survey................................................................ 17
Summary of themes from consultation and outreach .................................................................... 19
Section 5: Evaluation of Travel Washington services .......................................................... 22
Network coverage................................................................................................................................... 22
Same-day round trip ............................................................................................................................... 22
Quality of service .................................................................................................................................... 22
Ridership: actual and predicted ........................................................................................................... 22
Operating data......................................................................................................................................... 24
Performance and potential standards ............................................................................................... 25
Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 25
Section 6: Travel Washington program recommendations .................................................27
Potential route alternatives – new population coverage ............................................................... 27
Methodology............................................................................................................................................ 27
Prioritization of proposed routes ........................................................................................................ 27
Potential funding for expansion........................................................................................................... 30
Relationship to the out-of-boundary transit needs......................................................................... 31
Information and marketing ................................................................................................................... 31
Staffing....................................................................................................................................................... 32
Recommended strategy......................................................................................................................... 32
CONTENTS
PAG E 2
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
ABOUT THIS STUDY
The Washington State Department of Transportation delayed publishing the Travel
Washington Study during 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect to the intercity
bus program’s ridership and connectivity.
As such, the study reflects the program’s service in 2019. We expect that it will take some
time until the program returns to that same level of service. We also realize that it is currently
unrealistic to expand the program to include a fifth bus route because we are using all
available funding to maintain existing routes through the pandemic.
We decided to not delay publication of the study any further to document the status of the
program at the time when:
• Our consultant completed their research on the program.
• The advisory committee wrapped up activities.
• Community groups and the public participated in public meetings and gave comments.
• Current and potential riders provided ideas.
We realize the information in the study may not reflect the current program. However, we
thought it was important to share it with you at this time.
The technical memorandums and addendums are available by request from the WSDOT Public
Transportation Division at don.chartock@wsdot.wa.gov or 360-705-7928.
We would like to acknowledge the staff at KFH Group, Inc., who contributed their knowledge,
experience and expertise with intercity bus programs in Washington state and throughout the
country. Their research, recommendations and inclusion of ideas from the advisory committee,
current and potential riders, local and regional planning organizations, elected officials, bus
operators and Travel Washington contractors made this study possible. Planengeering, LLC,
played a key role in outreach and summary of findings based on interviews with service
providers and surveys with stakeholders, riders and general public.
Don Chartock
Deputy Director, Public Transportation Division
don.chartock@wsdot.wa.gov
360-705-7928
ABOUT THIS S TUDY
PAG E 3
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
OVERVIEW
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the Travel
Washington intercity bus program and its routes.
Located in four different areas of Washington, the
routes connect small towns and rural areas with the
national intercity bus network, local transit, intercity rail
passenger service and commercial air service available
at major metropolitan destinations. This chapter also
shows that the Washington State Public Transportation
Plan reflects the state’s intercity bus goals.
Chapter 2 is a review of the entire intercity bus network
and changes that have taken place over the past decade.
Chapter 3 assesses the access provided by the intercity
bus network. This analysis addresses the general
population and specific groups who are more likely to
need or use intercity bus services.
Chapter 4 includes ridership experiences and
recommendations for the Travel Washington system from
passengers and other stakeholders, such as the study
advisory committee, current and potential riders, local
and regional planning organizations, elected officials, bus
operators and Travel Washington contractors.
Chapter 5 gives a performance evaluation of the
existing Travel Washington routes.
Chapter 6 is recommendations for service alternatives
developed through the analysis and input documented
in the previous chapters. This chapter also prioritizes
potential expansion based on measures aligned with the
goals of the Washington State Public Transportation Plan.
OVERVIEW
PAG E 4
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Study Purpose ABOUT SECTION 5311(f)
Over 10 years ago, the Washington State Department
Section 5311(f) requires that states must spend
of Transportation (WSDOT) developed the first public/
15 percent of their overall Section 5311 funding
private partnership model in the country for a rural
allocation on rural intercity bus projects under
intercity bus program. Called Travel Washington,
Section 5311(f). States may forego this requirement
this innovative program partners with transportation
by certifying to FTA that there are no unmet
companies to provide in-kind (non-monetary)
rural intercity needs, and that the state has
contributions, such as aligning schedules so that
determined that there are no needs as the result of a
passengers from rural areas can seamlessly connect to
consultation process. The consultation process must
the nationwide bus and train network, airports and state
include outreach to the intercity carriers and other
ferries system.
stakeholders.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds the
FTA program guidance for the rural intercity bus
Travel Washington program through the Section 5311(f)
program is in FTA Circular 9040.1G (49 U.S.C. 5311
program for capital, planning and operating of public
– Formula Grants for Other Than Urbanized Areas),
transportation services for rural areas with populations of
Chapter VIII, Intercity Bus. The circular defines
less than 50,000 and where residents often rely on public
intercity bus service as:
transit to reach their destinations. WSDOT contracts
with private operators, using the Section 5311(f) funds, to “Regularly scheduled bus service for the general
provide intercity bus service to rural communities. Every public operating with limited stops over fixed
four years, FTA requires WSDOT to consult with intercity routes connecting two or more urban areas
bus providers, stakeholders and riders to assess existing (2,500 persons is the Census definition of urban)
services and unmet needs. not in close proximity, which has the capacity
for transporting baggage carried by passengers,
The Travel Washington program can trace its beginnings
and which makes meaningful connections with
to a WSDOT study in 20071. The study helped to
scheduled intercity bus service to more distant
develop policies and identify projects to support a
points, if such service is available.”
network of transportation services to link rural towns
and communities in Washington state to the national States may include package express service if they
intercity bus system. The study: are incidental to passenger transportations.
• Provided an analysis of the existing intercity Commuter, charter and tour bus services are not
bus network. eligible under this program. The type of vehicle used
• Compared existing services with locations of (except for the requirement to carry baggage) does
higher potential levels of need. not define intercity service.
• Identified rural locations and corridors that All vehicles providing services under this program
were unserved. must be fully compliant with the Americans with
• Identified rural communities along the corridor Disabilities Act (ADA).
with the highest potential for unmet transportation
needs.
• Prioritized rural corridors with unmet transportation
needs.
1
WSDOT, Washington State Intercity and Rural-to-Urban Public Transportation
• Ranked rural corridors eligible for intercity Network Plan; KFH Group in association with Landsman Transportation
bus service. Planning and Community Mobility Solutions; Olympia, Washington; July 2007
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
PAG E 5
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
The current study evaluates Travel Washington since major cities and urban hubs. WSDOT branded each of
its inception, and looks for areas for improvement and the routes with a name based on a regional theme.
potential expansion of the system. The study: See Figure 1 and the following bullets:
• Examined routes operated by the existing program. • Apple Line
• Included extensive public and stakeholder º Omak to Ellensburg via Okanogan, Malott,
engagement. Brewster, Pateros, Chelan Falls, Orondo,
• Evaluated the need for potential new routes. Wenatchee, Quincy and George (all in
Washington)
• Recommended changes in the program and services.
º One round-trip per day; daily service
Travel Washington overview • Dungeness Line
WSDOT developed the Travel Washington program to º Port Angeles to Seattle via Sequim, Discovery
provide service on routes connecting small towns with Bay, Port Townsend, Edmonds, Virginia Mason,
Figure 1: Travel Washington Route Structure
Statewide Intercity Bus Network
Bellingham
Kettle Falls
Omak
Port
Townsend
Port Angeles
Spokane
Seattle
SeaTac Wenatchee
Tacoma
Olympia Ritzville
Ellensburg
Pullman
Yakima
Pasco
Kelso Walla Walla
Travel Washington Lines Other Providers
Apple Line Greyhound
Dungeness Line Bolt Bus
Gold Line Northwestern Trailways
Grape Line Amtrak
19-03-0169 Bus or train stop Amtrak Cascades
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
PAG E 6
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
Poly Clinic, Swedish Medical, Arnold Medical Relationship to the Washington
Pavilion, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle
Amtrak, Seattle Greyhound, VA Hospital and
State Public Transportation Plan
SeaTac Airport (all in Washington) and Washington Transportation
º Two round-trips per day; daily service Plan
• Gold Line The Travel Washington intercity bus program is part
of the integrated multimodal transportation system
º Kettle Falls to Spokane via Colville, Arden,
described in WSDOT’s Washington State Public
Addy Chewelah, Loon Lake, Deer Park,
Transportation Plan2. This 20-year public transportation
North Spokane, Spokane STA Plaza, Spokane
plan is required in state law and described in WSDOT’s
Intermodal (Amtrak, Greyhound, Northwestern
overarching Washington Transportation Plan3 for
Trailways and Jefferson Lines connections), and
multimodal transportation.
Spokane Airport (all in Washington)
The Public Transportation Plan includes goals, strategies
º Two round-trips per day; daily service
and near-term actions to advance a complete and
• Grape Line integrated multimodal transit system. The plan’s five
º Walla Walla to Pasco (Tri-Cities) via College goals, which support the vision and direction of Travel
Place, Touchet, Wallula and Burbank (all in Washington, are:
Washington) • Goal 1: Thriving Communities
º Three round-trips per day; daily service • Goal 2: Access
Travel Washington passengers can purchase an interline • Goal 3: Adaptive Transportation Capacity
ticket to connect to multiple modes on a single trip. This
• Goal 4: Customer Experience
includes transferring from Travel Washington buses to
national intercity bus networks (e.g., Greyhound Lines, • Goal 5: Transportation System Guardianship
Northwestern Trailways, Jefferson Lines and Amtrak).
Travel Washington key elements
WSDOT is the Section 5311(f) grant recipient from FTA.
WSDOT uses request for proposals to contract with
private for-profit companies to operate the Travel
Washington routes. Each of the four intercity bus lines
operates on a four-year contract with WSDOT, the most
recent of which was renewed in July 2020.
WSDOT is a national leader in developing and
implementing an innovative approach for providing the
required local match for intercity services. Under the
Section 5311 program, the required local match share
of the net operating deficit of any funded service is
limited to 50 percent of the operating cost. For Section
5311(f), this match comes from the unsubsidized
connecting service provided by Greyhound. Careful
attention to the design of the project allows the
WSDOT to fund the net operating deficit of the 2
Washington State Department of Transportation; 2016 Washington State
subsidized segment with federal dollars. Public Transportation Plan; Olympia, Washington; 2016.
3
Washington State Department of Transportation; Washington Transportation
Plan; Olympia, Washington; 2018.
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
PAG E 7
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
CHAPTER 2
INVENTORY OF EXISTING SERVICES
This chapter identifies and defines the current network – One local trip from Vancouver through
of intercity bus services and the geographic areas Seattle and Portland, and on to Los Angeles
they serve in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and British – Two local trips from Seattle through Portland
Columbia. to Los Angeles
Existing intercity bus services – Three local trips from Los Angeles to
Portland, Seattle and Vancouver (B.C.)
Based on 2018 research from two national databases,
Greyhound Bus Line’s website and Amtrak timetables, – One Friday-only local trip from Portland to
four types of intercity bus services were identified: Seattle
• Traditional (Legacy) – Examples include Greyhound º Timetable 502:
Lines, Northwestern Trailways, Bellair Charters & – One round trip per day between Spokane
Airporter, CanTrail and Jefferson Lines and Portland
• Regional – Examples include Link Transit, º Timetable 509:
Community Transit, Grays Harbor Transit, Clallam – Two local round trips between Seattle and
Transit System, County Connector and Yakima- Spokane
Prosser Connector
– Two local round trips between Seattle and
• Rural – Examples include Travel Washington Stanfield
Intercity Bus Program
• Jefferson Lines
• Long-Distance Curbside – Examples include Bolt
Bus and Wheatland Express º Two daily round trips between Spokane and
Missoula
(Note: Amtrak national timetables were reviewed
because Amtrak Thruway bus connections depend on • Northwestern Trailways
existing intercity bus services.) Also, researchers collected º Timetable 7840:
data from intercity operators serving Washington’s non- – One trip each way per day between Spokane
urbanized and urbanized cities, such as timetables, cities and Tacoma via Stevens Pass
served and web links. More information follows about
º Timetable 7842:
each type of intercity bus service.
– One round trip per day between Lewiston
Each of the four types of intercity bus services as well as
and Spokane via Pullman, and one trip each
the map showing intercity bus routes and bus stops are
way between Boise and Spokane
described in the following information.
• Bellair Charters and Airporter
Traditional “Legacy” bus service
º Central Washington Airporter:
This category includes services provided by Greyhound
– Five round trips per day from Yakima to
Lines, Northwestern Trailways, Bellair Charters &
Ellensburg to Chelan to North Bend to
Airporter, CanTrail and Jefferson Lines:
SeaTac Airport and Link Light Rail network
• Greyhound Lines
º Western Washington Airporter:
º Timetable 601: Service between Seattle,
– Eleven round trips per day along the
Vancouver (B.C.), Portland and Los Angeles:
northern I-5 corridor to SeaTac with a spur
– Two local trips from Vancouver to Seattle route to Anacortes
CHAPTER 2 | INVENTORY OF EXISTING SERVICES
PAG E 8
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
• Cantrail Coach Lines • Clallam Transit System
º Three southbound and four northbound trips º The Strait Shot:
per day from Vancouver (B.C.) to Seattle – Two round trips per day, Port Angeles to the
Regional intercity services Bainbridge Island Ferry Terminal
Local and regional services are operated by one or more • County Connector
local or regional transit systems and often connect º Network of regional routes jointly operated by
small urban clusters to an intercity transfer opportunity Island Transit, Skagit Transit, and the Whatcom
in a larger city. None of these services offer interline Transportation Authority
ticketing with the National Bus Traffic Association º Route 80X:
intercity network, and not all of them connect at
– Nine weekday round trips from Bellingham
intermodal facilities that also serve as intercity bus
to Mt. Vernon
stops. They represent additional intercity access and
could potentially feed into the national intercity transit º Route 90X:
network. – Eleven daily weekday trips from Bellingham
• Grays Harbor Transit to Mt. Vernon
º Route 40: • Community Transit
– Seven round trips per day on weekdays º Route 230:
and four on weekends from East County to – Two daily round trips from Darrington to
Olympia Smokey Point with one stop at the Smokey
º Route 45: Point station and the other stop at Arlington
– Four daily round trips weekdays from º Route 280:
Oakville to Rochester to Centralia – Twenty-four weekday daily round trips from
• Link Transit Granite Falls to Everett
º Route 20: • People For People
– Five round trips per day from Wenatchee to º Three round trips per weekday from Yakima to
Orondo to Manson Prosser Community Connector
º Route 21: • Skamania County Public Transit-Gorge West End
Transit (WET)
– Twelve round trips per day from Wenatchee
to Entiat to Manson º Two daily weekday round trips and additional
midday trip on Fridays from Stevenson to
º Route 22:
Vancouver
– Twenty round trips per day from Wenatchee
• Mount Adams Transportation Service
to Leavenworth
º Four daily weekday round trips from Goldendale
º Route 25:
to The Dalles
– Five round trips per day from Wenatchee to
º Ten weekday daily round trips from White
Waterville
Salmon to Bingen to Hood River
º Route 26:
– Five round trips per day from Wenatchee to
Ardenvoir
CHAPTER 2 | INVENTORY OF EXISTING SERVICES
PAG E 9
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
Rural Intercity Section 5311(f) services – Conclusions
Travel Washington This inventory of intercity bus services is a
The four WSDOT Travel Washington routes – Apple comprehensive network of services that can be used to
Line, Dungeness Line, Gold Line and Grape Line – are take intercity trips across the state and to destinations
the rural intercity services in the state. Refer to Chapter elsewhere. The unsubsidized legacy and curbside bus
1 for more information. services focus on the major population centers in the
north-south corridor between Vancouver (B.C.) and
Long-distance curbside intercity services Portland. Also, Greyhound and Northwestern Trailways
• BoltBus operate key east-west connections across the state.
º Four round trips per day from Vancouver (B.C.) The Amtrak rail passenger services are part of the
to Seattle; two continue to Portland comprehensive intercity bus program. The four Travel
Washington routes connect rural areas to these basic
º Four round trips per day from Seattle to
networks, and can be accessed for information and
Portland; one continues to Eugene
ticketing through either Greyhound or Amtrak systems.
Amtrak Thruway bus service There are a number of other long-distance regional
Amtrak contracts with bus carriers to operate transit services that can be used to reach the intercity
connecting intercity bus services and expand the bus and rail networks, but their role as intercity
coverage of the intercity rail passenger network. Called connectors is not clearly defined because they do
Amtrak Thruway, the service provides a ticket for a not always connect at the same stations and interline
bus and Amtrak train as part of a single trip. Amtrak ticketing is not available. Information about potential
Thruway bus services include: intercity connectivity is only available if the carriers
supplied General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS)
• Seattle to Vancouver (B.C.)
data about services to allow Google Transit and similar
º Three daily southbound and four northbound services to provide trip planning information.
Amtrak Thruway bus trips between the Seattle
Amtrak Station in Washington and Pacific
Central Station in Vancouver (B.C.) – operated
by Cantrail
• Bellingham-Seattle
º One northbound trip on Saturdays, Sunday and
holidays connecting from Train 502, and one
daily southbound trip connecting to Train 507
between Bellingham and Seattle – operated by
MTR Western
CHAPTER 2 | INVENTORY OF EXISTING SERVICES
PAG E 10T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
Figure 2: Washington Intercity Bus Routes and Station Stops
CHAPTER 2 | INVENTORY OF EXISTING SERVICES
PAG E 11T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
CHAPTER 3
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This chapter examines the extent to which Washington’s population lives within the service area of an intercity
intercity bus network meets potential public need for bus stop. Approximately 76.7 percent of Washington
intercity connections. Another element is descriptions of residents live within 10 miles of an intercity bus stop or
areas with high-relative need based on the density and station, and 95.6 percent live within 25 miles. Refer to
percentage of potentially transit-dependent populations. Figure 3 on the following page.
Also, the study identifies places that are likely to
be intercity bus destinations, including commercial Autoless households
airports, correctional facilities, educational institutions, Of the areas with very high levels of autoless homes,
medical centers, military installations and tribal lands. there are three in Washington that are more than 25
By overlaying the existing bus network with potential miles from the intercity transit network: Forks, Republic
origin areas of high need and potential destinations, the and Long Beach. Additionally, some block groups have
analysis reveals gaps in intercity network coverage. The higher numbers of autoless households that are more
current network is generally responsive to the needs than 25 miles from the intercity transit network. Several
identified within this chapter. areas show very high numbers of autoless households
and are between 10 and 25 miles from the intercity
Demographic analysis transit network.
The need for any type of public transportation is largely
based on an area’s population density, relative age
Young adult population
and economic characteristics. Using data from five- For the young adult population in Washington state,
year estimates in the 2010 Census and the 2012-2016 there are five Census block groups in Washington that
American Community Survey, this analysis focused on are at least 25 miles from the nearest intercity transit
the following population categories: stop and have more than twice the statewide average of
young adult (ages 18 to 24) population.
• Young adults (persons ages 18 to 24)
• Older adults (persons ages 65 and older) Transit Dependent Index based on density
• Persons living at or below the poverty line of high-needs population
• Autoless households (i.e., no vehicles at residence) The Transit Dependent Index (TDI) shows the population
of a given area (relative to the larger study area) that
These four categories were combined into aggregate
relies on public transit for their needs (Figure 3). Given
measures of need, based on density and percentage
the low-population density of much of Washington, most
of the population. The scale used for the demographic
of the state is classified as a low need.
analysis ranges from low to very high, reflecting
demographic characteristics in relation to the statewide There is one higher-need block group outside of the
average. 25-mile intercity transit service area: Long Beach. The
following areas show higher levels of transit need, and
Population density are between 10 and 25 miles from the nearest intercity
Approximately seven million people live in Washington, transit station/stop in Washington:
according to the five-year estimates. Washington’s • Vancouver and Battle Ground to northeastern
population densities range from less than 1 person per Portland
square mile in rural areas to over 50,000 persons per • Raymond
square mile in urban King County. This urban clustering • Shelton
of population indicates that a majority of Washington’s • Wauna
CHAPTER 3 | NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAG E 12T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
Figure 3: Washington Population Density and Proximity to Intercity Bus Network
CHAPTER 3 | NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAG E 13T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
• Lynden, Nooksack and Semiahmoo Peninsula º Olympic Corrections Center in Jefferson County
• Benton City – capacity 378
• Othello º Washington Corrections Center for Women in
• Interstate 90 corridor between Spokane and the Pierce County – capacity 738
Idaho border • Colleges and universities in Washington
Destinations and facilities º Green River College – enrollment 18,900
º Colockum Research Unit of Washington State
The analysis of demographic data addressed the
University – primarily a wildlife area
potential origin areas for intercity trips. Another
• Hospitals and medical centers in Washington
consideration is whether the current routes serve
º Madigan Army Medical Center – 240 beds
the places that are likely to be attractors for potential
destinations of intercity bus ridership. These include º American Lake Veterans Hospital – 230 beds
colleges and universities, military bases, major medical º Eight additional locations with 25 beds or less
centers, correctional facilities and commercial airports. Aside from the Makah Reservation on the tip of the
These destinations are mapped in Figure 4 on the Olympic Peninsula, tribal lands in Washington are at
following page. least partially within the intercity transit network service
area. In addition, 46 percent of the area of the Colville
Nearly all identified intercity trip generators in
Reservation, 52 percent of the Yakama Reservation, and
Washington are located within 25 miles of an intercity
66 percent of the Spokane Reservation are within 25
transit station or stop. There are some exceptions, such
miles of the intercity transit network.
as the following intercity trip generators that are more
than 25 miles from the nearest intercity transit stop in
Summary
Washington:
In terms of coverage, the current intercity network
• Clallam Bay Corrections Center and Makah
(broadly defined to include some regional transit routes)
Reservation near the northwestern tip of the
provides a high degree of coverage to Washington’s
Olympic Peninsula
population. Approximately 76 percent of Washington
• Coyote Ridge Corrections Center (capacity 2,468) residents live within 10 miles of an intercity bus
in Connell (Amtrak and Greyhound pass through stop or station, and 95 percent live within 25 miles.
without stopping) This suggests that there are no large areas that are
The following intercity trip generators are between completely lacking in access to intercity service, and
10 and 25 miles from the intercity transit network and that expansion routes in rural areas may add relatively
could potentially generate transit ridership: few people to the population covered by the network.
• Airports – commercial service, primary (over 10,000 Other considerations of expansion or changes may
annual enplanements) need to focus on the 20 percent of the population living
in the band between 10 and 25 miles. In many cases,
º Friday Harbor Airport in San Juan County
these areas are served by existing public transit service.
º Nez Pierce County Airport in Lewiston If connections to the intercity stops are made by local
• Washington State Department of Corrections prisons transit providers, this population could be considered
º Cedar Creek Corrections Center in Thurston as having access to the intercity network without
County – capacity 480 necessarily having to develop new intercity services.
º Larch Corrections Center in Clark County – Another consideration is that the analysis of coverage
capacity 480 does not really address the possible need for new
º Mission Creek Corrections Center in Mason linkages that could cut travel times between places
County – capacity 305 that are already served. Ideally, any proposals for new
º Washington Corrections Centers in Mason services would accomplish improved connectivity and
County – capacity 1,268 address gaps in coverage.
CHAPTER 3 | NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PAG E 14Figure 4: Washington Intercity Trip Generators and Proximity to Intercity Bus Network
WA Intercity Trip Generators
! Colleges & Universities Bus Routes
! Regional & International Airports Within 25 Miles of ICB Network
! Hospitals & Medical Centers Within 10 Miles of ICB Network
Vancouver BC
! Prisons Tribal Lands
Stations / Stops
Military Bases
Bellingham:
Bolt
!
!
!
!!! !
!
!
! Kettle Falls
! Colville ! !
Mt. Vernon Omak Arden !
!
! !
Oak Harbor ! Addy
! Stanwood Darrington !
! Malott Okanogan ! Chewelah
Port Angeles !
Port !Smokey Point !
Chewelah
!! ! Townsend ! Pateros ! Brewster Casino Loon Lake !
!
!
!
Everett ! Deer Park
Discovery Bay Monroe Manson !
!
CHAPTER 3
!Edmonds! Stevens Pass ! Chelan Falls
! ! Skykomish !Spokane !
|
Kingston !
!!
!!!! Spokane; !
!
!!
!
Seattle
! ! ! !! !!
!!
Airport ! !
!!
!
!
! !!
Waterville !
Crane Creek Quinault !
!! ! !!
! !
Bellevue Leavenworth !
Bainbridge
! !
!! ! ! Orondo !
! Island !! ! ! To Missoula, MT
Taholah Neilton !!!! ! North Bend !
!
!
Tukwila ! Ephrata
! !! Wenatchee
! ! !
PAG E 15
! Quincy
Pacific Beach !! !! ! !
Copalis
!! !
! ! Ritzville
!!! !! ! Moses Lake
Ocean City Olympia!
! !
! !!
!! Ellensburg George Idaho
Ocean Shores !! ! Colfax
!!
Hoquiam
! !
Centralia Pullman
Grayland
!! !! !
! Moscow ID
Yakima !
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
!! !
Wapato
Granger !!!
Toppenish
!
Grandview
! ! Burbank
! Kennewick
Kelso ! Walla
!! To Boise
!
! Prosser Touchet Walla TC
Wallula !
! !!!
! !! Stanfield OR
!
! ! The
!
!
!!! Dalles, OR !!!
Portland OR
T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
!
! !!! !!
!
!! ! Oregon
!! ! !!!!! !
!!!
!
!!!! !
!!!
!!! !! To Boise
! !! !
! !! ! ! !!
! 0 20 40 80
!
!!
¯ Miles
!!!!T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
CHAPTER 4
CONSULTATION AND OUTREACH
This chapter presents key findings and themes from • Interviews with current and former Travel
WSDOT’s multi-faceted approach to stakeholder Washington service providers:
engagement and consultation for the plan update.4 º Bellaire Charters (current operator of Gold Line
Outreach methods included: and Grape Line)
• Study advisory committee with 21 members: º Greyhound Bus Line (current operator of
º Amtrak Dungeness Line)
º Central Washington Airporter º Northwest Trailways (current operator of Apple
Line)
º Community Transportation Association of the
Northwest º Olympic Bus Lines (former Dungeness Line
operator)
º Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments/
Southwest Washington Regional Transportation • Eighteen stakeholder surveys:
Planning Organization º Benton-Franklin Council of Governments
º Grant Transit º Chelan-Douglas Transportation Council
º Greyhound Bus Lines º Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of Governments
and Southwest Washington Regional
º Northeast Washington Regional Transportation
Transportation Planning Organization
Planning Organization
º Grays Harbor Council of Governments
º Northwestern Stage Lines
º Island Regional Transportation Planning
º Olympic Bus Lines Organization
º Palouse Regional Transportation Planning º Lewis-Clark Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization Organization
º Spokane Tribe of Indians º Northeast Washington Regional Transportation
º Twin Transit Planning Organization
º Washington State Transit Association º Palouse Regional Transportation Planning
Organization
• Eight community meetings around the state:5
º Peninsula Regional Transportation Planning
º Aberdeen Organization
º Centralia º Puget Sound Regional Council
º Colville º Quad-County Regional Transportation Planning
º Mount Vernon Organization
º Skagit Council of Governments
º Omak
º Port Angeles 4
See Technical Memorandum 4, which is available by request from the
WSDOT Public Transportation Division, for more details about the
º Walla Walla approach, findings from the survey of riders on the existing Travel
Washington lines, and an exploration of key themes from input and
feedback from stakeholders during the consultation process.
º Yakima 5
WSDOT sent invitations for the community meetings to regional planning
agencies, transit agencies, human service agencies, tribes, Northwest Motor
Coach Association, universities, health departments, statewide group email
system managed by WSDOT, and tribal transportation email distribution
list. Each meeting included a presentation on WSDOT’s Travel Washington
Intercity Bus Program, followed by a discussion of needs, issues and ideas
for improving intercity service in their areas.
CHAPTER 4 | C O N S U LTAT I O N A N D O U T R E A C H
PAG E 16T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
º Southwest Washington Regional Transportation
Council
º Spokane Regional Transportation Planning
Council
º Thurston Regional Transportation Planning
Council
º Walla Walla Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization and Sub-Regional Transportation
Planning Organization
• Household income over $60,000 – 26 percent
º Whatcom Council of Governments
(including 17 percent from household incomes over
º Yakima Valley Conference of Governments $80,000)
• Project website regularly updated and linked to • Student – 9 percent
WSDOT’s Travel Washington webpage
• Employed full – or part-time – 41 percent
• Rider survey on Travel Washington buses with 352
• Unemployed – 10 percent
responses
• Carrier surveys to Travel Washington service • Retired – 32 percent
providers Ethnic backgrounds
• General public online survey with 16 responses: Riders roughly reflect the ethnic breakdown of
º Olympic Peninsula: Port Angeles, Port Townsend Washington’s population overall. However, survey
and Sequim results slightly underrepresented people of color.
º Southwestern Washington: Morton, Raymond, Ethnicity
Ocean Park and Cathlamet • Caucasian – 76 percent
º Eastern Washington: Colville, Pullman and • Hispanic – 6 percent
LaCrosse
• Asian or Pacific Islander – 7 percent
º Southcentral Washington: Yakima
• Black or African American – 2 percent
• Email notifications and updates to transit systems
statewide • Native American – 4 percent
• Other – 5 percent
Rider characteristics and insights Language
from the rider survey • English as a first language – 94 percent
The following information describes rider characteristics
• Spanish speaking – 2 percent
and insights based on responses to the rider surveys on
the four Travel Washington bus lines. • Other – 4 percent
Passenger socio-demographics Insights from the rider survey
Socio-economic spectrum Critical travel niche
Riders represent a cross-section of the socio-economic Travel Washington fills a critical travel niche for people
spectrum. Many are older or from lower-income who do not drive or do not have access to a vehicle.
households.
• Did not have a driver’s license – 22 percent
• 55 years or older – 47 percent • Did not own a vehicle, their vehicle was not
• Lower-income household ($40,000 per year or less) available, or the vehicle was not in adequate
– 58 percent condition to make the trip – 57 percent
CHAPTER 4 | C O N S U LTAT I O N A N D O U T R E A C H
PAG E 17T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
• Would not have made the trip if the Travel • Took local transit to continue their trip after exiting
Washington bus was not available – 25 percent the intercity bus – 17 percent
Traveling solo Single bus route
Most riders travel on their own. Many trips have both origin and destination with the
• Traveling on their own – 86 percent service area for a single Travel Washington bus route.
• Traveling with one companion – 16 percent • Indicated they would not make a transfer during
their trip – 61 percent
• Traveling with two companions – 3 percent
• Transferring to other carriers to reach their ultimate
• Traveling in groups of more than three people – 2
destination with a single transfer – 27 percent
percent
• Traveled further afield to destinations requiring two
Visiting with family and friends or more transfers – 13 percent
Visiting with family and friends is a top trip purpose for
Online and over-the-phone ticketing
riders.
Online ticketing is popular, but over-the-phone ticketing
• Traveling on the intercity bus to visit friends and
remains an important option.
relatives – 51 percent
• Purchased online – 41 percent
• Intercity bus service is important to Native
Americans because tribal members maintain close • Purchased over phone – 21 percent
relationships, often familial, with members of other • Purchased directly from bus driver as they boarded
tribes across the state. Also, tribal events sometimes – 24 percent
require long-distance travel. • Purchased at a bus station or other ticketing location
Travel distance – 14 percent
About one-fourth of riders travel a significant distance Webpages as a resource
(25 miles or more) to reach an intercity bus station. Webpages maintained by Travel Washington contractors
• Live within 5 miles of an intercity bus station – 55 are a primary source of information for riders.
percent • Obtained information from the website developed
• Traveled 6-25 miles to board the bus – 23 percent for the specific bus line they were riding – 42
• Traveled over 25 miles to reach an intercity bus percent
station – 22 percent • Found information for their trip on Greyhound’s
website – 15 percent
Family members pick up and drop off
• Used Google Transit to plan their trip – 8 percent
Many riders rely on friends and family to get them to
the Travel Washington bus and pick them up at the Quality of services, features and facilities
other end of their journey. Riders perceive that services, features and facilities
• Driven to meet their bus by someone other than offered by Travel Washington contractors are high
an official transportation company or agency – 57 quality.
percent • Riders ratings were 4 to 4.5 stars (with 5 as the
• Met and picked up by someone they knew at the highest rating)
other end of the trip (excluding those who were • Nearly all riders surveyed would recommend the
destined for the airport) – 36 percent Travel Washington intercity bus service to others
• Reached the intercity bus station using local transit
services – 9 percent
CHAPTER 4 | C O N S U LTAT I O N A N D O U T R E A C H
PAG E 18T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
Summary of themes from subsidies for intercity bus service. This would ensure
that the agency does not use limited public funds in
consultation and outreach
markets where the private sector can profitably provide
General program observations unsubsidized intercity service.
Groups and markets with potential service needs Dependence of service expansion on Greyhound
Because Greyhound provides in-kind match for
Stakeholders identified three market segments as
the Travel Washington program, any reductions in
populations with potentially underserved needs in most
Greyhound service frequencies and routes could curtail
areas of the state:
the potential for expanded Travel Washington services.
• Veterans in rural areas accessing medical service As such, Travel Washington service providers were
centers run by the U.S. Department of Veterans cautious about expansion of their existing routes.
Affairs
Fluctuating travel demand
• University students making intercity trips
Travel Washington service providers observed that
• Corrections facility visitors and internees gas prices and the economy largely drive ridership.
Additional market observations for specific geographic Fluctuations in ridership can make it challenging for
areas are in the geographic-specific input section on the service providers to accurately forecast potential
following page. revenue when responding to WSDOT’s request for
proposals.
Terminals, transfers and connections
Timed connections with intermodal transportation Increased service frequencies
services In nearly all areas, Travel Washington riders expressed
Stakeholders generally acknowledged the need for Travel a desire for more frequent service. However, Travel
Washington schedules to coincide with connecting Washington operators noted that greater frequencies
intercity bus services such as Greyhound. They also said often spread the same rural ridership over more trips,
that Travel Washington service providers should consider resulting in a need for higher subsidies.
Amtrak, ferry and airline schedules when creating
Federal 5311(f) funding flexibility
timetables for the Travel Washington routes.
Local transportation service providers recommended
Bicycles on buses flexibility on types of projects and services eligible for
All Travel Washington buses have a bicycle rack that 5311(f) funding awarded by WSDOT. An example is
can accommodate two bicycles. However, some allowing public transit agencies to use 5311(f) funding
stakeholders felt that it is important for travelers with for intercity connections. Another is using 5311(f)
bicycles to have confidence that they will be able to funding for demand-response connecting service or
board the bus with their bicycle, even if the rack is full. fixed-route service that operates less than five days per
week to link rural areas to the intercity bus network.
Intercity bus demand and funding issues
Subsidies Pricing and ticketing
Providers consulted during the planning process Seamless service
confirmed that travel demand in most rural areas is Stakeholders expressed an interest in exploring how
not adequate to support free-market service, and they regional public transit providers could interline with the
would not be able to provide intercity bus service Travel Washington network to provide more seamless
without a public subsidy. service. This includes interlining ticket sales with
Greyhound. However, stakeholders were concerned that
Providers also felt that it is important for WSDOT
public transit providers may need additional employees
to monitor each market where the agency applies
to help with ticket sales.
CHAPTER 4 | C O N S U LTAT I O N A N D O U T R E A C H
PAG E 19T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
Fare consistency Geographic-specific input
Some stakeholders were confused with the difference in
Because stakeholders are familiar with the regions in
fares and pricing structures for each of the four Travel
which they live and work, much of the input received
Washington lines. They were also confused about fares
during consultation and outreach relates to specific
being different on public transit system routes when
geographic areas of the state.
compared to those of Travel Washington.
Issues related to connections between WSDOT regions
Marketing and information needs is in the Inter-Regional section of this chapter.
Online information Northwestern Washington
Rider surveys indicated that many people visit the • Improved connections for rural areas east of the I-5
Travel Washington service providers’ webpages to corridor
get information about their trip. Across all regions,
• Additional intercity service for new commercial air
stakeholders noted that service providers could improve
service in Everett
these websites. Additionally, stakeholders suggested
that service providers work with local public transit • Improved connections for Whidbey Island
agencies to add Travel Washington links to their • Additional service for northwestern Washington
websites.
Olympic Peninsula
Community outreach • Improvements to existing Dungeness Line:
Stakeholders appreciated the opportunity to
º Later departure from Port Townsend to connect
interact with WSDOT program managers during the
better with local transit services
development of the Travel Washington Intercity Bus
Program Study. They asked for more ongoing outreach º Bus stop at the University of Washington
to stay up to date on the Travel Washington program. Medical Center, which has a Link Light rail
Additionally, stakeholders indicated that continued station for access to SeaTac
participation in regional planning organization meetings, º Alternate route options when traveling from Port
periodic informational presentations for local elected Townsend toward the Kingston ferry terminal
bodies, and education for mobility managers would be to capture more passengers (e.g., route through
beneficial. Poulsbo)
Raising awareness º Extension to Tacoma
Stakeholders had several suggestions for promoting the • Improved access to communities on the I-5 corridor
Travel Washington program to help attract riders and for tribal members and residents on the Quinault
raise general awareness: Indian reservation
• Advertisements on local public transportation buses • Service connecting Seattle area with the Clallam Bay
and in theaters Corrections Center in Clallam Bay and the Olympic
• Advertisements for students and university Corrections Center in Forks
populations • New intercity route to connect Port Angeles,
• Public service announcements (radio and television) Bremerton and Tacoma
• Intercity bus information on Washington’s 2-1-1 Southwestern Washington
system, which is a free, confidential community • Improved access to the intercity bus system for
service and one-stop connection to local services Vancouver
with a database of over 27,000 resources
• Coastal connections
• Connection across the Columbia River Gorge
CHAPTER 4 | C O N S U LTAT I O N A N D O U T R E A C H
PAG E 20T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
Northcentral Washington • More service for US Highway 2 corridor
• Improvements to existing Apple Line: communities
º Schedule change to lessen the layover time for • Additional funding support for existing intercity
Spokane-bound passengers services if changes occur in ridership or costs in the
º Addition of a midday run from Pateros to future, such as for these routes:
Wenatchee º Northwestern Trailways: Spokane to Pullman to
º Route shortened by moving the northern Boise
terminus to Pateros and increasing regional º Greyhound: Spokane to Pasco to Portland
transit services for access to Omak
Southcentral Washington
º Extend route to Tonasket (Okanagan County) • Improvements to existing Grape Line:
and potentially to Ferry County
º Earlier departure time from Walla Walla so that
• Multimodal transit center for Ellensburg. passengers can make connections with Amtrak
• Route for college students at private universities in in the Tri-Cities
Toppenish and Terrace Heights º Multimodal transit center for Yakima
• Route connecting Cle Elum, Roslyn and Ronald, º Intercity bus stop for Connell
potentially with a weekly connector to Easton
• Additional service to Columbia, Kittitas and Walla
• Route connecting Ellensburg to Kittitas and Vantage Walla counties, which is currently limited to only
• Shared stop in Quincy for Northwestern Trailways Medicaid transport
and Grant Transit, providing connections with • Additional service to rural areas, specifically Dayton
Ephrata, which is losing its Northwestern Trailways and Waitsburg
stop
Inter-Regional
• Regional commuter service between Cle Elum and • Addition of an eastern to southcentral line that
Ellensburg includes stops in Pullman, Colfax and Connell (state
Eastern Washington corrections facility)
• Improvements to existing Gold Line: • Addition of a southwest to southcentral line that
º Extend the route to Republic connects Centralia to Yakima via U.S. Highway 12
º Alter the route to swing off US 395 to pick up • Addition of a southwest region line that connects to
passengers in Valley and Springdale; then return Oregon from Yakima to Portland
to US 395 • Addition of cross-state travel along the I-90
• Lower fares or voucher program for human service Corridor from Seattle to the Idaho state line with
agency clients and low-income residents intermediate stops at North Bend, Cle Elum and
Moses Lake
• Greater travel options from multiple directions for
the Pullman/Moscow area
CHAPTER 4 | C O N S U LTAT I O N A N D O U T R E A C H
PAG E 21T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N I N T E R C I T Y B U S P L A N U P D AT E — D E C E M B E R 2 0 19
CHAPTER 5
EVALUATION OF TRAVEL WASHINGTON SERVICES
This chapter evaluates the coverage, schedule Ridership: actual and predicted
convenience, customer satisfaction and performance
WSDOT collects Travel Washington ridership data from
the current Travel Washington routes.
service provider invoices. The agency summarizes the
data by route and schedule on a monthly and annual
Network coverage
basis. See Figure 6 for monthly ridership by route.
The four Travel Washington lines are an important part
of addressing unmet needs in areas where the private Figure 6: Travel Washington ridership – monthly
market does not provide bus service. boardings by route, July 2015-June 2018
Using Geographic Information System tools, WSDOT’s
analysis revealed that the Travel Washington service
adds 366,017 persons to the population within 10
miles of an intercity stop, or 5 percent of the state’s
population of 7,073,146. The added population
within 25 miles of the additional stops of the Travel
Washington routes is 1,195,361, or 17 percent of the
total state population.
Same-day round trip
WSDOT designed the Travel Washington routes to Overall, Travel Washington’s Dungeness Line has a
much higher basic level of demand than the other
provide for a same-day round trip. When combined with
routes. The other routes – Grape Line, Gold Line and
the unsubsidized services and the long-distance transit
Apple Line – have similar levels of demand that have
routes, many places have this level of service available.
stayed relatively constant over the two-year period. The
See Figure 5 for the route segments that allow same-
difference is that the Grape Line offers three round trips
day round trips.
per day; Gold Line offers two round trips per day; and
Apple Line offers a single daily round trip.
Quality of service
Readers should note that other unsubsidized carriers do
WSDOT surveyed passengers on the Travel Washington
not report ridership data to WSDOT. Additionally, Travel
routes. The survey included questions about customer
Washington service providers do not report ridership on
satisfaction and desired improvements. The results
unsubsidized routes or services.
for each line are in Technical Memorandum 5, which
is available upon request from the WSDOT Public Estimated demand
Transportation Division.
To determine whether Travel Washington ridership
Overall, satisfaction with the routes was high. Nearly was comparable to that of Section 5311(f) rural routes
100 percent of all surveyed riders would recommend in other states or if there was latent demand, WSDOT
Travel Washington to others. used the rural intercity bus demand model from the
In general, surveyed riders identified weaknesses with TCRP Report 1476 by the Transit Cooperative Research
Program with updated population statistics from the
onboard amenities, such as lack of wireless internet.
2010 census. WSDOT then used the characteristics of
6
Frederic D. Fravel, Reyes Barboza and Jason Quan of the KFH Group,
Inc, and Jason K. Sartori of Integrated Planning Consultants, LLC; TCRP
Report 147: Toolkit for Estimating Demand for Rural Intercity Bus
Services; Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2011.
CHAPTER 5 | E VA L U AT I O N O F T R AV E L WA S H I N G T O N S E R V I C E S
PAG E 22You can also read
