1 / 14

Intercity Bus Study 5311/Update

Dr. Thomas Pogue Associate Director Center for Business and Policy Research University of the Pacific. Intercity Bus Study 5311/Update. CalACT 2017 Fall Conference, November 3, 2017. California Statewide Rural Intercity Bus Study (CIBS) 2017 Update. Background Contextual Analysis

allyson
Download Presentation

Intercity Bus Study 5311/Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Dr. Thomas Pogue Associate Director Center for Business and Policy Research University of the Pacific Intercity Bus Study 5311/Update CalACT 2017 Fall Conference, November 3, 2017

  2. California Statewide Rural Intercity Bus Study (CIBS) 2017 Update • Background Contextual Analysis • October 2016 – March 2017 • Needs Assessment • April – July 2017 • Stakeholder and public outreach • August – November 2017 • Planning Integration & Action Plan • April – December 2017 • Updated Statewide CIBS • January 2017 – March 2018

  3. Stakeholder and public outreach • Steering Committee • MPO/RTPA Survey • Transit Agency Survey • Follow-up discussions on surveys • Structured interviews validating Needs Report • Outreach Workshops

  4. What matters? • Priorities in intercity bus service? • Capital • Operating • Planning/Marketing • Coordination • Intermodalism and essential transportation services • Strategic corridors and/or unmet needs

  5. Initial findings • Should inter-city transit funding focus on developing and sustaining movement along the interregional corridors identified in the 2015 ITSP?

  6. Initial findings • If the 2015 ITSP Corridors are targeted should certain other interregional needs, be given interregional funding resources even if they are not part of an ITSP Corridor?? – but its complicated

  7. Initial findings • Rank of Intercity Bus Goals (4= Most Important): • Providing a seamless inter-regional service 3.3 • Enhancing and expanding regional bus service 3.0 • Inter-agency coordination 2.5 • Marketing and informational network development 1.3

  8. Initial findings • Importance of these objectives? (5=Most Important): • Ensuring intercity bus service connects to key primary destinations (i.e. medical facilities, educational institutions, etc.) 4.4 • Ensuring intercity stations/terminals are part of or connect to larger regional/national systems of intercity travel 4.2 • Ensuring intercity bus service connects to other modes of transportation 4.1 • Ensuring intercity stations/terminals are a primary destination 3.8 • Ensuring coordination, ridership, mobility, quality and efficiency of service are enhanced through informational outreach and marketing 3.6

  9. Initial findings • Importance of 5311(f) eligibility? (5=Most Important): • Operating Assistance 4.8 • Vehicle (Bus) Purchase 4.3 • Intercity Bus Transit Infrastructure 4.0 • Bus Related Equipment 3.8 • Planning and Marketing Studies 3.1

  10. Initial findings • Importance of 5311(f) objectives? (5=Most Important): • Supporting services to meet the intercity travel needs of residents in non-urbanized areas 4.68 • Supporting connection between non-urbanized areas and the larger regional/national system of intercity bus service 4.65 • Supporting the intercity bus network's growth to address service gaps 4.56 • Supporting the intercity bus network's infrastructure through capital investment in facilities 3.96 • Supporting the intercity bus network's infrastructure through planning and marketing assistance 3.20

  11. Initial findings • Support or oppose the following (5=Highest Support): • Allow 5311(f) funding to favor intercity bus routes that are part of the corridors identified in the 2015 ITSP, but also allocate a fixed share or value of funding to intercity bus routes in rural areas outside of those corridors. 3.9 • Prioritizing 5311(f) funding to intercity bus services based on measures related to the program's objectives, such as inter-modal connectivity, resident needs, and key locations served by the intercity service. 3.6 • Allow 5311(f) funding to prioritize existing intercity bus services, but also allocate a fixed share or value of funding to expanding or developing new intercity bus services 3.1 • Focus 5311(f) funding on intercity bus services that are part of the corridors identified in the 2015 ITSP - whether they are existing, expanding or new - before any funding goes to intercity bus services in other areas. 3.0 • Making 5311(f) funding available only to existing intercity bus services, with only funds left over afterwards being available to expand or develop new intercity bus services 3.0

  12. Initial findings • Provider type emphasis? (5=Greatest Emphasis): • Public transit providers 4.3 • Public-private partnerships 3.7 • Private transit providers 3.4

  13. Thank You!

More Related