Minnesota Intercity Bus Network Study

1
Minnesota Intercity Bus Network Study

• Project Advisory Committee Meeting May 6, 2009

2
Agenda

• Review of Scope
• Progress to Date
• Overview of Technical Memorandum 3 Action Plan
• Current Program Issues
• Next Steps

3
Project Scope

• Task 1 Background and Context
• Task 2 Data Collection and Needs Assessment
• Task 3 Action Plan
• Task 4 Findings and Recommendations
• Task 5 Project Evaluation (Methodology)
• Task 6 Final Report

4
Action Plan

• Develop Policies, Goals, Objectives, Performance
  Measures, and Strategies
• Recommended Future Networks2011 and 2020
• Costs
• Funding Scenarios
• Funding Sources
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Pilot
  Program as a Strategy
• Consultation Process

5
Goals

• Goals
• Support services to meet the intercity travel
  needs of residents in nonurbanized areas
• Support meaningful connections between
  nonurbanized areas and the regional or national
  system of intercity bus service
• Provide for maximum feasible coordination of
  services with local public transit and other
  modes to provide intermodal mobility

6
Strategies

• Seek to maintain existing rural bus services at
  frequencies that meet minimum requirements for
  cost-effective service (defined in terms of
  performance measures)
• Provide services on schedules that allow daytime
  trips to and from the Twin Cities from Greater
  Minnesota
• Provide intercity connections to key destinations
  including residential higher education
  facilities, military bases, state and federal
  correctional facilities, and major medical
  facilities
• Support infrastructure used to provide intercity
  services

7
Measures

• Provide intercity access (meaningful connection
  to the national intercity network) for at least x
  percent of Minnesotas population (defined as
  living within 25 miles of an intercity bus stop),
  even if service expansion is required (will need
  to use a continuous measurement (ACS))
• Provide intercity service to all of Minnesotas
  primary and secondary trade centers
• Provide for service on routes that achieve a 20
  farebox recovery within 18 months of startup

8
Program Priorities

• Operating Assistance
• Provide a meaningful connection to existing
  intercity services
• Shared or co-located stops
• Coordinated schedules
• Information
• Maintain existing service coverage
• Both limited stop and local service in corridors
  that can support it (e.g. Minneapolis-Duluth,
  Minneapolis-Fargo)
• For new service
• Initiate services as demonstration projects, with
  continuation dependent on achieving minimal
  performance thresholds
• In areas identified as having a high potential
  need (based on demographic characteristics
  including density of autoless households, young
  adult population, older adult population, and
  persons with mobility limitations) or key
  destinations (higher education, major medical,
  military, correctional facilities)
• Where potential demand (based on population,
  etc.) shows potential for ridership levels that
  would enable the service to be cost-effective
• For funded service that is not achieving farebox
  requirements
• Initiate intensive and targeted marketing
  efforts, including both surveys of users and
  promotional activities
• Adjust service levels to improve performance
  (less than weekday service, revised routing,
  smaller vehicles, less costly operators)
• If that fails, seek non-intercity service
  alternatives and/or discontinue service

9
Program Priorities (cont.)

• Capital Assistance
• Capitalized maintenance for scheduled service
  vehicles operated by S.5311(f) carriers
• Vehicle capital in cases where carrier vehicles
  are not appropriate (too large, too costly) for
  the level of ridershipe.g. the most rural routes
  (state would retain its vested interest in
  vehicles, so that if there was a change in
  carrier, the vehicle would continue to be
  available to serve that route, or could be
  shifted to another rural route)
• Limited assistance for improvements to dedicated
  intercity bus stations/stops, as a less priority
  after other needs are met

10
Program Priorities (cont.)

• Marketing and Information systems
• Carrier marketing for subsidized routes
• Information systems to provide public information
  on the intercity network (e.g. Google Transit,
  MnDOT intercity bus information page with links,
  through Mobility Managers)

11
Strategies Near-Term

• Provide for funding to maintain existing
  endangered services (e.g. Twin Cities-Duluth,
  Twin Cities-Fargo) currently operated by
  Greyhound, until general application cycle
• Develop policy for multiple carriers on same
  corridor (avoid duplication, equitable funding),
  and for service withdrawals during term of grant
  agreement
• Investigate potential for joint funding of
  interstate rural services with adjacent states
  affected by recent or potential future service
  losses
• North Dakota (Fargo) and points west
• Michigan/Wisconsin to the northeast and east
• Provide vehicle capital for low-ridership rural
  services to reduce costs, provide appropriate
  size vehicles (ARRA), allow large vehicles to be
  deployed elsewhere
• Consider potential rural transit operators for
  feeder services that have low ridership levels -
  e.g., the Sioux Falls-St. Cloud via Marshall, or
  new rural feeders (Hibbing-Virginia-Grand Rapids)
• Improve connectivity
• including linkages between rural public and human
  service transportation and rural intercity bus
  service
• Through mobility management
• Through interlining of intercity bus and feeder
  services (under NBTA)
• Fund or provide for improved network information
  on the internet, other sources

12
Strategies Long-Term

• Consider providing funding for some (25?) or all
  of the local operating match from other sources
• Private carriers are generally reluctant to apply
  or bid to provide assisted services if they have
  to provide 50 of the net operating deficit
  (Minnesota has benefited from an exceptional
  carrier)
• The need to minimize the net operating deficit
  places pressure on the carrier to reduce
  operating coststhis is good and bad (focus on
  more efficient services is good, minimal service
  levels may be a concern)
• Step outside the S.5311(f) funding program to
  consider
• A higher level of intercity/regional connectivity
  in terms of coverage, frequencywhat would we
  want if funding was not so constrained by program
  requirements? Regional services that address
  commuter needs? Higher frequencies? More express
  services between larger towns?
• The role of the airport providers as intercity
  carrierscould they meet some of the identified
  needs, either under S.5311(f), or outside it? Is
  there a public role, or are they doing fine
  without assistance?
• Major intermodal connectivitySt. Paul station,
  MSP as intermodal hub, etc.

13
Recommended Future Networks-2010

• Very similar to current network
• Potentially adding service from Virginia,
  Hibbing, Grand Rapids areaeither to feed
  Greyhound in Duluth, or replacement of former
  Lorenz service to Twin Cities
• Possible consideration of how to build upon
  Arrowhead connection to/from International Falls

14
Recommended Future Networks-2020

• Unconstrained by current levels of S.5311(f)
  funding
• Express and local services on major corridors, at
  least daily frequencies on all corridors
• Complementary to any expanded rail passenger
  services
• Potential additional coverage
• More regional links to intercity networkneeds
  areas in southwest of state?
• Rochester connections to Twin Cities?
• Rural feeders with coordinated schedules (could
  be demand-response)?

15
Costs

• Will be developed by route/service using current
  cost levels of likely providers (intercity rates
  for intercity routes, rural public costs for
  regional/rural feeder routes)

16
Funding Scenarios

• Scenario 1 Current S.5311(f) funding levels
  continuegrowth under SAFETEA-LU levels off to
  inflation growth, no state match
• Scenario 2 Current S.5311(f) federal funding (as
  in 1), but other matching funding is provided for
  a portion of local operating match, local capital
  match
• Scenario 3 As previous, but other matching funds
  provide all local match for intercity projects
• Scenario 4 Financially unconstrained long-term
  futurehigher subsidy levels from sources not as
  yet identified (revenues from cap and trade
  emissions taxes or auto disincentives? As part of
  a federal surface program that includes
  high-speed rail and enhance intercity bus? Under
  new federal or state programs?)

17
FTA Pilot Program

• FTA guidance allows a change in project
  definition to include both subsidized rural
  segment and unsubsidized connecting services to
  be included in a single project
• The capital value (50 of fully-allocated cost
  per mile) of the connecting unsubsidized
  intercity bus service to be used as in-kind local
  operating match
• The support of the carrier operating the
  unsubsidized segment is an FTA requirement
• Depending on the length of the connecting service
  and the frequencies, the FTA funding may cover
  100 of the net operating deficit, or a lesser
  percentage
• At the higher percentage level, the available
  S.5311(f) operating dollars are used twice as fast

18
FTA Pilot Program in Minnesota

• MnDOT is already using the program to provide
  match for the St. Cloud-Sioux Falls route, with
  the in-kind match provided by Jefferson Lines
  based on its unsubsidized services
• Current use in Minnesota has focused on the route
  with the greatest net deficit, which would
  require the largest cash match from the carrier
• Greyhound may seek to use this method to provide
  its own match if it applies for funding on any of
  its remaining routes, as it would reduce or
  eliminate the local match requirementthis could
  be a policy issue if other carriers have to
  provide cash match for some or all of their
  routes
• The Pilot Project was originally considered as a
  way to provide for local match for rural transit
  systems providing feeder routes, who could not
  get local public cash match for these intercity
  or out-of-jurisdiction routesperhaps focusing
  Pilot Project funding on rural public feeders
  would make sense, given limited funds and the
  lower operating costs of such carriers

19
Pilot Project Issues

• The scope for increased use of the Pilot Project
  in Minnesota depends on carrier policy regarding
  provision of local matchif a carrier wishes to
  minimize its match contribution, it might seek to
  focus in-kind resources more
• Depends on the availability of S.5311(f) funds
  not already committed
• May raise equity issues between carriers that
  provide local cash match versus those offering
  in-kind only
• May be limited because the unsubsidized network
  is not large, so the availability of in-kind
  match may be an issue

20
Consultation Process

• SAFETEA-LU requires states to conduct a
  consultation process that includes the private
  intercity carriers as part of its decision on
  certifying that there are no (or partial) unmet
  rural intercity needs requiring the use of
  S.5311(f) funding.
• Minnesota has not so certified for a number of
  years and so technically may not need to conduct
  the consultation processbut it is a sound
  planning policy to assess needs on a regular
  periodic basis, and would be good to conduct from
  an FTA state management review perspective.
• The process calls for identification of potential
  carriers, contacting them to solicit input as to
  rural intercity needs, potentially conducting
  other studies (such as this one) to determine
  needs, and then making a policy determination in
  light of the identified needs.
• A product of this study will be a defined set of
  steps that Minnesota will use to conduct the
  consultation process on an on-going basis. This
  document will be suitable for inclusion in the
  State Management Plan, the Rural Intercity
  Program Guide and Application, etc.

21
Next Steps

• Develop Findings and Recommendations
• Final Report Outline
• Linkages to other state policy documents
• Project Evaluation Methodology
• Benefits of intercity bus
• Project assessment methodology
• Draft Report
• Final Report