Introduction - Ohio Department of Transportation

INTERCITY BUS NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF OHIO

PREPARED FOR THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF TRANSIT

JUNE 2007

PREPARED BY

Transportation Consultants 6112 Waterloo Rd Dayton Ohio 45459

937.435.7771

INTERCITY BUS NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF OHIO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................... 1 Overview of FTA Section 5311(f) Program ................................................... 3 Study Scope .................................................................................... 5 Literature Review ................................................................................ 6 Existing Conditions .............................................................................. 11

Existing Stops and Terminals ..................................................... 11 Ohio's Rural Areas ............................................................... 14 Existing Public Transit Feeder Services ........................................ 16 Existing Coordination Agreements .............................................. 16 Identification Of Unmet Need ................................................................. 17 Geospatial Analysis: Reasonable Access ......................................... 17 Demographic Indicators ............................................................ 22 Survey Of Communities Without Reasonable Access ........................ 25 Survey Of Ohio Rural Public Transit Agencies ................................... 30 Survey of Ohio Intercity Bus Operators........................................ 36 Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 42

APPENDICES

1

Listing of Census Tracts Outside Reasonable Access to ICB/Highlighted for Medium to High Relative Transit Propensity ..............................................

37

2 Survey Instrument for Rural Communities Outside Reasonable Access ............... 42

3 Survey Instrument for Ohio Rural Transit Agencies.................................... 44

4 February 2007 Greyhound Lines, Inc. Letter on Needs ................................ 57

Lakatos Group

Ohio Intercity Transit Study ? Unmet Needs

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) MAPS

Map

MAPS

1 Ohio Intercity Carrier Depots ............................................................ 14

2 Intercity Bus Stops With 25-Mile Radius Reasonable Access Areas ............ 18

3 Population Affected By Closing of Greyhound Stops .............................. 19

4 Greyhound and Lakefront Locations Within 25-miles Of The Ohio Border .... 20

5 Transit Propensity at the Census Tract Level ....................................... 23

6

Ohio Transit Propensity By Census Tract With Rural Transit Agencies And Intercity Carriers ........................................................ 24

7 Community Survey ? Importance of Intercity Transit .............................. 25

8-12 Lakefront Lines Suggested Routes .................................................... 39-41

Lakatos Group

Ohio Intercity Transit Study ? Unmet Needs

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

With the passage of ISTEA and again in TEA-21, states were allowed to redirect some or all Section 5311(f) program funds for other rural transit purposes if the Governor certified that there were no unmet intercity bus (ICB) needs in the State. With the passage of SAFETEA-LU, states are now required to consult with affected ICB operators before the Governor can make this certification. And FTA has proposed guidelines that set forth the intended consultation guidelines.

Currently, there are 31 ICB stops or terminals in the State of Ohio. Greyhound is the major ICB operator in the State with 29 bus stops or terminals. Lakefront Lines also provides ICB services and has 15 bus stops or terminals in the State of Ohio -- 10 of which are shared with Greyhound, three (3) of which serve the same cities as Greyhound but have separate bus stop locations, and two (2) of which serve cities not served by Greyhound.

As in other parts of the country, Ohio has been impacted by a Greyhound restructuring that began in 2004 and ended services to nearly 1,000 (mostly rural) communities nationwide. This study estimates approximately 400,000 rural residents in the State of Ohio (12% of Ohio's rural residents) live outside "reasonable" access to an ICB stop or terminal at the present time. That number is higher than past numbers because of the Greyhound restructuring. From June 2005 and October 2006 alone, Greyhound closed nine (9) of its stops which resulted in approximately 200,000 rural residents losing "reasonable" access to an intercity service. This is consistent with Greyhound's stated objective of maintaining a core ICB network and encouraging the creation of an effective feeder network. Surveys conducted as a part of this study indicate that feeder services to ICB are few and far between. In fact, only six (6) of the 22 responding Ohio rural public transit agencies report any feeder service to an ICB stop or connection (such as an urban public transit park-and-ride that connects to ICB). Three (3) of the six (6) provide that service on occasion as demand warrants.

Fourteen of Ohio's 34 rural transit agencies have service areas that are beyond a "reasonable" distance for rural residents to access ICB stops. However, only one (1) of those report feeder services to an ICB stop or terminal. (Five (5) of these did not complete a survey.) All 16 of the transit agencies without current feeder services to ICB, report that they have never provided such services. Only one (1) rural transit agency has an existing coordination agreement (Athens Transit and Lakefront Lines). However, there appears to be some confusion about the characteristics of ICB service versus those of regional circulation-type bus services, particularly within responding communities. For example, 10 of the 11 communities who reported intercity feeder service in their communities, appear to have mistakenly reported local transportation services vs. connections to ICB stops or terminals.

Using geospatial analysis, the study identified 207 Ohio cities and villages outside of a reasonable access to ICB service. When evaluating transit propensity for those census tracts outside reasonable access, the South Central portion of Ohio has the most noticeable concentration of high transit-propensity populations. Noticeable concentrations were also shown in Belmont and Eastern Geauga Counties.

Lakatos Group

Ohio Intercity Transit Study ? Unmet Needs

1

Most (62.1%) responding communities disagree with the statement that transportation services within their communities are fully met. However, the vast majority (82.8%) do not believe that ICB is an issue for their community. Their perceived needs appear to be more in terms of local services such as trips to the doctors and surrounding communities versus ICB type services. Only nine (9) communities that reported that ICB service is an issue for their communities: Bethel, Fayetteville, Lancaster, Martinsburg, Painesville, Portsmouth, Proctorville, Sidney and Wintersville. On a scale of 1 to 5, approximately one-third reported that ICB service was of low importance, slightly more than one-third gave importance an average rating, and slightly less than one-third gave importance a high rating. Interestingly, a number of community comments reflect a perception that their community is not of the size necessary to support ICB service, consequently, the issue of unmet need does not apply to them.

Sixteen (72.7%) of Ohio rural transit agencies responding to the survey indicated unmet needs for ICB services in their respective service areas, and provided suggested improvements. Connections to larger urban areas such as Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Dayton were mentioned as well as more accessible ICB stations/stops. However, when asked about the need for additional investments, rural transit agencies were much more likely to see a need for more investment in local transit services rather than in ICB services, particularly in the areas of marketing/planning and coordination.

Greyhound's recommendations relative to need reflect a desire for state level comprehensive program planning, wherein its current network is supported through coordinated rural public transit feeder services, and capital investments are made in its facilities and the facilities of its agents. Lakefront, on the other hand, is struggling to fill a void created when Greyhound discontinued certain services. Lakefront makes specific route recommendations for federal operating assistance in support of the continuation and/or expansion of certain ICB services.

This study was primarily concerned with assessing need based on existing conditions, demographic indicators, and solicited input from communities, rural transit providers, and ICB operators. Formal state certification of need must be made in a consultative process with the ICB industry in Ohio. These study results do suggest, however, the need for state level policy decisions regarding the role of ICB service in meeting ODOT's mission and state goals for public transportation, incentives to encourage coordination between ICB and rural transit operations, and operating assistance for certain services that have been discontinued due to Greyhound's restructuring.

Lakatos Group

Ohio Intercity Transit Study ? Unmet Needs

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download