Intercity Bus Study 5311/Update

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

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

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

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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

14. Thank You!