Utah Intercity Bus Study

20th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus
Transportation—October 14-17, 2012, Salt Lake City, Utah
Rural Intercity Transit Program
Development for Utah
Fred Fravel, KFH Group
Jason Green, Lochner
For the Utah Department of Transportation - Public Transit Team
Why Focus on Intercity Bus Service?
 Loss of intercity bus service—Greyhound restructuring of
2005-6
 Availability of funding for rural intercity bus service from the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) under the Section 5311(f) program:
 15% of each state’s Section 5311 allocation is set-aside for
rural intercity bus service unless the state certifies that
there are no unmet rural intercity bus needs
 Funding can be used for operating assistance, capital,
planning, and marketing
 Funding is to be used for services that meet the definition
of intercity bus service:
 Not commuter service
 Fixed-route, capable of carrying baggage
 Meaningful connection with national intercity network
 Federal Transit Administration oversight of requirements in SAFETEALU calling for a consultation process before certifying that there are
no unmet rural intercity needs
Additional Developments Prompting Utah’s
Consideration of a Section 5311(f) Program :

Utah’s public transit-human service coordination planning
process identified potential needs for intercity services, or
connections to existing services

Opportunity to use “in-kind” operating match (now
included in MAP-21 reauthorization)

ARRA funding availability for rural intercity capital

Colorado interest in the US 40 corridor linking the two
states
Utah Intercity Bus Study
 Completed in September 2009
Included:
o Review of previous planning studies
o Inventory of current intercity bus providers
o Demographic analysis
o Identification of potential key destinations
o Input from providers, local officials, and other stakeholders
Recommendations:
o Develop a rural intercity program element in the state’s
overall public transportation program
o Use the in-kind funding method to implement new services
on identified corridors using an RFP process
o Provide capital funding for vehicles to operate new services
Review of Previous Planning Studies:
July 1996: “Assessment of Availability and Need for Inter-City Bus
Services in Utah” documented reduction from 101 stops in 1980
(Greyhound & Trailways) to 31 in 1995
July 2007: Utah’s Coordinated Human Service Public Transportation
Plan:
o Stranded visitors and transients unable to continue journey or
access human services
o Local residents unable to reach medical appointments or perform
other errands
 Uintah Basin Public Transit Business Plan
o Initiated CDOT-UDOT partnership
o RFP advertised in December 2008
o Greyhound Lines initiated service between Salt Lake City and
Denver via US 40 in November 2009
Inventory of Current Providers: Where are
current intercity bus services located?
 Fourteen providers of regularly
scheduled intercity and regional bus
services:
o Greyhound Lines
o Salt Lake Express
o Bighorn Express
o Alltrans, Inc.
o Vernal Shuttle
o St. George Shuttle
o Hail Harry
o Cedar City Shuttle
o Go Green Shuttle
o Utah Trailways
o Aztec Shuttle
o St. George Express
o Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
o Cache Valley Transit District
(CVTD)
Demographic Analysis:
Identify persons with characteristics similar to those of intercity bus
passengers
Young adults
The elderly
People with low income
People with disabilities
Autoless households
Density adjustment
Establishing Intercity Bus Need:
Destinations
Colleges and universities
Correctional facilities
Hospitals
Major airports
Military Installations
Recreation sites
Input: March 2009 Workshop
Input from over sixty persons--transportation providers,
elected leaders and government officials—provided at workshop
Regional break-out groups identified service needs in all the
towns identified by the study process as having needs—plus
some additional locations
Providing a greater awareness of existing services identified as
a need statewide
Greater coordination among transportation providers,
including both private and public operators, is needed to create
a usable network of services
Recommended
Services:
New Service Routes:
o The U.S. 40 corridor
o The U.S. 89 corridor
o Delta to Provo/Salt Lake City
o Kanab to St. George
o Moab, with multiple options
including service to/from
Blanding and Monticello, to
Green River (and potentially
to Provo/Salt Lake City)
Investment In Marketing And
Coordination To Increase Awareness
Of Services
Initial Implementation: US 40 Corridor—Salt
Lake City to Denver:
Opportunity to initiate program with joint project for service over
the U.S. 40 Corridor from Salt Lake City to Denver
Joint project with Colorado Department of Transportation
CDOT conducted solicitation of grant applications for service
operation
UDOT provided capital for buses under ARRA
In-kind funding method used with Greyhound providing its own
match
Service in Greyhound Timetable Number 364, schedules 1314
(eastbound) and 1347 (westbound)
Recommended approach for Additional
Program Development:
UDOT should not certify no unmet needs—both analysis and input
at the workshop identified intercity service needs
Offer a Section 5311(f) program separate from the overall Section
5311 grant program
Begin with a solicitation for service in a limited number of
corridors in addition to the US 40 project
Use the in-kind funding method so that carriers or localities do not
have to provide local cash match for operating projects
Use an RFP process to solicit bids to provide desired routes
Continue planning and consultation process
Establishing Intercity Bus Need:
Statewide Outreach--Continued
January 12, 2011 Statewide Outreach Session –
1. Reviewed Utah’s intercity transportation\
Needs, Desires, Planning
2. Discussed potential solutions to address intercity
transportation needs
3. Marketing and Branding—State role, or carrier?
4. TIGER Support—potential for capital for intercity bus
Development of RFP:

UDOT developed a Request for Proposals for Specific
Routes/Services:

For service from Salt Lake City to Richfield, and Salt Lake City
to Moab

Done through UDOT contracting process, not as a grant
solicitation

Required use of In-kind Match, evidence of Greyhound
willingness to provide match

Required interline ticketing

Did not include vehicle capital
Initial Procurement Process:

RFP development and approval process



Issued: December 1, 2011
Pre-bid meeting held on December 8 & 9, 2011
Proposal Deadline: January 20, 2012

3 proposals – one omitted due to BidSync issues

Evaluation committee formed, included UDOT staff, regional
planning, consultants

Procurement process cancelled due to: very vague responses to
RFP items
Revised Procurement Process:


Revised RFP issued on June 2, 2012
Deadline: August 3, 2012

More specific about Business Development and Project
Management
 Documentatin of coordination with regional governments and
entities
 Reporting knowledge/Capabilities
 Understanding of Compliance
 Training and Safety Programs
 Procurement
 Customer Service and Sensitivity Training and Programs

Two proposals submitted
Next Steps:

Official Selection 9/29/12

Contract execution

Monitoring and technical assistance as operators prepare for
operations:
 Ensure compliance
 Interline ticketing and schedule information
 Final stop locations and signage
 Local coordination and marketing

Focus on development of statewide information and marketing
recommendations from the UDOT ICB Plan