Intercity Bus Consultation

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Metropolitan Transportation Authority New Fare Payment Systems Update Presentation to Capital Program Oversight Committee May 23, 2011.
Advertisements

Minnesota Intercity Bus Network Study Project Advisory Committee Meeting: June 17, 2009.
Research Needs in the Intercity Bus and Rail Transportation Industry Chapter 28 Research Methodologies.
West Michigan Transit Linkages Study Wednesday, June 4 th, :00 a.m. Grand Valley State University Kirkhof Center Conference Room 2266.
Intercity Bus Program: Alternative Strategy for Rural Transport
National Transit Database Reporting Requirements May 15, 2007 Brett Harris, Ohio Dept of Transportation
Learning Objectives: The Distribution Mix and the Travel Trade
I-4 Ultimate with Lanes Project Central Florida 1 May 21, 2013.
Partnering with Greyhound 2009 CalACT 25 th Anniversary Spring Conference & EXPO Greyhound Lines, Inc. March 18, 2009.
Ohio DOT Greyhound Lines, Inc. February 8, 2008 Intercity Bus Consultation.
ANYBODY CAN RIDE! Examples of successful rural transit programs and practices elsewhere in the United States.
Virginia Statewide Intercity Bus Study: Final Report and Next Steps 0.
TPB Human Service Transportation Coordination Program 1 Key Elements of the Update to the Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan Human Service Transportation.
FirstClassPartnerships, Inc. (FCP), a well-respected leader in transportation planning, was contracted by the Ministry of Transportation.
OHIO & LAKE ERIE REGIONAL RAIL CLEVELAND HUB STUDY Ohio Rail Development Commission TMACOG Annual Transportation Summit September 29, 2003.
1 Priceline I Professor Joshua Livnat, Ph.D., CPA 311 Tisch Hall New York University 40 W. 4th St. NY NY Tel. (212) Fax (212)
New Intercity Bus Funding Approach Stephen Abernathy, AICP Intercity Bus Program Manager Public Transportation Division.
Calaveras Transit Intercity Service Feasibility Study Draft Alternatives Presented by: Gordon Shaw, PE, AICP and Genevieve Evans, AICP LSC Transportation.
Bill Brannan Northwestern Trailways National Bus Traffic Assn. The Intercity Bus Industry.
TPB Human Service Transportation Coordination Program 1 Key Elements of the Update to the Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan Human Service Transportation.
Recent Changes in Intercity Service Delivery in Minnesota 18 th National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus Transportation Gerry Weiss, State.
2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Final Approval GVMC Board May 7, 2015.
TRB – Omaha, NE National Conference on Rural Public & Intercity Bus Transportation October 20, 2008 Connecting The Dots Northwestern Trailways – Bill Brannan.
Cash Management Essentials of Corporate Finance Chapters 16 & 17 Materials Created by Glenn Snyder – San Francisco State University.
Randy Wade TRB Intercity Passenger Rail Committee Tuesday January 25, 2011 Washington, DC.
Transportation System Performance Measurement. MDOT’s First Transportation System Performance Report  Next Generation Road & Bridge Goals  Other Aspects.
Connecting with Greyhound CalACT Conference April 15, 2015.
Creating a Win-Win Relationship Presented by: John McCarthy GO Airport Express.
1 State of Good Repair Research Vincent Valdes Associate Administrator for Research, Demonstration, and Innovation July 9, 2009.
Airport Shuttle Agreements Presented by: John McCarthy GO Airport Express.
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTERMODAL DIVISION - TRANSIT Presented to G.A. MPO CONFERENCE November 2012.
January Utah Statewide Household Travel Study Study overview and results.
Keeping Harris County Moving.. Background Transit needs study in Commissioned by H-GAC and Harris County Transportation Coordinated Council.
Spring Conference & Expo Session: “Mobility Management Centers” April 18, :30 – 3:00 pm San Diego, CA.
December 12-13, 2007 Item 4.4 Tab 31 California State Rail Plan to
A Crisis In Transit Disinvestment by the State of Ohio July 2006.
“Modoc (Rural) Mobility Management Center” Pam Couch, Executive Director Modoc Transportation – Alturas, CA
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-10/0765r0 July 2012 Carl Kain, Noblis, Inc.Slide 1 Dynamic Mobility Integrated Dynamic Transit Operations Use Case for ISD Date:
00 Metropolitan Transit System Transit Serving Point Loma September 23, 2008.
Proposed Fare and Service Change Public Workshop Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.
Regional Transit Study Final Recommendations March 15, 2010.
1 Section 5317: New Freedom Program (NFP) David Schneider Federal Transit Administration ESPA National Steering Committee Meeting September 27, 2007.
2.09 -A MANAGE PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES. PROMOTIONAL MANGERS An entertainment promoter in industries like music, wrestling, and sports is a person or company.
BUSINESS STRATEGY AND PLAN 2010 Emerging Energy Solutions 1.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM JANUARY, 2014 UPDATE.
Hurst-Euless-Bedford Transit Pilot Project Regional Public Transportation Coordination Task Force James Powell North Central Texas Council of Governments.
2014 Mobility Fee Update Study Adoption Reading 1 October 21, 2014.
Transition to Adulthood Program (TAP)
Transit in Greater Arizona A Data-Driven Approach to Planning
Move New Haven Transit Mobility Study:
Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Update
Summary of Outreach Webpage with video & comment form Public meetings
Gunnison Valley Transportation Authority (RTA) 2016 Transit Planning Process Funded through a Section 5304 Planning Grant 5/23/2018.
Service Routes and Community Transit Hubs: Right Sizing Transit
RELATED TO AGENDA ITEM W1
Michael A. Case, Interim Executive Director
Top 5 Issues to Consider in Launching a Broadband Cooperative
Transportation Regional Incentive Program
Innovative Fare Programs for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities
Central Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination System
Managing Farebox Ratio
THE REAL INTERSTATE DRIVER'S EQUITY ACT
Lorain County Transit Needs Assessment
California’s Rural Intercity Bus System: 2018 Update
Where’s My Ride William Tsuei Director of IT.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha
National Transit Database Reporting Requirements
City of Bishop 2nd Annual Town Hall
Travel Washington 18th Biennial State Programs Meeting and
Best Practices and Promising Implementations
Presentation transcript:

Intercity Bus Consultation Greyhound Lines, Inc. Ohio DOT Intercity Bus Consultation February 8, 2008

Rural Feeder Service February 8, 2007 Greyhound has a strong interest in creating/maintaining successful interline relationships with coordinated rural feeder services. This is demonstrated by our having: Helped clarify & lower FMCSA insurance levels for rural transportation agencies; Create a special NBTA “sponsored transit category” with minimal costs & hassles; Create a special local match option for rural feeder services; & Effectively worked one-on-one to help establish feeder services February 8, 2007

Rural Feeder Service SAFETEA-LU creates new incentives for rural feeder service under state administered 5311(f) program, including: States now plan and consult with ICB industry Feeder service must make meaningful connections New local match option creates financial incentives for feeder services February 8, 2007

Rural Feeder Service February 8, 2007 Coordinated feeder services connections must be meaningful for the traveling public: Rural feeder services should be fixed schedule Proper operating authority & insurance Operated 7 days/week (minimum 5 days/week) Must not duplicate existing ICB service Proper ticketing & package express service Be included in TRIPS database February 8, 2007

Rural Feeder Service February 8, 2007 By FFY09, SAFETEA-LU funding will be approximately $76 million for the support of rural intercity bus service Ohio DOT has $2.84 mm in FFY09 funding SAFETEA-LU funding is now sufficient to create & implement new scheduled feeder bus services in areas of sufficient population density MAX and greyhound.com market and ticket the service nationwide to/from rural origins February 8, 2007

Walla Walla-Pasco-Yakima WashDOT sponsored & funded Private-for-profit feeder service operator was secured through RFP (likely to be negotiated for other projects) Greyhound supplies local in-kind match Stops @ existing intermodal (and other) facilities Serves additional market segments (e.g., airport, local service, etc.) February 8, 2007

Walla Walla-Pasco-Yakima February 8, 2007

Walla Walla-Pasco-Yakima Greyhound provided $400,000 in-kind match Feeder service operates 3 daily roundtrip schedules connecting with 3 daily Greyhound schedules Local & nationwide ticketing: Greyhound provided internet ticketing software (MAX), printer and keyboard (credit card swipe capability) & feeder provided computer for local sales; feeder can accept interline & telephone sales Ticket agent available at primary feeder service stops Feeder service is the agent in 1-2 locations and will receive a commission from Greyhound for tickets and package express sales in addition to their fares February 8, 2007

Charleston-Cincinnati-Toledo For Ohio example, I combined elements of GLI’s and Lakefront’s suggestions Lakefront would operate from Charleston (WV)-Cincinnati Greyhound would maintain Cincinnati-Toledo service Greyhound would supply in-kind match Stops would use existing and new stations February 8, 2007

Charleston-Cincinnati-Toledo February 8, 2007

Charleston-Cincinnati-Toledo Greyhound could provide up to $621,960 in-kind match Lakefront feeder service would run 1 daily roundtrip with meaningful schedule connections in both Cincinnati and Charleston (such a connection on east and west would likely improve farebox revenue) Lakefront already familiar with Greyhound MAX ticketing system New or existing ticket agents at all primary stops February 8, 2007

Charleston-Cincinnati-Toledo Charleston-Cincinnati (Lakefront= Point A to Point B service) 215 miles (1-way) x 2 (1 daily RT) = 430 miles/day 430 miles/day x 365 days/year = 156,950 miles/year 156,930 miles/year x $3.00/mile = $470,850/year Farebox revenue - $45,000 Net Deficit = $425,850 Cincinnati-Toledo (Greyhound= Point B to Point C service) 200 miles (1-way) x 4 (2 daily RT) = 800 miles/day 800 miles/day x 365 days/year = 292,000 miles/year 292,000 miles/year x $2.13/mile (50% of $4.25/mile) = $621,960/year Charleston-Toledo (Project=Point A to B to C service) Total Project Cost = $986,700 Less farebox revenue = $45,000 (conservative estimate) Net deficit = $941,700 5311(f) = $470,850 (50% of net deficit) In-kind match = $470,850 (50% of net deficit) February 8, 2007