Get documents about "INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY
Document Sample
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
January 16, 2009
Prepared by:
RLS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Today’s Solutions for Tomorrow’s Transportation Needs
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1
Study Purpose ...................................................................................... 1
Study Methodology............................................................................... 1
Intercity Bus Service Defined ............................................................... 2
FTA PROGRAMS ........................................................................................4
Section 5311(f)...................................................................................... 4
HISTORY OF INTERCITY BUS SERVICE IN THE U.S. .................................8
EXISTING INTERCITY BUS SERVICE IN INDIANA ................................... 11
Burlington Trailways ............................................................................ 11
Greyhound Lines, Inc.......................................................................... 13
Indian Trails......................................................................................... 15
Lakefront Trailways ............................................................................. 16
MEGABUS .......................................................................................... 16
INDIANA’S SECTION 5311(F) SUPPORTED EFFORTS ............................ 18
Past ..................................................................................................... 18
Present ................................................................................................ 18
Project Solicitation .............................................................................. 19
INTERCITY BUS NEEDS ........................................................................... 21
3131 S Dixie Hwy ● Dayton, Ohio 45439 ● 937.299.5007 voice ● 937.299.1055 fax ● www.rlsandassoc.com
ASSESSMENT OF OTHER STATE DOT INTERCITY PROGRAMS ............... 34
Oregon ................................................................................................ 34
Pennsylvania ....................................................................................... 35
Iowa .................................................................................................... 36
Georgia ............................................................................................... 38
North Carolina ..................................................................................... 39
Ohio .................................................................................................... 41
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL INTERCITY BUS PROGRAMS ....... 42
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 43
ASSESSMENT OF INDIANA’S CURRENT SECTION 5311(F) INTERCITY
BUS PROGRAM........................................................................................ 46
Proposed Section 5311(f) Process ..................................................... 48
Criteria to Screen Services Proposed from Returned Surveys ........... 49
Application Evaluation Criteria (points based) ................................... 49
AMTRAK PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ..................................................... 50
Major Facilities .................................................................................... 53
Station Improvements ......................................................................... 54
Other State Rail Services .................................................................... 54
Passenger Rail Service Needs ........................................................... 59
State-Supported Amtrak Service ........................................................ 63
Amtrak Service .................................................................................... 67
3131 S Dixie Hwy ● Dayton, Ohio 45439 ● 937.299.5007 voice ● 937.299.1055 fax ● www.rlsandassoc.com
Recommendations for Further Consideration of State-Supported
Amtrak service .................................................................................... 69
3131 S Dixie Hwy ● Dayton, Ohio 45439 ● 937.299.5007 voice ● 937.299.1055 fax ● www.rlsandassoc.com
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
STUDY PURPOSE
Indiana, like other states across the country, has seen the abandonment of numerous
unprofitable intercity bus routes as a result of federal deregulation of the intercity bus industry
in the early 1980’s. The termination of intercity bus routes had a profound impact on the
volume of available service, particularly in rural areas.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the status of the intercity bus industry in Indiana, with
particular emphasis on assessing the need for intercity bus service across the state. The
study evaluates the impact of service changes over the past thirty-two years. Further, the
study addresses the federal requirements associated with the receipt of federal Section
5311(f) funds and the current use of these intercity bus funds, and provides
recommendations for utilizing these funds to enhance the future provision of intercity bus
service. In addition to intercity bus service, the study also evaluates the utilization of
Indiana’s Amtrak service and the possibility of using state funds to support passenger rail
service in the future.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
The study methodology consisted of data collection and evaluation followed by the
determination of recommended policies. The following study methodology was utilized:
♦ Collect data on existing intercity bus services and evaluate intercity routes and
schedules to determine statewide service trends, ridership and number of communities
served;
♦ Collect and evaluate survey data from rural public transportation providers, local
governmental officials, economic development offices, and other community groups to
determine the adequacy of existing services and the need for additional intercity
service;
♦ Evaluate other state DOT intercity bus programs to determine their methodology for
using Section 5311(f) funds and the structure of their program pursuant to SAFETEA–
LU (Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005);
♦ Evaluate INDOT’s Section 5311(f) program from the perspective of the volume of funds
utilized, the impact of the services provided with these funds, and other rural public
transportation needs in the state to determine recommendations for future use of these
funds and the “governor’s certification” process;
♦ Prepare recommendations for INDOT’s intercity bus program and specifically the
Section 5311(f) program and project funding process; and
♦ Evaluate Amtrak operating statistics and service utilization in Indiana and provide
recommendations regarding the use of state funds to support the service.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 1
Note that federal regulations require states to expend 15 percent of their Section 5311
Nonurbanized Area Formula Program apportionment “to carry out a program to develop and
support intercity bus transportation,” unless the governor certifies that “the intercity bus
service needs of the state are being met adequately.”
INTERCITY BUS SERVICE DEFINED
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has defined intercity bus service as:
Regularly scheduled bus service for the general public which operates with limited stops
over fixed routes connecting two or more urban areas not in close proximity, which has
the capacity for transporting baggage carried by passengers, and which makes
meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant points, if
such service is available. Package express service may also be included, if incidental to
passenger transportation. Intercity service is not limited by the size of the vehicle used or
by the identity of the carrier.
FTA provides the following characteristics of intercity bus service:
♦ Regularly scheduled bus service;
♦ Available to the general public;
♦ Makes limited stops;
♦ Operates on fixed routes;
♦ Connects two or more urban areas not in close proximity;
♦ Makes meaningful connections (if available);
♦ Predominantly passenger service (any package /goods service incidental);
♦ Not a commuter service; and
♦ Not air, water or rail service (bus only)
Additionally, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has defined intercity bus service as
regular-route service that meets the following criteria:
♦ Operates between two or more cities, towns, or isolated clusters;
♦ Operates on a fixed schedule;
♦ Carries the general public and is not subject to preconditions for passage; and
♦ Does not operate wholly within urbanized areas.
A recent Washington State Department of Transportation intercity bus study described the
following population characteristics of individuals more likely to use intercity bus services:
♦ Youth (18-24 years old): Often these are enlisted military personnel or college students
with limited budgets, no access to an automobile, and living or stationed far from
home;
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 2
♦ Elderly (60 and above): Frequently, the elderly have a diminished ability or desire to
drive and may be more likely to need to visit distant medical facilities on a regular
basis;
♦ Persons living below the poverty level: Persons who are less likely to own a car, or if
they do, the car may not be suitable for long trips;
♦ Persons over 16 with a disability: A group that may be reliant on accessible local transit
services and, therefore, may also consider public transit options to make a long trip;
and
♦ Autoless households: Persons who have to rely on alternative means of transportation.
Currently, Greyhound Lines Inc. is the only nationwide intercity bus carrier operating in the
United States. There are numerous smaller carriers that operate on a regional or local basis.
Greyhound and the other smaller intercity bus carriers that operate in Indiana are addressed
in detail later in the study.
Recognizing the role of the intercity bus industry in the nation’s transportation network,
particularly in the rural areas of the country, since 1992 federal transit legislation has required
states to allocate 15 percent of their Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program
funds for the support of intercity bus services. States are allowed to waive this requirement if
the Governor certifies that intercity bus needs are being met adequately.
This study provides INDOT with an evaluation of the intercity bus industry in Indiana and
recommendations regarding the “Governor’s certification.” The “Governor’s certification”
considers unmet intercity bus needs but can also consider other rural transit needs in the
state that are not being met. This study recommends a strategy and process for using the
federal Section 5311(f) funds to enhance intercity bus travel across the state. Note that
Section 5311(f), the rural intercity bus assistance program, is a subsection of the Section
5311 Program.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 3
Programs
FTA PROGRAMS
While federal deregulation has resulted in reduced intercity bus service in rural areas, federal
policy has recognized that there are benefits to enabling passengers to make connections
between modes, including intercity bus, rail and local transit services. In addition to
operating funds, federal funding has also been made available for the construction of
intermodal passenger facilities, including the intercity bus related portion of the facilities.
SECTION 5311(F)
In an effort to meet the needs for rural intercity bus service resulting from the years of route
termination, federal transportation legislation enacted in 1991 (Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)), included a requirement that each state spend a
specified percentage of its annual apportionment of federal Nonurbanized Area Formula
funds to support rural intercity bus service unless the state’s governor certifies that the
state’s intercity bus needs are adequately met. The percentage was initially set at 5 percent,
increased to 10 percent in year two, and 15 percent in the third year of the program. Since
that time, 15 percent continues to be the requirement, now codified as Section 5311(f) with
the reauthorization of ISTEA, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
The federal program remained unchanged until 2005 with the passage of the most recent
federal transit authorization bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This Act added constraints to the use of
federal transit funds for the provision of intercity bus services. SAFETEA-LU excluded
intercity bus transportation from the definition of federally supported public transportation,
with the exception of Section 5311(f), intermodal facilities, and the Over-the-Road Bus
Accessibility Program. Therefore, public recipients of FTA funds cannot operate intercity bus
service between urbanized areas, which is an area reserved for private for-profit providers.
SAFETEA-LU also changed the governor’s certification process. Those states intending to
submit a complete or partial governor’s certification must undertake a consultation process
with the state’s intercity bus providers prior to issuing the certification. FTA has adopted the
definition of “consultation” as “one party confers with another identified party in accordance
with an established process and, before taking action(s), considers that party’s views and
periodically informs that party about action(s) taken.” While FTA provides discretion to the
states to determine the process for meeting this consultation requirement, the state’s intercity
consultation process must include the following elements:
♦ Identification of intercity bus providers in the state;
♦ Activities the state will perform as part of consultation with identified providers and the
intercity bus industry;
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 4
♦ An opportunity for intercity bus providers to submit proposals for funding as part of the
state’s distribution of its annual Section 5311(f) apportionment; and
♦ A direct correlation between the results of the consultation process and a determination
that the state’s intercity service needs are adequately being met.
To carry out the consultation process, FTA recommends the following activities:
♦ Inform intercity bus carriers of the state’s rural planning process and encourage their
participation in that process, and where a state is considering possible certification,
provide an opportunity to submit comments and/or request a public meeting to identify
unmet needs and discuss proposals for meeting those needs;
♦ Include intercity providers’ participation in scheduled meetings, such as state agency
transit meetings and public transit conferences;
♦ Meet with individual intercity providers periodically;
♦ Notify providers either through direct mail or advertise in various locations around the
state of availability of funds for the current year’s intercity bus program;
♦ Inform intercity bus providers about the development of the locally developed,
coordinated public transit-human services transportation plans and encourage their
participation; and
♦ Solicit comments through direct mail and advertise in newspapers in various locations
around the state of the state’s intent to submit a “Governor’s certification” to FTA
unless intercity bus needs are identified.
FTA guidance further indicates that there should be a direct correlation between the results of
the consultation process and the state’s determination of intercity bus needs. In other words,
a state cannot ignore the needs and service requests submitted by the intercity carriers and
subsequently submit to FTA a certification that all the state’s intercity bus needs are met.
Section 5311(f) of the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program has the following objectives:
♦ Support the connection between nonurbanized areas and the larger regional or
national system of intercity bus service;
♦ Support services to meet the intercity travel needs of residents in nonurbanized areas;
and
♦ Support the infrastructure of the intercity bus network through planning and marketing
assistance and capital investment in facilities.
Eligible intercity bus activities utilizing Section 5311(f) funding include:
♦ Project administration including such expenses as planning, marketing, management,
and insurance for intercity bus transportation;
♦ Capital grants for intercity bus shelters;
♦ Joint-use stops and depots;
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 5
♦ Operating grants through purchase-of-service agreements;
♦ User-side subsidies and demonstration projects;
♦ Coordination of rural connections between small transit operations and intercity bus
carriers; and
♦ Capital assistance to purchase vehicles or lease if cost effective, and vehicle related
equipment for use in intercity service;
The maximum federal share for operating assistance related projects is 50 percent of the net
cost of service, while capital projects may be funded up to 80 percent with federal funds.
It should be noted that on October 20, 2006, FTA approved a two-year pilot project allowing
states to use the capital costs of unsubsidized intercity bus service provided by private
operators as in-kind match for the operating costs associated with connecting rural intercity
bus feeder service. The private bus operator must agree to the use of its capital funds for
this in-kind match. The value of the eligible capital expenses is generally calculated as one-
half the annual operating expenses of the unsubsidized route. This policy encourages states
to follow the FTA guidance of supporting the operation of intercity bus services that connect
with scheduled intercity service to distant points across the country. FTA has recently
announced that this pilot project has been extended through FY 2009.
As an example of how this pilot project works, assume that an intercity carrier is serving a
route at a total of cost of $400,000. INDOT could initiate a route to connect with this route
and use up to $200,000 in capital costs from the previously mentioned route as state/local in-
kind match for the new service. In reality, this results in enabling the state to utilize or
leverage an additional $200,000 in Section 5311(f) funds without needing to use state or local
cash funds.
Intercity bus companies are eligible subrecipients of Section 5311(f) funds through a state or
Indian tribe that is a direct recipient. However, intercity bus operators may not be in the
position to accept the terms and conditions that the state applies to subrecipients. In such a
situation, the state may provide funds to the intercity bus operator through a third-party
contract, thereby isolating the remainder of the company’s operations from federal grant
requirements. The state may contract with the intercity bus carrier directly or through a local
public entity or a non-profit organization. In the past INDOT has contracted directly with the
intercity bus company.
The Bus and Bus Facility Program (49 U.S.C. 5309) is a discretionary FTA program that
supports the development of intermodal transportation terminals, i.e., passenger terminals
that are served by more than one transit mode or service provider. The intercity bus portion
of an intermodal facility is eligible under this program. Many terminals across the country are
served by various intercity bus companies as well as the local fixed-route bus service or taxi
and shuttle services. These projects are also eligible under the Section 5307, 5311 or 5311(f)
programs. Federal funds may provide up to 80 percent of the cost of these capital projects.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 6
Section 3038 of SAFETEA-LU, the Over-the-Road Bus (OTRB) Accessibility Program, assists
operators of over-the-road buses in complying with the capital and training requirements of
the DOT rule on ADA accessibility for over-the-road buses (U.S. Department of
Transportation, 49 CFR Part 37). This program is administered directly by FTA rather than by
state recipients with a national solicitation for applications from operators of over-the-road
buses. The federal share for this assistance is 90 percent. This program may supplement
and/or complement assistance the states provide to intercity bus operators through Section
5311(f). Greyhound has been a recipient of these funds in the past for its national fleet.
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds are available for capital or operating
assistance for projects that reduce emissions in air quality non-attainment areas. CMAQ
funds have been used for projects that support intercity bus service such as intermodal
facilities and park-and-ride lots, often in conjunction with Bus and Bus Facility Program
funds. Federal funds through this program are available at the typical federal capital and
operating participation limits.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 7
History
HISTORY OF INTERCITY BUS SERVICE IN THE U.S.
The intercity bus industry has undergone a series of changes over the past twenty-five years,
resulting in the continuous loss of intercity bus service in Indiana and across the country.
Intercity bus services, primarily provided by Greyhound and Trailways, flourished through the
1950’s with most cities having dozens of arrivals and departures daily. At its peak, over
15,000 communities in America had access to at least one scheduled carrier and intercity
bus was a primary travel mode across the country. However, this began to change
drastically in the 1960’s as household incomes rose, central cities declined, and Americans
began their addiction to the personal automobile. Indiana was no exception to this national
travel evolution. Figure 1 illustrates the volume of intercity bus routes and stations in Indiana
in 1976.
The 1970’s brought further pressure on the industry as automobile ownership continued to
rise and airlines began to experiment with discounted fares. Historically, the nation’s intercity
bus system had operated under federal regulation that controlled how carriers entered and
exited interstate routes, which cities would be served, and the fares they could charge.
States imposed similar regulatory oversight of intrastate carriers. As ridership decreased, the
industry desired more freedom in the operation of their services, resulting in the deregulation
of the intercity bus industry in 1982 (Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, (Pub. L. 97 ‐ 261,
September 20, 1982.
No change has affected the country’s intercity bus services as much as deregulation. With
carriers having greater flexibility in establishing fares, routes, and service frequency, those
unprofitable routes – typically serving rural areas – were abandoned. Deregulation also gave
carriers a mechanism to appeal regulations imposed upon them by state governments on
intrastate routes. Today, the role of federal oversight is primarily limited to ensuring that
carriers are registered, maintain adequate financial responsibility (insurance), and meet
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
The General Accountability Office estimated that 7,000 communities across the country lost
intercity bus service during the first ten years of deregulation. Instead of resurrecting intercity
bus traffic, deregulation resulted in significant service losses and continued financial
problems for the carriers. Rising labor and fuel costs, along with Amtrak service expansion,
continued to challenge the industry. Research has indicated that from a service, consumer,
and operator financial perspective, intercity bus deregulation was a failure.
Due to its size and prominence in the industry, Greyhound found itself in the center of this
changing intercity bus environment. Greyhound began to face major labor-related issues
and acquired Continental Trailways in 1987 in an effort to improve its public image. By
acquiring Continental Trailways, the largest member of the rival National Trailways Bus
System (a collection of smaller, independent intercity bus operators), Greyhound effectively
eliminated a large portion of its bus competition. Many smaller carriers were forced out of
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 8
Figure 1: 1976 Intercity Bus Routes
1976 MAP
This color-coded map shows intercity bus routes in existence in 1976. Blue indicates Greyhound; red indicates
Trailways. Additional colors indicate significant independent bus companies, and are identified with labels. Black
indicates smaller independent companies.
Thin blue or red lines indicate routes which were once part of Greyhound or Trailways, but later transferred to
independent bus companies.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 9
business as a result of these changes. Today, the few remaining Trailways franchises are
spread across the country, including two companies operating in Indiana – Burlington
Trailways and Lakefront Trailways.
However, this effort by Greyhound to absorb its competition was unsuccessful, resulting in
Greyhound filing for bankruptcy in 2000. With ridership continuing to decline, Greyhound cut
its route structure further in 2004 - 2005, resulting in the lose of service to nearly 1,000
additional communities across the country. This system restructuring resulted in several
route abandonments in Indiana, including service from Indianapolis to South Bend and
Louisville and a route between Fort Wayne and Chicago.
While the intercity bus industry has struggled for years, more recent news from the industry is
encouraging. Based on a recent study by the School of Public Service Policy Study at
DePaul University, ridership began to improve for the nation’s carriers in 2006. This is
attributed to rising highway congestion, increased fuel costs, and consumer disenchantment
with air travel. While it may be too early to know if the industry has really rebounded, signs at
this time are very positive. In 2007, for the first time in more than 40 years, the level of
service throughout the country grew significantly, largely due to the emergence and
expansion of low-cost operators providing express service between major cities.
The largest and best known of these operators, Megabus, a subsidiary of Coach USA,
opened a Chicago hub in April 2006 providing service between the Midwestern cities of
Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, and St. Louis.
As a result, national intercity bus ridership statistics indicated a substantial ridership growth
rate of nearly 7 percent in the 2006-2007 period as compared to an 8 percent annual rate of
decline during the previous period. This ridership increase for the nation’s intercity bus
providers is viewed by some in the intercity bus industry as being misleading because
Megabus operates express bus service with limited stops and without conventional
terminals, generally leaving from curbside locations or public transit facilities.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 10
Existing Service
EXISTING INTERCITY BUS SERVICE IN INDIANA
Intercity bus operations in Indiana are a skeleton of services provided in the mid 1970’s.
Today, the state’s bus industry is reduced to the following five carriers.
♦ Burlington Trailways;
♦ Greyhound Lines;
♦ Indian Trails;
♦ Lakefront Lines; and
♦ Megabus (Coach USA).
Of these five carriers, Greyhound is by far the major provider of services with six routes
operating in the state, primarily into and north of Indianapolis. Burlington Trailways operates
two routes, Indian Trails and Lakefront Lines each operate a single route, while Megabus
provides express bus service from Chicago to Indianapolis with connecting service to
Columbus and Cincinnati. Figure 2 illustrates current intercity bus routes in Indiana and
cities served. A description of these services is provided below.
BURLINGTON TRAILWAYS
Burlington Trailways is a family owned and operated corporation that provides transportation
services to individuals and business entities in their service area. The company’s
headquarters are in West Burlington, Iowa. Burlington Trailways currently has two lines in
Indiana, with a single bus on each line, operating in the following corridor:
♦ I-74 – between Cedar Rapids and Indianapolis. There are two daily trips in each
direction, with two routes being utilized. One route operates between Cedar Rapids
and Indianapolis while the other runs from Davenport to Indianapolis. Crawfordsville
has one stop in each direction on the Davenport – Indianapolis route while Indianapolis
has four stops; one in each direction on each of the two routes.
Burlington Trailways has a limited-service station in Crawfordsville and a terminal in
Indianapolis (the firm uses the Greyhound station). Burlington Trailways has been operating
at this level of service in Indiana for several years and has no plans to make any service
changes in the near future. The company has been continually adding more lines to their
system within other states.
The Crawfordsville stop has very low ridership. Crawfordsville is a limited-service station,
therefore, there is no handling of tickets, baggage, or express packages. The Indianapolis
stops serve approximately thirty (30) people per day or nearly 11,000 individuals per year.
Passengers traveling on Burlington Trailways are riders who originate from Indiana or are
traveling west to Illinois or Iowa.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 11
Figure 2:
Intercity Bus Routes
__
[[
Lake
Porter
LaPorte
_
[
St. Joseph
_
[ Elkhart
LaGrange
Noble
Steuben
DeKalb
.
Marshall
Starke
Kosciusko
Whitley
Jasper Pulaski Fulton _
[ Allen
Newton
Wabash Huntington
Cass Miami Adams
White Wells
Benton
_
[
Carroll
Grant
Howard Blackford
Jay
Warren
_
[
Tippecanoe
Tipton
Clinton
Delaware
Madison Randolph
_
[ Fountain
Hamilton _
[
_
[
Montgomery Boone
Henry
Wayne
Vermillion
_
[
Hancock
Parke Hendricks Marion
Putnam Fayette
Rush Union
Shelby
_
[
Vigo
Morgan Johnson
Franklin
Clay Owen
Decatur
Brown Bartholomew
Monroe Dearborn
Ripley
Sullivan
Greene
Jennings Ohio
Jackson
Lawrence Switzerland
Jefferson
Knox Daviess Martin
Scott
Washington
Clark
Orange
Pike Burlington Trailways
Dubois
Gibson Floyd Greyhound Lines
Crawford
Harrison
_
[ Indian Trails
Lakefront Trailways
Posey
Vanderburgh
Warrick Perry Megabus
_
[
Spencer
Amtrak Thruways Bus
_
[ Bus Stations
12
Fares for the system are based on mileage. For example, a one-way fare from Crawfordsville
to Indianapolis is $17.00. Purchasing a ticket through the Internet adds a $4.00 processing
fee in addition to the base fare.
GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
Greyhound Lines, Inc. is by far the country’s largest provider of intercity bus transportation,
serving more than 2,300 destinations with 13,000 daily departures across North America.
Last year, Greyhound operated nearly 5.8 billion passenger-miles while serving nearly
25 million passengers. Greyhound has evolved over the years and has continued to
restructure its services in an effort to most efficiently and effectively meet the 21st century
intercity bus needs. The company’s home office is in Dallas.
Greyhound’s Indiana bus service currently exists of six lines operating primarily along
interstate highway corridors in Indiana. Major bus routes operate in the following corridors:
♦ I-80/I-90 – between Chicago and Washington, DC., including three daily trips in each
direction with stops in Elkhart, South Bend, Gary, and Hammond.
♦ I-90/I-94 – between Chicago and Detroit, including three stops in Gary and one stop in
Hammond eastbound along with two stops in Gary and one stop in Hammond
westbound.
♦ I-65 – between Chicago and Louisville/Cincinnati, including nine daily trips southbound
and one trip operating Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday only, stopping in
Indianapolis on each schedule and Hammond, Gary and Lafayette on intermittent
schedules. There are ten daily trips northbound and one trip operating Tuesday,
Wednesday, Friday and Sunday only, stopping in Indianapolis on each schedule and
Lafayette, Gary and Hammond on intermittent schedules;
♦ I-69 – between Detroit and Indianapolis including one stop in each direction at Fort
Wayne, Marion, Anderson, and Indianapolis;
♦ I-70 – between New York City and St. Louis, including five daily trips in each direction,
stopping in Indianapolis on each trip and Terre Haute two times eastbound and four
times westbound; and
♦ I-64/I-164 – between St. Louis and Nashville, including two daily trips in each direction
with stops in Evansville on each trip.
Greyhound currently serves the following cities in Indiana: Anderson, Elkhart, Evansville, Fort
Wayne, Gary, Hammond, Indianapolis, Lafayette, Marion, South Bend and Terre Haute.
Table 3 indicates the number of boardings and alightings at these stations for Greyhound
service during 2006 and 2007.
After undergoing a series of bankruptcies and acquisitions, Greyhound has been owned by
FirstGroup of Scotland since September 2007. The Greyhound name has been retained by
FirstGroup; the brands of its subsidiaries, however, are not being retained and will disappear
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 13
Table 3:
Greyhound Boardings and Alightings
Station Boardings Alightings
2006 2007 2006 2007
Anderson 2,007 1,879 1,900 1,776
Elkhart 4,231 4,225 6,711 7,697
Evansville 8,718 7,848 8,313 7,582
Fort Wayne 7,243 6,978 6,322 6,095
Gary 17,780 13,964 13,383 11,595
Hammond 7,009 6,437 6,397 6,088
Indianapolis 143,678 134,401 132,870 121,313
Lafayette 7,230 7,038 6,782 6,212
Marion 403 408 1,301 1,129
Michigan City* 941 714 913 702
South Bend 6,303 6,060 6,048 5,732
Terre Haute 4,649 4,279 4,383 4,024
TOTAL 210,192 194,231 195,323 179,945
*Service terminated in 2007
Source: Greyhound Lines, Inc.
14
as buses are retired. On its website, Greyhound provides the following summary of its
customers and their travel trends:
♦ One-third of Greyhound passengers make more than $35,000 per year;
♦ More than half of Greyhound riders have received higher education beyond high
school;
♦ Forty-two percent of Greyhound passengers are between the ages of 18 and 34;
♦ Nearly 60 percent of Greyhound passengers travel less than 450 miles;
♦ Many Greyhound passengers report they own automobiles considered sufficiently
reliable for a trip of a similar distance, but travel by bus because it is safe and more
economical;
♦ The majority of Greyhound passengers travel to visit family and friends, but more than
21 percent travel for business reasons; and
♦ The average ticket price is $45.00.
Since the FirstGroup acquisition, Greyhound has been taking steps to improve its image by
spending $60 million to refurbish terminals, add new buses, and staff terminals with
personnel that are capable of helping customers who have questions regarding the bus
system. Greyhound is also initiating an advertising campaign aimed at attracting the 18 to
24 year old demographic as well as Spanish speaking customers. The company has begun
to advertise itself as “The New Greyhound.”
In addition, Greyhound has teamed up with Amtrak to combine train and bus stations where
practical. These intermodal terminals have been initiated in several locations across the
country. Also since the FirstGroup acquisition, Greyhound has initiated two discount bus
services to compete with Megabus. One is called “NeOn” and the other “BoltBus.” Both are
operating out of New York City and service major cities in the Northeast, and as indicated
through discussions with Greyhound representatives, it is likely this service will be extended
to the Midwest, if successful. The service is based on the Megabus model, offering fares as
low as $1.00, with lowest fares depending on how far in advance a trip is booked and
passenger demand for the trip. Fares increase for trips booked closer to date of departure.
INDIAN TRAILS
Indian Trails is a family owned and operated intercity bus provider that has been providing
service since 1910. Headquartered in Owosso, Michigan, the company operates primarily in
Michigan with limited Indiana service. The service through Indiana is part of the company’s
four Chicago to Michigan schedules. Indian Trails currently has two lines in Indiana
operating along the following corridor:
♦ I-90/I-94 – between Chicago, IL and St. Ignace, MI, including three stops in each
direction at both Hammond and Gary.
Indian Trails recently discontinued a line to Michigan City due to a lack of ridership and
additional cost of mileage off the freeway necessitated by the need to lease a new bus
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 15
station facility off of the freeway route. The company does not currently have plans to add
additional lines within Indiana.
Indian Trails offers four schedules operating to and from Chicago and Michigan. Over the
years, the system has made various system changes within these four schedules on the
main route, with no additional services being added to Indiana. The system does plan to
make minor quarterly schedule adjustments to reflect time of year and traffic and passenger
volume.
Fares for the system are based on mileage. Indian Trails does not currently have authority to
sell tickets in Indiana intrastate, so the system does not have a fare between Hammond and
Gary. Indian Trails offers student, senior, children’s, and military discounts. Currently tickets
can be purchased via the telephone. The company is in the process of creating a new
webpage, which will eventually offer on-line ticketing.
The ridership in Hammond for 2007 was 1,937 passenger boardings and 2,582 passenger
alightings. In Gary, the ridership for the same period was 3,371 passenger boardings and
4,079 passengers getting off at this station.
LAKEFRONT TRAILWAYS
Lakefront Trailways was established in 1964 and has grown to be the largest motorcoach
company in the State of Ohio. Headquartered in Cleveland, Lakefront provides service to
several locations within Indiana along the following corridor:
♦ I-90/U.S. 33 – between Chicago, IL and Akron, OH, including one stop in each direction
in Gary, South Bend, Elkhart, and Fort Wayne.
On-call service is also available in Angola, which requires a customer to call 48 hours ahead
of schedule to divert the bus to Angola on its route between Fort Wayne and Elkhart. Fort
Wayne, South Bend, Elkhart, and Gary stops all operate out of Greyhound stations. Fares for
the system are based on mileage. For example, the fare from Fort Wayne to Elkhart, a
distance of 58 miles, is $34.00 one-way.
The annual total passengers from July 2007 through June 2008 were 18,317. The average
on and off counts for this period for each of the five stops indicate that much of the ridership
is originating and stopping in Fort Wayne with less ridership from the other locations. Angola
averages less than one rider per day departure with an average of just over one passenger
arriving per day.
MEGABUS
Megabus, a subsidiary of Coach USA, offers no-frills intercity bus service primarily in the
midwest and northeast sections of the country. Megabus began as an operating concept in
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 16
the United Kingdom in 2003 and was introduced to the United States in the spring of 2006.
West coast service was initiated in 2007, although later discontinued less than a year later
due to low ridership. The northeastern service has only operated since May of 2008.
The company’s services are based in Chicago with daily routes to Milwaukee, Indianapolis,
Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, Ann Arbor, Columbus, Louisville, Toledo, Detroit, Kansas
City and Minneapolis. Service through Indiana is operated along the following corridor:
♦ I-65/I-74 - between Chicago and Cincinnati/Columbus, OH, including five schedules
operating in each direction stopping only in Indianapolis.
Service between Chicago and Louisville via Indianapolis was also initiated but since
withdrawn due to low ridership. With the exception of the limited $1.00 fares, the one-way
fares for these routes range from $10 to $30, depending on the chosen schedule and length
of advance ticket purchase. Megabus also provides service from Chicago to Ann Arbor and
Cleveland via northern Indiana, however there are no stops along these routes in the state.
The company offers non-stop intercity express bus service with fares as low as $1.00 via the
Internet, along with a $0.50 booking fee. Tickets are not normally available from the bus
operator. The $1.00 fares are only available for those customers that purchase their tickets
early. This is the yield management model that is typically used by airlines where the lowest
fares are offered to those who book early or on less popular schedules. Normally only two
seats are sold for $1.00 per schedule.
Also consistent with the low cost airline model, Megabus stop locations are on public streets
or at park-and-ride lots, usually outside railroad stations, located at transportation centers in
major cities, at park-and-rides lots, or on college campuses.
The company’s web site provides information on arrival and departure times and allows
passengers to quickly book their travel and purchase tickets from their computer or wireless
handheld device.
No ridership information was available from the carrier.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 17
5311(f)
INDIANA’S SECTION 5311(f) SUPPORTED EFFORTS
PAST
INDOT began to offer intercity bus grants to carriers in the state with the availability of federal
Section 5311(f) funding in the mid-1990s. These grants were designed to offset the declines
in service experienced in the state. Greyhound received Section 5311(f) funds for three
routes over an eight year period until they were discontinued by the carrier in 2004 due to low
ridership and revenue levels. These routes were:
♦ Indianapolis – Louisville along Highway 37;
♦ Indianapolis – South Bend along Highway 31; and
♦ Fort Wayne – Chicago along Highway 30.
Interestingly, INDOT has noted that no complaints or concerns were received from the areas
affected by this service termination. INDOT followed-up the service terminations by asking
the Section 5311 supported systems in the affected areas if there were any local concerns
about the service being discontinued. The systems indicated a lack of concern at the local
level regarding these service cuts.
PRESENT
INDOT currently supports two intercity bus projects with Section 5311(f) funds. The City of
Marion is the recipient of a grant that reimburses passengers who are residents of Grant
County for 50 percent of the cost of a ticket on Greyhound. Eligible riders must submit a
claim form along with their Greyhound ticket for reimbursement. Residents can use the local
transit system for travel to the Greyhound pick-up point just off I-69. The City also receives
administrative funds to manage this grant. Marion receives a total of $15,600 of Section
5311(f) assistance for this service, which has been in place since 1995. It is estimated that
approximately 200 passengers use this service annually, with the elderly being the primary
riders.
Johnson County receives a Section 5311(f) grant totaling $214,600 for the operation of a
fixed route bus through Johnson County Access to link-up with IndyGo at the Greenwood
Park Mall in Indianapolis. INDOT has been supporting this service with Section 5311(f) funds
since 1999. In FY 2007 nearly 24,000 passengers used the service to connect with IndyGo;
however, evaluation of this service raises questions as to its eligibility for funding support
through the Section 5311(f) program. While it meets several of the intercity service
requirements, the fixed route service does not provide direct connections to intercity bus
service.
Note that for rural transit operators of intercity bus service such as those noted above, it may
be easier now than in the past to obtain proper operating authority and maintain a
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 18
reasonable level of insurance based on state, rather than federal requirements. Greyhound
has worked closely with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to simplify
this process.
Also, the intercity bus industry has created a new membership category in the National Bus
Traffic Association (NBTA), the industry’s financial clearinghouse for interline ticketing, to
allow rural transit agencies to more easily establish formal interline relationships with
Greyhound and other interline carriers. This concept of interlining means that the rural
systems that operate feeder services into intercity bus stations, along with smaller intercity
bus carriers, can have cooperative agreements among each other and Greyhound. It allows
them to sell tickets to consumers whose trip may utilize two or more carriers and the carriers
receive the share of the ticket revenue that is generated on their portion of the route. Further,
it means that rural feeder service operators can now easily interline with Greyhound for
nationwide fare and schedule quotations, integrated telephone and Internet ticketing,
revenue sharing, marketing and terminal access. This practice greatly expands service
opportunities and revenue for the carriers.
PROJECT SOLICITATION
INDOT has undertaken extensive efforts to promote the availability of funding offered through
the Section 5311(f) program. Annually, an opportunity is provided for public comment
regarding how the state should utilize its Section 5311(f) funds through:
(1) publishing a public notice in all major newspapers in Indiana; and
(2) notifying, via mail, private intercity carriers providing service in Indiana.
No verbal or written comments have been received in recent years in response to these
notices. In 2004, INDOT was contacted by Burlington Trailways regarding the possibility of
providing some expanded intercity bus service in Indiana. However, following further study
of the issue, the company’s representative notified INDOT that for economical reasons the
company had decided not to pursue this funding.
In addition, INDOT meets with its Section 5311 grantees periodically to discuss potential
Section 5311(f) projects, but none of the rural systems have shown any interest in providing
intercity service or connector services to intercity bus stations. With the exception of the two
currently funded intercity bus projects, year after year no funding requests are received,
resulting in the Governor signing a partial certification that the state’s intercity bus needs are
being met. This allows the remaining Section 5311(f) funds, representing nearly 15% of the
state’s Section 5311 apportionment, to be used to meet other rural transportation needs
across the state. Indiana’s FY 2008 Section 5311 apportionment is $12,866,972, resulting in
the availability of $1,930,045 in Section 5311(f) funds. INDOT is currently utilizing about 12
percent of its total Section 5311(f) apportionment for intercity bus services.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 19
Despite the efforts of INDOT to promote the availability of the Section 5311(f) funds, there
has been little interest among the private intercity carriers and the state’s rural transit systems
to provide additional intercity bus service. Unfortunately, across the country, this is normally
the case. The reluctance of intercity carriers and rural systems to initiate intercity bus service
is often due to the 50 percent match requirement for operating assistance. To explain this
further, for each $1.00 in operating loss experienced by the carrier, they must generate $0.50
in local match. In most situations incidental revenue, such as package delivery, will not meet
the matching requirement and local governments typically do not participate financially
unless they consider the service to be a need and priority of its citizens. Therefore, intercity
bus companies often view providing such service to be a money-losing endeavor.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 20
Needs
INTERCITY BUS NEEDS
The comparison of intercity bus service available today versus the pre-deregulation period of
the 1970s is extraordinary. In 1976 there were about ten intercity bus companies serving
Indiana with Greyhound and Trailways dominating the market. Companies including ABC
Coach Lines, Fuqua Bus Lines, Illini Swallow Lines, Indiana Motor Bus Co. and I-V Coaches
also provided significant levels of service across the state. There were also numerous
Greyhound and Trailways affiliates operating during this time. Over the years, some
Greyhound, Trailways, or other routes were sold to the independent bus companies, primarily
Burlington Trailways and Indiana Motor Bus Co., but most of these routes are not in service
today. Figure 1 on page 9 includes a color coded map that shows intercity bus routes in
existence in 1976.
At the time documented in Figure 1, there were nearly fifty intercity bus routes serving the
State of Indiana, stopping at approximately sixty-five municipalities and many more
communities and crossroads across the state. Today, there are twelve intercity bus routes
with six of the routes in Indiana operated by Greyhound, primarily operating along the state’s
interstate highway network. The existing intercity bus routes stop in only thirteen Indiana
municipalities:
♦ Anderson;
♦ Angola (on-call);
♦ Crawfordsville (limited service);
♦ Elkhart;
♦ Evansville;
♦ Ft Wayne;
♦ Gary;
♦ Hammond;
♦ Indianapolis;
♦ Lafayette;
♦ Marion;
♦ South Bend; and
♦ Terre Haute.
Angola is an “on-call” stop, requiring passengers to call 48 hours ahead of schedule for
service on Lakefront Trailways’ Chicago to Akron route. Crawfordsville is a limited service
bus stop meaning that it does not handle tickets, baggage, or express. The other stations
offer full service for customers including handling tickets, baggage and express, including
C.O.D. express
It should be noted that most communities located along an intercity bus route do not have a
stop. In most situations only the larger cities are used as stops; these communities have
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 21
sufficient population to generate adequate ridership out of the station. Years ago intercity
carriers stopped at nearly every community along the routes and at designated highway
stops between communities, but now bus companies are primarily concerned about
operating profitably. Service is provided along major U.S. and state highways, enabling the
carriers to provide more timely service between stops and make the service as competitive
as possible to the automobile. Figure 2 on page 12 illustrates the cities served by intercity
bus companies in Indiana.
Indiana has fourteen Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) across the state. Of these
fourteen MSAs, five do not have intercity bus service:
♦ Bloomington;
♦ Columbus;
♦ Kokomo;
♦ Michigan City; and
♦ Muncie.
Of these five, Michigan City is the only one that has some intercity service available through
Amtrak.
The volume of intercity bus service available in Indiana today is very modest as compared to
the past. With five intercity carriers serving thirteen stations, much of the state (from a
geographical perspective) is not served by intercity bus (see Figure 4). With four scheduled
routes, Indianapolis is by far the best-served city in the state. There are 34 buses arriving
and departing in Indianapolis daily along with 2 buses on the Chicago – Cincinnati route that
stop in Indianapolis only four days per week. These are all Greyhound routes with the
exception of a Burlington Trailways’ Cedar Rapids - Indianapolis route. Included in this
number is the Megabus schedule that stops once daily in each direction through
Indianapolis. Most of the other service in the state is along the northern border. Note that
Amtrak Thruway Bus Service is not considered additional bus service. It is part of a
cooperative agreement between Amtrak and Greyhound to provide Amtrak passengers with
published intercity bus options for travel from Amtrak stations to locations Amtrak does not
serve.
One of the dilemmas that intercity carriers face in determining the routes to serve is the
potential service demand along a route. There are many variables affecting demand such as
the type of provider (rural transit operator or intercity bus carrier); frequency; time of day,
length of trip; population characteristics; physical and service characteristics of connections;
fare levels; availability of interline tickets; and publication of routes and schedules in national
intercity bus schedule guides, such as Russell’s Official National Motor Coach Guide.
There are 104 incorporated Indiana cities with over 1,000 population that do not have intercity
bus service (see Figure 4). These cities represent a total population of nearly 1.5 million
persons. Of these cities, 48 exceed the 10,000 population level.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 22
Figure 4:
Incorporated Indiana Cities Lacking Intercity Bus Service
Approx. Miles
City 2005 Population (est.) Nearest Bus Station to Station
Alexandria 5,868 Anderson 10
Attica 3,385 Lafayette 21
Auburn 12,687 Fort Wayne 16
Aurora 4,064 Louisville 71
Batesville 6,407 Indianapolis 62
Bedford 13,551 Indianapolis 70
Beech Grove 14,069 Indianapolis 6
Berne 4,157 Fort Wayne 33
Bicknell 3,284 Terre Haute 48
Bloomington 69,017 Indianapolis 51
Bluffton 9,460 Fort Wayne 27
Boonville 6,782 Evansville 17
Brazil 8,214 Terre Haute 13
Butler 2,714 Fort Wayne 25
Cannelton 1,168 Evansville 58
Carmel 58,198 Indianapolis 7
Charlestown 8,052 Louisville 16
Clinton 4,906 Terre Haute 13
Columbia City 8,024 Fort Wayne 18
Columbus 39,380 Indianapolis 43
Connersville 14,368 Indianapolis 57
Covington 2,465 Crawfordsville 23
Crown Point 22,697 Gary 11
Decatur 9,547 Fort Wayne 21
Delphi 2,980 Lafayette 14
Dunkirk 2,639 Anderson 31
East Chicago 30,946 Hammond 3
Elwood 9,167 Anderson 16
Frankfort 16,432 Lafayette 24
Franklin 21,747 Indianapolis 26
Garrett 5,760 Fort Wayne 14
Gas City 5,819 Marion 5
Goshen 31,269 Elkhart 9
Greencastle 10,065 Terre Haute 38
Greendale 4,357 Indianapolis 90
Greenfield 16,654 Indianapolis 18
Greensburg 10,536 Indianapolis 51
Greenwood 42,236 Indianapolis 18
Hartford City 6,684 Marion 17
Hobart 27,768 Gary 6
Huntingburg 5,929 Evansville 39
Huntington 17,011 Fort Wayne 25
Jasonville 2,508 Terre Haute 20
Jasper 13,767 Evansville 56
Jeffersonville 28,621 Louisville 6
Jonesboro 1,759 Marion 7
Kendallville 10,018 Fort Wayne 24
23
Figure 4:
Incorporated Indiana Cities Lacking Intercity Bus Service
Approx. Miles
City 2005 Population (est.) Nearest Bus Station to Station
Knox 3,667 South Bend 31
Kokomo 46,178 Marion 30
La Porte 21,092 South Bend 26
Lake Station 13,565 Gary 4
Lawrence 40,959 Indianapolis 12
Lawrenceburg 4,750 Indianapolis 95
Lebanon 14,633 Indianapolis 20
Ligonier 4,423 Elkhart 23
Linton 5,808 Terre Haute 29
Logansport 19,211 Lafayette 39
Loogootee 2,680 Evansville 55
Madison 12,443 Louisville 42
Martinsville 11,657 Indianapolis 29
Michigan City 32,205 Gary 25
Mishawaka 48,497 South Bend 5
Mitchell 4,626 Louisville 53
Monticello 5,462 Lafayette 28
Montpelier 1,857 Marion 20
Mount Vernon 7,238 Evansville 18
Muncie 66,164 Anderson 19
Nappanee 6,955 Elkhart 16
New Albany 36,772 Louisville 7
New Castle 18,718 Anderson 28
New Haven 13,676 Indianapolis 105
Noblesville 38,825 Indianapolis 15
North Vernon 6,433 Indianapolis 67
Oakland City 3,196 Evansville 26
Peru 12,732 Marion 22
Petersburg 2,501 Evansville 36
Plymouth 10,876 South Bend 23
Portage 35,687 Gary 9
Portland 6,191 Anderson 49
Princeton 10,152 Evansville 28
Rensselaer 6,234 Indianapolis 90
Richmond 37,560 Indianapolis 68
Rising Sun 2,405 Indianapolis 91
Rochester 6,451 South Bend 42
Rockport 2,091 Indianapolis 146
Rushville 5,679 Indianapolis 40
Salem 6,453 Louisville 31
Scottsburg 6,060 Louisville 33
Seymour 18,890 Louisville 49
Shelbyville 18,063 Indianapolis 30
Southport 1,729 Indianapolis 8
Sullivan 4,537 Terre Haute 25
Tell City 7,690 Evansville 51
Tipton 5,254 Anderson 22
24
Figure 4:
Incorporated Indiana Cities Lacking Intercity Bus Service
Approx. Miles
City 2005 Population (est.) Nearest Bus Station to Station
Union City 3,471 Anderson 44
Valparaiso 29,102 Gary 13
Vincennes 18,077 Evansville 51
Wabash 11,209 Marion 18
Warsaw 12,735 Fort Wayne 39
Washington 11,357 Evansville 55
West Lafayette 28,599 Lafayette 4
Whiting 4,893 Hammond 5
Winchester 4,845 Anderson 33
Woodburn 1,635 Fort Wayne 14
Total Unserved Pop.: 1,481,984
25
The primary problem with intercity service within the state of Indiana is that while most of the
state has access to intercity bus service, individuals are limited to where they can travel. The
central portion of the state (north of Indianapolis) along with the southwest section, are
basically void of intercity bus service. It is not possible to travel by intercity bus in Bedford,
Bloomington, Columbia City, Crown Point, Huntington, Jasper, Remington, Rensselaer,
Rochester, Valparaiso, Vincennes, and Warsaw, to name a few cities without service.
Service terminations have even resulted in cities lacking service along lengthy portions of the
state’s interstate highway network, once the foundation of intercity travel and stations.
The lack of service into Bloomington, with its large student population, is quite puzzling.
Greyhound once served the city, but the service was terminated due to low ridership. It
should be noted that intercity bus service in cities in other areas of the country with a
significant college student presence have witnessed substantial ridership increases as fuel
costs have escalated. A private provider, the Bloomington Shuttle Service, operates nine
scheduled trips each way daily between Bloomington and the Indianapolis airport. The
service stops at three locations on the Indiana University campus and at two major hotels in
Bloomington. The cost is $25 each way between Bloomington and Indianapolis.
In an effort to obtain a better understanding of the adequacy of Indiana’s existing intercity
bus and passenger rail service and the need for additional service, the consultant conducted
a Needs Assessment Survey (see Appendix A). The survey was sent electronically to over
1,000 individuals across the state including representatives of public transportation
providers, transportation planning organizations, economic development agencies,
Chambers of Commerce, and city/county executives. A total of 96 completed surveys were
returned, with some response from each survey group. It should be noted that while only
about 10 percent of those receiving surveys responded, the state was well represented
geographically. There was no portion of the state that was not represented by the returned
surveys.
Of those individuals that returned the survey, 52 percent are affiliated with an organization
that provides passenger transportation services. This does not mean that they necessarily
work for a provider of transportation services, but may be a local official in a city or town that
has a public transportation system. While 54 percent of the responders are associated with
a public transportation system that serves the general public, only eight community
transportation systems or just 11 percent that responded to a question whether the local
public transit system provides service to an intercity bus or Amtrak station. Most reported
minimal ridership to these stations.
A total of 66 percent of those responding believed that there are currently intercity bus needs
in their area of the state that are not being met. However, there were a limited number of
routes identified that could benefit from the provision of intercity bus services. In several
instances, it appeared that the response was more associated with the public transportation
needs within a specific city or county as opposed to regional intercity bus routes or
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 26
connector services to existing bus routes. There were regional needs cited but not from the
perspective of connection to intercity bus, but concerning regional travel within an area.
Several interests appear more commuter related than concerned with intercity bus services.
The following are those potential intercity routes or service corridors identified by the survey
responses.
♦ North – South along SR 3 between Kendallville and Charlestown;
♦ From Berne to Decatur and Fort Wayne and Berne to Bluffton;
♦ Connections to Amtrak stations in Crawfordsville and Lafayette;
♦ Michigan City to La Porte and West Lafayette;
♦ Multiple connections from Columbus, IN to Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Seymour, Madison,
French Lick, Lawrenceburg, and Madison;
♦ Bloomington to Martinsville - Mooresville – Indianapolis;
♦ Hendricks County to Indianapolis;
♦ Elkhart - Fort Wayne – Huntington;
♦ Harrison, Floyd and Scott counties to downtown Louisville;
♦ South Bend/Elkhart area to Indianapolis;
♦ Multiple connections from Greenfield, IN to Indianapolis, Carmel/Fishers, and
Greenwood;
♦ Warsaw/Winona Lake or Syracuse or Milford or Pierceton to Ft. Wayne and South
Bend, Indianapolis and Chicago airports.
♦ Multiple connections from Richmond to Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Dayton;
♦ South Bend to Grand Rapids MI;
♦ North Judson to Chicago or Indianapolis; Knox to Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, South
Bend or Chicago;
♦ Indianapolis to other major metropolitan areas in the state;
♦ Multiple connections from Bloomington, IN to Bedford, Columbus, and Terre Haute;
♦ Service frequency and reliability for Lafayette - Indianapolis and Lafayette – Chicago
♦ Steuben County to Bloomington, Muncie, and West Lafayette;
♦ Shelbyville - Indianapolis; Shelbyville - Greenwood; Fairland - Indianapolis; Fairland -
Greenwood; Flat Rock – Columbus; and
♦ Noblesville/Indianapolis, Carmel/Indianapolis, and Fishers/Indianapolis.
Requests for information and interviews with the state’s intercity bus providers resulted in
limited recommendations for future supported service. Table 5 presents the proposed routes
and operating expenses/deficit associated with each route, along with projected annual
ridership and revenue per passenger as provided by Lakefront Trailways.
Greyhound provided recommendations for three routes, two of which were also noted above
by Lakefront Trailways. Greyhound also provided the following recommendation, but without
expense, deficit, ridership, and revenue data, for this route:
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 27
Table 5:
Lakefront Trailways Proposed Routes
Annual Revenue/
Route/Cities Served Cost Deficit Ridership Passenger
Chicago - Fort Wayne via U.S. 30/ $445,861 $295,335 6,220 $24.20
Hammond, Gary, Valparaiso, Plymouth, Warsaw,
Columbia City
Cincinnati - Paducah, KY via U.S. 50/U.S. 41/ $476,741 $336,480 5,891 $19.37
Aurora, Versailles, Seymour, Bedford, Washington,
Vincennes, Princeton, Evansville, Henderson, KY,
Morganfield, KY, Marion, KY
Indianapolis - Louisville via I-69/SR37/U.S. 150 $714,550 $419,602 7,396 $39.88
Martinsville, Bloomington, Bedford, Paoli
Elkhart - Indianapolis via U.S. 20/U.S. 31 $429,479 $336,527 3,276 $26.37
South Bend, Plymouth, Rochester, Peru, Kokomo
28
♦ Indianapolis to Louisville along I-65, stopping in Seymour and Scottsburg.
Greyhound provided information to verify that their current approximate operating cost is
$3.25 per vehicle mile.
It was very important to obtain from the survey the level of importance or value that the public
placed on intercity bus and passenger rail service. In rating the importance of intercity bus
and rail, with “1” representing no importance and “4” representing high importance, the
average response was 2.6, somewhere between somewhat important and important. Only
nine responders indicated that the service was not important to them.
It was also very significant to measure the survey responses from the perspective of support
for the use of federal and state funds for the operation of intercity bus services in their
respective areas of the state. Survey results indicated that 83 percent of the responses
favored the use of federal and state funds to support the operation of intercity bus services in
their area with only 17 percent not supporting such service.
The same question was posed regarding the use of state funds to support the operation of
Amtrak service in some areas of the state. Similar to the earlier response, 82 percent of
those responding favored the use of state funds for this purpose.
These positive responses were observed across all respondent groups for both questions.
This will be very important as the state determines how it wants to proceed with the intercity
bus and passenger rail programs. It will be incumbent on INDOT to determine if state funds
should be obtained to match federal funds to support intercity bus services in particular
areas of the state. The same determination must be made regarding the use of state funds
to support expanded Amtrak service in the state.
The document: Scheduled Intercity Transportation: Rural Service Areas in the United States:
June 2005, (U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology
Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics), addresses the reduction of rural intercity
transportation services across the country with specific information provided for each state.
The study takes into account the significant Greyhound restructuring in 2004 and 2005. This
is an update of a 2003 study that undertook a geospatial analysis using GIS tools to plot
intercity facilities across the country, including intercity bus. A reasonable coverage radius
around each station was defined as 25 miles, which is based on the commonly used
standard within the intercity transportation industry and previous work done by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics and the Office of U.S. Secretary of Transportation. Figure 6 includes
a map of transit propensity for the state of Indiana, indicating the 25 mile radius around
existing intercity bus stations.
The study found that intercity bus continues to have the deepest service penetration of all the
modes reviewed, even after the aforementioned service cuts. Indiana is no exception to this
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 29
Figure 6: Indiana Transit Propensity by
Census Tract With Intercity Bus Stations
__
[[
Lake
Porter
LaPorte
_
[
St. Joseph
_
[ Elkhart
LaGrange
Noble
_
[
Steuben
DeKalb
.
Marshall
Starke
Kosciusko
Whitley
Jasper Pulaski Fulton _
[ Allen
Newton
Wabash Huntington
Cass Miami Adams
White Wells
Benton
_
[
Carroll
Grant
Howard Blackford
Jay
Warren
_
[
Tippecanoe
Tipton
Clinton
Delaware
Madison Randolph
_
[ Fountain
Hamilton _
[
_
[
Montgomery Boone
Henry
Wayne
Vermillion
_
[
Hancock
Parke Hendricks Marion
Putnam Fayette
Rush Union
Shelby
_
[
Vigo
Clay
Morgan Johnson
Franklin
Owen Decatur
Brown Bartholomew
Monroe Dearborn
Sullivan
Ripley Indiana Transit Propensity
Greene
Jennings
Ohio
By Census Tract
Jackson
Very Low
Lawrence Switzerland
Jefferson
Low
Knox Daviess Martin Scott
Medium
Washington
Orange
High
Clark
Pike
Dubois
Very High
Gibson Floyd
Crawford
Harrison _
[
Vanderburgh
Warrick
_
[ Intercity Bus Stations
Perry
Posey
_
[
Spencer
25-mile Radius Around Each
Bus Station
30
Nationally, the study found that 89 percent of the country’s rural residents live within the
coverage area of an intercity bus provider. For Indiana, it was determined that of the
2,367,966 total rural residents, 95.6 percent live within reasonable distance of intercity bus
service. Only 213,175 person, or about 9 percent of the rural residents of Indiana, have
access solely to intercity bus service and not to the other modes including rail or air.
Considering intercity bus, air, and rail service, 99.8 percent of Indiana residents live within
reasonable access of commercial intercity transportation.
INDOT must decide whether to use all of the funds authorized for intercity use, totaling over
$1.9 million, for intercity bus needs or to use a portion of the funds to provide other unmet
rural public transportation needs across the state. FTA guidance allows states to weigh the
level of unmet rural public transportation needs against the intercity bus needs in making its
“Governor’s certification” decision.
While there are definitely areas of the state that lack intercity bus service, and this study
provides some recommendations for routes to be considered for Section 5311(f) support,
there continue to be areas of Indiana that lack any type of general public transportation
service. As illustrated by Table 7, while most of the state’s counties are served by county-
wide community transportation systems, there are twenty-eight counties that lack such
service. These counties, with an unserved population totaling over 1.5 million people,
represent about 25 percent of the state’s estimated 2007 population of nearly 6.5 million
residents. Figure 8 is a map that indicates the current public transit systems in Indiana.
While federal deregulation has resulted in reduced intercity bus service in rural areas, federal
policy has recognized that there are benefits to enabling passengers to make connections
between modes, including intercity bus, rail and local transit services. In addition to
operating funds, federal funding has also been made available for the construction of
intermodal passenger facilities, including the intercity bus related portion of the facilities.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 31
Table 7
Counties Without County-Wide
General Public Transportation Service
County Unserved Population
Adams 33,644
Allen 98,241
Bartholomew 34,933
Benton 8,050
Carroll 19,987
Clark 39,585
Clay 26,648
Elkhart 113,402
Floyd 33,581
Fountain 17,143
Howard 37,874
Jackson 23,038
Lake 288,349
La Porte 56,843
Marion 81,346
Montgomery 37,477
Parke 17,169
Perry 18,916
Porter 160,578
Posey 26,262
Putnam 37,014
Spencer 20,334
St. Joseph 162,019
Tippecanoe 77,971
Tipton 16,069
Vanderburgh 58,172
Vermillion 16,417
Warren 8,482
TOTAL 1,569,544
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 32
Figure 8: Indiana Public Transit Systems
01/08
East Chicago Michigan City South Bend
Elkhart LaGrange
y
Gary
Elkhart Steuben
Hammond NICTD LaPorte
St. Joseph Goshen
Lake Porter LaPorte
Noble DeKalb
Marshall Kosciusko
Stark
e Allen
Jasper Whitley
Fulton
Pulaski . Wayne
Ft. Way e
Kankakee-Iroquois Regional
i i
Planning Commission (KIRPC) Newton Wabash
White Huntington
Cass
Wells Adams
Brookston
Benton
Carroll Miami Marion
Boswell Kokomo
Tippecanoe Grant Blackford
Howard Jay
Lafayette
a aye e Rossville
Warren
Clarks Hill Clinton Tipton Muncie
Madison
Delaware
Anderson Randolph
Fountain Montgomery Hamilton
Boone
New Castle
Waveland
Richmond
Vermillion Henry
Hancock Wayne
Parke
Hendricks
e d c s Indpls
dp s
Putnam Fayette
Rush Union
Terre Shelby
Haute Morgan
Johnson
Clay Franklin
Vigo
Owen Decatur
Brown Columbus
Monroe
Sullivan Bartholomew Dearborn
oo go
Bloomington Ripley
Southern Indiana Development
S i G
Greene
Commission (SIDC) Jennings
Jackson
Ohio
Bedford Seymour
Lawrence Switzerland
Daviess Martin Jefferson
Mitchell
Knox Washington Scott
Southeastern Indiana Regional
Washington Planning Commission (SIRPC)
Orange
Clark
Pike DuBois TARC
Gibson Crawford Floyd
Huntingburg
Warrick Harrison
Vanderburgh Perry
Evansville Spencer
Posey
County Systems
Rural City Systems
Urban Systems
The counties with a thicker outline are part of a regional transit system
33
Assessment
ASSESSMENT OF OTHER STATE DOT INTERCITY PROGRAMS
The structure of Section 5311(f) programs across the country vary from state-to-state due to
the State Departments of Transportation utilizing various policies and procedures to
administer the intercity bus program. For example, many states limit the size of the project
award amount and the number of years that the same project can be funded. States may
elect to prioritize particular types of projects, such as capital versus operating projects. FTA
provides the states with the discretion to institute such program restrictions.
Research also found that states vary greatly across the country regarding their percentage
use of Section 5311(f) funds. Some states utilize all of the available funds while many states
utilize less than the total apportionment and submit a governor’s waiver for some portion of
the funds. It was found that those States not utilizing Section 5311(f) funds was not due to a
lack of effort on the part of the state, but often as a lack of interest from the state’s intercity
bus providers.
For the purpose of this task, the consultant researched and reviewed documentation from
several state DOT’s across the country to determine how they use their Section 5311(f)
funds. Information was also sought on how the states structured their intercity bus
programs. A variety of states were selected, based on recognition of the strengths of the
programs and/or the level of fund usage for intercity programs. Most states that subsidize
service provide operating support, often as a pilot project. Other states take a more capital
focused approach, while others have a more balanced approach. Some states focused
exclusively on intercity bus while others focused on the role of the intercity bus system in the
statewide transportation network. Marketing and support projects were also emphasized to
varying degrees.
OREGON
The Oregon Intercity Bus Program has been in effect since 1998. The primary goal of the
program is to support a reliable and safe network of interconnected, accessible passenger
services along major transportation corridors and between Oregon cities with populations of
2,500 people or more. The Oregon Department of Transportation provides financial support
for rural intercity connections to passenger rail and bus services. Intercity funding can also
be used as match toward the federal Section 5311(f) intercity bus program. Historically,
Oregon has approached the intercity bus program from the perspective that the state
continues to have intercity bus needs and has never submitted a Governor’s Certification to
FTA stating that the intercity bus needs of the state are being adequately met.
Oregon uses a very comprehensive approach to their program. First, the state defines an
acceptable level of basic intercity bus service, essentially a network of service that is
perceived to be fundamental to meeting the travel needs of the state’s citizens. Then,
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 34
missing pieces of the network are identified, and the state provides financial support to fill
these service gaps.
Intercity bus grants are available to private providers and public entities providing service that
supports and develops intercity service, information, or coordination. To be eligible for
financial support, services must have limited stops over longer distances and are part of the
national intercity bus or rail network. Projects must connect rural communities with larger
urban areas and may benefit any geographic area of the state, which has a gap in intercity
service. Grants are provided on a biennial basis for planning, capital and operating projects.
If a project meets threshold criteria (applicant eligibility, project type), it is evaluated in a
public process and ranked according to value-based selection criteria. The criteria include
project justification and need, project planning, local coordination efforts, project efficiency
and effectiveness, and how the project fits into overall statewide network priorities. Project
selection is based on the ranking of each project proposal. Project year and any limitation of
available funding are used to determine the number of projects that can be funded in a given
cycle, and all proposals may not be funded. The state may fund intercity projects of
statewide importance outside the discretionary grant process. The division has the option of
developing either a grant agreement or a contract with private for profit operators. This
decision is made in consultation with the operator.
Operating funds in most cases are awarded through an intercity discretionary grant
application process, and normally awarded for two years. All agencies must submit a
quarterly status report in order to receive reimbursement. Capital and planning grant
agreements generally will be awarded for a two-year period, with an option to extend the
agreement for a third year if approved by the division administrator. If a project is not, or
cannot, be completed within the two or three-year time frame, the division may re-negotiate a
completion date with the subrecipient.
PENNSYLVANIA
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) supports intercity bus
transportation through two major programs; one provides operating assistance and the other
is a capital assistance program. Under the Pennsylvania Intercity Bus Operating Assistance
Program, PennDOT contracts with municipalities and private intercity bus companies to
provide scheduled, fixed route service along routes which are considered essential links in
the regional/statewide network of intercity bus services. These are projects that cannot be
financially supported solely from user fares. Continuation of existing service threatened with
abandonment is generally given the highest priority, with proposals for new or expanded
service usually receiving a lower priority.
The Intercity Bus Capital Program is designed to assist intercity bus providers with ADA
related capital projects. There are two types of capital projects. The first is projects for lifts
or mobile seating devices and the second is for ADA related facility enhancements.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 35
The main purpose for the program is to help carriers become ADA eligible, and thus eligible
for federal funds. In order for the state to provide capital money to a carrier, they need to
have a public sponsor (county or township/municipality) for a facilities project, but may apply
directly for lifts and mobile seating devices. This program is entirely discretionary. In recent
years, there has not been money available for the Intercity Bus Capital Program. When there
is money available to fund Intercity Bus Capital, a solicitation for application is distributed to
eligible grantees.
Funding for these programs is provided by the following two sources:
♦ State Act 10 – State general funds appropriated annually by the General Assembly; and
♦ Federal Section 5311 funds.
PennDOT utilizes the following criteria in making funding decisions for the Intercity Bus
Program:
♦ Adherence to prescribed grant application procedures and deadlines;
♦ Average cost recovery of proposed service (revenue/expense);
♦ Average trip lengths per passenger, total boardings, average load factors, and nature
of travel;
♦ Availability of alternative services; and
♦ Have all potential avenues for improving the financial performance of the service
through scheduling, pricing or marketing efforts been exhausted?
The amount of funding will depend on the current level of Section 5311 funds available, with
up to a maximum level of 50 percent of the project deficit available for operating assistance
and 80 percent for capital assistance. All grantees are required to submit a monthly report of
operations along with the invoice for reimbursement.
IOWA
The Iowa Intercity Bus Assistance Program is a multifaceted program predicated upon the
Iowa Department of Transportation’s Transit System Plan. It is the intention of the Intercity
Bus Assistance Program to: (1) provide support for the existing intercity bus routes that tie
Iowa to the rest of the country; (2) provide assistance for new feeder routes which will give
smaller communities not served by the existing routes access to stops along those routes;
(3) increase public awareness of the intercity connections which are available through a
targeted intercity bus marketing program; and (4) help providers to upgrade equipment and
facilities, including adding accessibility features required by the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
The program is designed to meet federal program guidance. Charter and tour bus services
are excluded from assistance through the program, and commuter services are included
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 36
only if they make meaningful connections to the intercity bus network. Connections to
scheduled intercity rail or air passenger services, where available, are strongly encouraged
as a supplement to intercity bus connections, but cannot be substituted for them. Each
route must include service to population centers outside of urbanized areas with populations
over 50,000. Proposed projects must directly support the provision of intercity bus services
in Iowa. Eligible routes must serve Iowa intercity bus terminals connected to the nationwide
intercity bus network and include stops in non-urbanized areas.
It is the intention of Iowa DOT to expend all of their approximately $1.4 million Section 5311(f)
apportionment for intercity bus needs. A discussion with staff indicated that for FY 2009,
Iowa intends to utilize about 40 percent of its apportionment on capital with the remainder
used for operating and marketing needs.
Intercity bus companies, aspiring bus companies, public transit agencies, and local
governments wanting to support intercity bus connections in their community are eligible to
apply for the program. Joint public/private applications are encouraged, but if identical
proposals are received from public and private providers, the private sector proposals are
generally considered more favorably. A solicitation for project applications is conducted
annually. Operating assistance projects generally cover a one-year period, while capital
improvement projects are allowed a reasonable period for project implementation based on
the nature of the project. In an effort to more effectively administer the program, Iowa DOT’s
Office of Public Transit has established the following prioritized categories for intercity bus
funding.
1. Provide a base level of funding support to preserve the existing intrastate system.
• Funding will be approximately $0.10 per revenue mile based primarily on preventive
maintenance and insurance costs;
• Funding will be allocated based on existing miles of Iowa intercity service;
• To qualify for these funds, carriers must provide quarterly reports noting the number of
Iowa passenger trips by route, miles of revenue service, and total cost per revenue
mile; and
• Eligible carriers must serve Iowa intercity bus terminals connected to the nationwide
intercity bus network.
2. Provide support for the development of new connector/feeder service.
• Funding assistance shall be up to $0.50 per mile based primarily on preventive
maintenance and insurance costs. Funding for new routes that duplicate existing
routes shall be limited to $0.10 per mile;
• New service projects are eligible for funding for three years;
• To qualify for these funds, carriers must provide quarterly reports including the same
reporting information noted above;
• Eligible carriers must serve Iowa intercity bus terminals connected to the nationwide
intercity bus network; and
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 37
• New intercity bus service must be ADA accessible and each route must include service
to non-urban population centers.
3. Provide funding assistance for route specific marketing projects.
• Marketing of new services will have the highest priority for this category of funding;
• Marketing of new routes will be funded at 80 percent federal – 20 percent non-federal,
with a federal cap of $12,000 per route;
• New marketing of existing service will be funded at 80% federal - 20% non-federal, with
a federal cap of $7,500 per carrier;
• Joint project development between cities, intercity carrier terminal managers, and
operators is encouraged;
• Funding will be limited to external non-labor costs only;
• Applicants should include a systemwide overview of their current marketing efforts; and
Applicants with unused marketing funds may have their marketing funding requests
reduced or eliminated unless proper justification is provided. Justification should
include reasons why funding is unexpended plus a plan that assures the balance and
any additional funding will be spent in a timely manner.
4. Provide support for vehicle and bus terminal improvements.
• Vehicles required to support new services for Iowa will have the highest priority for
funding, with terminal improvements having the next highest priority.
Terminal improvements shall require commitments to continue service for a period of
years; and
• All improvements must meet ADA accessibility standards.
GEORGIA
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) utilizes all of the state’s Section 5311 (f)
allocation for the provision of intercity bus service. Only private intercity bus carriers that
provide service that meets the federal intercity bus guidelines are eligible for funding through
the Georgia Intercity Bus Program. The Georgia program is rather unique in that it consists
of three capital-only elements: vehicle purchase, signage, and marketing. None of the funds
are used for intercity bus operating assistance. Under the vehicle purchase portion of the
program, GDOT purchases intercity coaches and subsequently leases them to eligible
intercity bus operators. Of the total project cost, 80 percent represent grant funding with the
remaining 20 percent provided by the operator.
Intercity operators are required to submit quarterly vehicle utilization reports to GDOT, and
GDOT periodically inspects the vehicles to ensure that they are being properly maintained.
Additional projects have been the purchase and installation of trailblazer directional signs to
intercity bus stations and a marketing campaign to inform the public of the relocation of the
Atlanta Greyhound station.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 38
NORTH CAROLINA
The primary focus of North Carolina’s Intercity Bus Program is to provide operating
assistance to enable rural transit systems and intercity bus operators to provide feeder
connections to intercity services, to reinstate or initiate intercity bus services in areas lacking
current services, and to allow coordination of long-distance medical trips as part of regional
or intercity services. Accordingly, the program provides operating assistance, including
funds to adequately market the service to the public. NCDOT has determined that capital
funding for vehicles or facilities would only have an indirect impact on the goal of serving
areas or markets that are currently unserved due to the limited amount of funding available,
so the focus is on providing operating support. Based on the operational structure of the
proposed service, a limited amount of administrative funding may also be available.
Fifteen percent of North Carolina’s Section 5311 apportionment represents over $3.1 million
for the Section 5311 (f) program. There is an additional $400,000 in state funds available to
match intercity bus projects. Operating assistance is provided with 100 percent federal/state
funds; no local match is required. NCDOT utilizes this funding structure due to the difficulty
private operators and/or the sponsoring local governments encounter providing the required
50 percent non-federal match.
The NCDOT Intercity Bus Program also supports Travelers’ Aid programs that assist
homeless, stranded or indigent travelers with their intercity transportation needs through the
purchase of bus tickets. Funds are provided to a few regional agencies across the state,
supporting up to 50 percent of the cost of purchased tickets. NCDOT requires participating
Travelers’ Aid agencies to confirm that an individual has a place to live in the area the client
is traveling to prior to the purchase of the intercity bus ticket.
Eligible recipients of these Intercity Bus Program funds are community transportation
systems; other public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit transportation providers; public
transportation authorities; intercity bus providers; local public bodies including counties and
municipalities; Indian tribes; and regional or local planning organizations.
NCDOT passes through funds to a local agency that subcontracts with a third party,
including a private intercity bus provider, in order to provide the service. Alternatively,
NCDOT may contract directly with an intercity bus provider. Performance criteria are
specified in the grant agreement between NCDOT and the recipient.
The intercity carrier must provide a contingency plan for service interrupted due to vehicle
breakdown or severe weather conditions, which shall include, but is not limited to, provision
of food and/or hotel accommodations for affected passengers. Grantees must report
information on provided services and marketing to NCDOT with the invoice of expenditures
on a monthly basis. The following data are to be recorded and reported each month for
each route operated along with the invoice:
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 39
♦ Total miles operated;
♦ Total passengers carried, including ridership generated from each ticketing
♦ station;
♦ If vehicle is accessible, number of passengers using the wheelchair lift;
♦ Passenger miles;
♦ Passenger revenue;
♦ Freight/package delivery revenue;
♦ Total operating cost to provide the service;
♦ Cost per mile operated;
♦ Cost per passenger mile; and
♦ Marketing activities and expenses, with appropriate back-up documentation.
NCDOT has recently conducted a study, Assessing Potential Intercity Bus Services
for FTA Section 5311(f) Funding (Final Report, June 2008, Institute for Transportation
Research and Education, North Carolina State University), that proposes a new process for
soliciting and funding intercity bus projects. The proposed process includes the following
steps:
♦ Conduct an evaluation of the statewide intercity bus network, and develop/revise the
map of that network. This step would be conducted only at regular intervals;
♦ Conduct a needs assessment to gather input from local transportation providers,
planners, business representatives, etc;
♦ Conduct a consultative process with potential intercity bus operators. That would lead
to a determination of intercity bus services for which proposals would be requested;
♦ Select services to receive funding assistance. Request applications to operate
selected services, and conduct a two-step application process;
o Request and review Letters of Interest from potential applicants. NCDOT staff
would review the Letters of Interest to determine each applicant’s ability to meet
required federal and state qualifications such as possessing and being in
compliance with, or agreeing to obtain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA) authority; possessing or agreeing to obtain insurance at required levels;
and stating an intent to become an interline partner with Greyhound; and
o Request detailed applications to operate service(s) from operators who were
deemed to be qualified to operate intercity bus services based on the information
submitted in their Letters of Interest. The detailed applications from qualified
operators would be reviewed and evaluated by NCDOT staff. Service(s) and
operators would be selected to receive funding assistance. If no satisfactory
applications were received for a particular service, NCDOT could elect to negotiate
an agreement for service with a qualified operator.
♦ Execute funding agreements for service(s); and
♦ NCDOT would monitor the performance of services receiving funding assistance.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 40
OHIO
The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) completed an intercity bus study in 2007
that was very similar to the current effort in Indiana. The scope of the study was primarily
concerned with assessing intercity bus needs based on existing conditions, demographic
indicators, and solicited input from communities, rural transit providers, and intercity bus
operators.
The study found that Greyhound’s 2005 route restructuring resulted in considerable loss of
service across the State of Ohio, with 12 percent of the state’s residents living outside of
reasonable access to an intercity bus stop or terminal. Also, there is very limited feeder
service into the existing intercity bus routes.
The study results do suggest, however, the need for state level policy decisions regarding
the role of intercity bus service in meeting ODOT’s mission and state goals for public
transportation. It was also found that incentives are needed to encourage coordination
between intercity bus and rural transit operations and operating assistance for certain
services that have been discontinued due to Greyhound’s restructuring.
ODOT is limited in its grant making ability with intercity carriers due to the state’s lack of
authority to contract directly with the intercity carriers. As a result, intercity bus grants must
be provided indirectly through an existing ODOT grantee that subsequently enters into a
third-party agreement with the intercity carrier to enable the funds to flow.
ODOT originally utilized Section 5311(f) funds for purchase/construction of intermodal
facilities, administrative cost of ticketing agents, and marketing expenses. In 2003, the state
began to use these funds for route-specific operating assistance. Note that Ohio has no
state funds that can be used toward the non-federal matching requirements.
The study recommendations include capital assistance for the improvement of intercity
facilities, support of fixed route/schedule feeder service into the Greyhound interline service
by the rural transit network, and support of some routes recommended by Lakefront
Trailways.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 41
Characteristics
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL INTERCITY BUS PROGRAMS
The review of several state intercity bus programs across the country indicates that there are
characteristics of the more successful programs that transcend from one program to
another. The more notable characteristics are:
♦ A vision for a statewide transportation network and the role of intercity bus in this
network;
♦ Diverse use of intercity bus funds for capital and operating based on local needs;
♦ Objective project selection criteria;
♦ Strong marketing component of each supported route, providing important consumer-
related information.
♦ A system of project reporting that facilitates project monitoring;
♦ Established project evaluation criteria to measure success of projects;
♦ Strict project oversight by state DOT; and
♦ State funds to support intercity bus services.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 42
Observations
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary purpose of the Indiana Intercity Bus Study was to provide the Indiana
Department of Transportation with: (1) an assessment of the intercity bus needs across the
state; (2) recommendations for addressing the unmet needs, particularly from the
perspective of potential utilization of federal Section 5311(f) funds; and (3) recommendations
for the overall structure of the state’s intercity bus program. An evaluation of Amtrak service
in the state was also to be conducted along with providing recommendations for the use of
state funds to support the service.
The consultant made the following observations concerning the status and needs of
Indiana’s intercity bus industry:
♦ Indiana has lost most of its intercity bus service due to deregulation and lack of
ridership;
♦ Five intercity bus carriers are providing limited service primarily along the state’s
interstate highway network;
♦ Intercity bus schedules provide stops in the late evening or very early morning, but
often with lengthy travel times;
♦ There are 104 municipalities in Indiana that are not served by intercity bus, including
several sizeable cities such as Carmel, Columbus, and Muncie and most notably
Bloomington, with its large student population;
♦ There are only 13 communities in Indiana that have an intercity bus stop, with one of
those having limited service (Crawfordsville) and another having on-call service only
(Angola);
♦ There is a lack of multi-modal public transportation facilities that enhance mobility
options;
♦ Intercity bus stops are currently within 25 miles of nearly 96 percent of Indiana’s rural
population;
♦ Much of the state, from a geographical perspective, has no access to intercity bus
service, particularly the north-central area and all areas south of Indianapolis with the
exception of Evansville and the portion of the state in the Louisville service area;
♦ While county-wide general public transportation service is lacking in 28 Indiana
counties, intercity bus service is within reasonable distance of most of the unserved
population;
♦ Over 1.5 million, or nearly 25 percent, of Indiana residents reside in areas that lack
general public transportation service;
♦ Little interest from intercity bus carriers to increase service in the state;
♦ Structure of intercity bus programs and their use of Section 5311(f) funds varies greatly
among the states, with some being more operating or capital oriented while other
states have a more diverse approach;
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 43
♦ Measureable project selection criteria is an important element of a successful intercity
bus program;
♦ Most successful state intercity bus programs include a strong marketing component of
each supported route, providing important consumer-related information;
♦ Existing intercity bus routes, while decreased dramatically in numbers, continue to
provide valuable opportunities for travel across state lines;
♦ Currently 2 routes supported by Section 5311(f) funds operate in the state;
♦ In the past the state’s intercity bus carriers and rural transit systems have shown little
interest in utilizing Section 5311(f) funds;
♦ Limited feeder connections exist between the state's rural transit systems and intercity
bus carriers;
♦ Current intercity bus service is often infrequent and slow with stations difficult to find;
♦ Survey responses indicated a lukewarm opinion of the importance of intercity bus
service;
♦ Responses supported using state funds to support intercity bus services but provided
few recommendations on how the funds should be utilized; and
♦ Several survey respondents called for regional service from counties lacking general
public service.
Overall recommendations for the state’s intercity bus program include:
♦ Develop an intercity bus service section within INDOT’s Transit website, including
information regarding intercity bus service available in the state and links to websites of
all intercity bus companies operating in Indiana;
♦ Place intercity bus directional signs along intercity bus routes to direct citizens to bus
stations;
♦ Work closely with the state’s Section 5311 supported systems to develop intercity bus
feeder services to connect people from the rural areas to intercity bus and rail stations;
♦ Initiate the recommended project funding process (see below) to further determine
intercity carriers’ interest in providing additional services, with intercity service
implementation along the routes noted below; repeat this process on an annual basis;
♦ Consider use of the FTA “Pilot Project” funding methodology that allows states to use
the capital costs of unsubsidized private sector intercity bus service as an in-kind
match for operating costs of connecting rural intercity bus feeder service;
♦ Fund projects for a minimum two-year period with a decision made following the third
quarter as to whether the service would be supported in the second year;
♦ Balance new and old projects, retaining successful projects but leaving funds available
for new projects to be funded;
♦ Add “sustainability of project” as a consideration in funding decisions;
♦ Ensure that each project has defined outcome-based performance measures, and
require close performance monitoring of the project by the provider and INDOT;
♦ Require a detailed marketing plan to be submitted for each funded project;
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 44
♦ Encourage all FTA supported transit systems to serve their local intercity bus station;
♦ Inspect intercity bus stations across the state to determine the potential Section 5311(f)
applicability to facility improvements; and
♦ Consider opinions of intercity bus providers on route structure and schedules for
selected projects, due to their experience in the industry.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 45
Assessment
ASSESSMENT OF INDIANA’S CURRENT SECTION 5311(f) INTERCITY
BUS PROGRAM
A thorough evaluation of INDOT’s current Section 5311(f) program indicated that the
program meets most of FTA’s minimum requirements for the program, but improvements to
the required consultative process are necessary. The consultant made the following
observations regarding INDOT’s 5311(f) program:
♦ In 2004, Greyhound discontinued three routes that were supported with Section 5311(f)
funds;
♦ Route termination resulted in little reaction from local officials and the general public;
♦ INDOT is currently supporting two intercity bus projects with Section 5311(f) funds, one
with the City of Marion and the other with Johnson County, utilizing approximately 12
percent of its Section 5311(f) funds;
♦ The operating nature of the Johnson County project raises concerns regarding its
eligibility for Section 5311(f) funding;
♦ INDOT annually announces the availability of Section 5311(f) funds in the state’s major
newspapers and corresponds directly with the intercity bus companies operating in
Indiana;
♦ INDOT meets periodically with the Section 5311 supported community transportation
systems to discuss the availability of Section 5311(f) funds and potential intercity bus
projects;
♦ These efforts have resulted in very little interest in future intercity bus projects; and
♦ INDOT has routinely submitted a Governor’s Certification to FTA, indicating that the
state’s intercity bus needs are met and that the remaining Section 5311(f) funds are to
be used to provide other rural transportation services.
This study has evaluated Indiana’s intercity bus needs from various perspectives. First, there
was a survey of over 1,000 individuals across the state including representatives of public
transportation providers, transportation planning organizations, economic development
agencies, Chambers of Commerce and city/county executives. The survey resulted in some
ideas for intercity bus routes that could potentially benefit the traveling public in Indiana.
Discussions were held with each intercity bus company operating in the state, along with a
review of the routes that they have terminated over the years.
The existing statewide intercity bus network was evaluated, noting those communities lacking
intercity bus service and the gaps in service. Next, the consultant analyzed the transit
propensity across the state, particularly in those areas that are void of intercity bus service.
Then, using an area of 25 miles around an existing intercity bus station, the number of
residents living outside this reasonable distance was determined and compared to the
service gaps. An additional consideration was major travel destinations that would more
likely generate intercity bus ridership.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 46
This extensive needs assessment is fundamental to this entire study. It is necessary to
understand the areas of greatest potential demand for intercity bus service and to compare
those areas to the current service. The higher service demand areas that lack service are
identified as gaps in service and should be considered a priority for Section 5311(f) funding
support. Based on this analysis, the following routes should be considered for Section
5311(f) support in the future:
♦ Elkhart/South Bend – Indianapolis along US 31;
♦ Indianapolis – Louisville along SR 37/US 150;
♦ Evansville – Cincinnati along US 50/US 41;
♦ Evansville – Indianapolis along proposed I-69 corridor (upon completion) or along US
41/I-70;
♦ Evansville – Louisville along I-164 and I-64;
♦ Terre Haute – Evansville along US 41; and
♦ Feeder routes into the various Indiana intercity bus stations.
The identification of these routes is not intended to preclude the support of other intercity bus
routes along different corridors of the state. It is merely for the purpose of providing a basis
to be used as a guide for determining intercity bus routes that would be supported with
federal funds. Also, this intercity bus route network of current and proposed routes should
be reevaluated periodically and updated as needed.
It is most important that at the time these routes are seriously considered for funding, that the
schedules for connecting routes be carefully evaluated as well to enable the newly scheduled
service to maximize passenger transfers. Often, just a minor schedule modification will ease
the transfer from one route to another. Even if the routes are operated by different carriers,
each carrier will benefit from schedules that allow route connectivity and passenger transfers.
While there continue to be rural areas of the state that lack general public transportation
services, it is the consultant’s conclusion that consistent with FTA’s intention for the Section
5311(f) program, INDOT should actively and genuinely solicit intercity bus projects on an
annual basis. And, while entering each fiscal year with the intention of expending the state’s
entire Section 5311(f) apportionment on intercity bus projects, INDOT should only support
those projects that have merit and reasonable chance for success.
In the event a balance of Section 5311(f) funds are left following the project solicitation and
funding efforts, INDOT should pursue a “partial governor’s certification” to be submitted to
FTA, allowing the remaining balance of Section 5311(f) funds to be used for the provision of
other rural transportation needs across the state. With the likelihood that the lack of local
matching funds may affect INDOT’s ability to expend the Section 5311(f) funds, INDOT
should utilize FTA’s pilot project that allows states to use the capital costs of unsubsidized
intercity bus service provided by private operators as in-kind match for the operating costs
associated with connecting rural intercity bus feeder service.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 47
Also, it should be noted that Section 5311(f) includes capital needs as an eligible expense.
INDOT is encouraged to consider capital projects that will enhance the provision and
utilization of intercity bus services across the state, such as construction of intermodal
facilities, bus station refurbishment, and directional signs.
PROPOSED SECTION 5311(F) PROCESS
We recommend the following grants solicitation process:
♦ Conduct an annual assessment of intercity bus needs via a brief email survey of
representatives of public and private transportation providers, transportation planning
organizations, economic development agencies, Chambers of Commerce, and
city/county executives (see Appendix B);
♦ Compile a list of proposed intercity bus services determined from survey responses;
♦ Evaluate each proposed service based on FTA’s requirements for the Section 5311(f)
program and state funding criteria (see below);
♦ Develop prioritized list of potential intercity bus projects;
♦ Conduct a meaningful consultative process that includes providing the opportunity for
the state’s intercity bus providers to meet with INDOT officials to discuss the prioritized
list of potential intercity bus projects, and address any questions or concerns the
providers may have regarding the list of projects, application process, service
requirements, etc. (Note that the consultative process should be documented with
minutes from the meeting);
♦ Finalize a list of intercity bus services for which INDOT will solicit service operation
applications;
♦ Distribute an application package to public and private public transportation providers,
including intercity bus companies operating in the state, requesting applicants to
identify those services they are interested in providing, provide an operating plan,
including route/schedule and anticipated ridership, provide a plan for marketing the
service, and submit operating budgets for each of the two years of anticipated service;
♦ Evaluate applications based on established criteria (see suggestions below) and
amount of available funds. (Note that the number of projects continued from the
previous year will impact the funds available for new projects);
♦ Select applicants to provide service and receive funding support;
♦ Execute a contract with selected providers to operate the intercity bus services,
developing either a grant agreement through a Section 5311 recipient or a contract with
an intercity bus provider;
♦ Providers submit monthly/quarterly invoices and reports including performance
information as determined by INDOT;
♦ INDOT provides reimbursement of expenses following invoice review;
♦ Based on a performance evaluation during the first three quarters of operation, INDOT
would determine if second year funding will be provided;
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 48
♦ INDOT notifies providers of second year funding decisions at least thirty days prior to
the end of the period of performance of current contract; and
♦ Repeat process annually based on a prescribed schedule (see Appendix C for a
tentative schedule).
CRITERIA TO SCREEN SERVICES PROPOSED FROM RETURNED SURVEYS
Following receipt of the completed needs assessment survey, it is proposed that INDOT
utilize the following criteria to screen the proposed intercity bus services:
♦ Does the service meet the definition of intercity bus service as required by FTA and,
therefore, is eligible for Section 5311(f) funding?
♦ Is the service duplicative of other intercity routes?
♦ Are unserved areas of the state served by theh proposed route?
♦ Does the service provide a meaningful connection with other intercity bus routes?
♦ Does the service fit into INDOT’s public transportation network?
♦ Is the anticipated ridership adequate?
♦ Has the service been provided in the past, and if so, what was its level of success?
♦ Is proposed service eligible for assistance from other funding sources?
APPLICATION EVALUATION CRITERIA (POINTS BASED)
Once INDOT receives applications for the intercity bus routes for which there is interest to
support, it is recommended that the following criteria be used for application evaluation.
♦ Overall quality and thoroughness of the application, particularly its adherence to
application instructions and schedule (20 points);
♦ Connection of proposed service with existing intercity bus service (15 points);
♦ Financial solvency of the intercity bus operator, including adequate insurance coverage
(15 points);
♦ Adequate capital to provide service, including vehicles and boarding locations
(15 points);
♦ Provision of local match (15 points);
♦ Intercity bus operator’s capability and history of providing comparable service (10
points); and
♦ Proposed farebox recovery of service (revenue/expense) (10 points).
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 49
Amtrak
AMTRAK PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, is a government-
owned corporation that was organized in 1971 to provide intercity passenger train service in
the United States. Amtrak operates passenger service on 21,000 miles of track primarily
owned by freight railroads connecting 500 destinations in 46 states.
In FY 2007, Amtrak served 25.8 million passengers on its national network, representing five
straight years of record ridership. Preliminary ridership data for FY 2008 indicates a total of
well over 28 million passengers, an increase of approximately 11 percent from the previous
year and an increase of over 43 percent since FY 2001.
Indiana Amtrak service of varying frequencies includes stops at the following terminals:
♦ Connersville;
♦ Crawfordsville;
♦ Dyer;
♦ Elkhart;
♦ Hammond-Whiting;
♦ Indianapolis;
♦ Lafayette;
♦ Michigan City;
♦ Rensselaer;
♦ South Bend; and
♦ Waterloo.
Amtrak has a significant presence in Indiana, operating three long-distance trains through
the state:
♦ The Capitol Limited (daily Chicago-Waterloo-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Washington, D.C.
serving South Bend, Elkhart and Waterloo); westbound train travels through Indiana
during early morning and eastbound during the evening. Ridership increase of 11.7
percent in FY 2008.
♦ The Cardinal (tri-weekly Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-New York, serving Dyer,
Rensselaer, Lafayette, Crawfordsville, Indianapolis and Connersville); westbound train
travels through Indiana during early morning (Sunday, Wednesday, Friday) and
eastbound during the evening (Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday). Ridership increase of
12.7 percent in FY 2008; and
♦ The Lake Shore Limited (daily Chicago-South Bend-Cleveland-Buffalo-Boston/New
York, serving South Bend, Elkhart and Waterloo); westbound train travels through
Indiana during early morning and eastbound during the very early morning. Ridership
increase of 10.6 percent in FY 2008.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 50
Amtrak also operates one corridor train, the Hoosier State (four days per week (Indianapolis-
Lafayette-Chicago), which operates on the days that the Cardinal does not. The
departure/arrival times for the Hoosier State are the same as for the Cardinal, operating
westbound Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, while operating eastbound on
Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Note that the Hoosier State does not stop in
Connersville. Ridership on the Hoosier State increased 20.6 percent in FY 2008 from the
previous year.
Additionally, the Wolverine (Chicago-Pontiac) serves Hammond-Whiting and Michigan City
with three daily round trips. Ridership on the Wolverine increased by 5.2 percent in FY 2008.
Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach connections area available for the Cardinal/Hoosier State,
connecting Crawfordsville, Champaign, Bloomington, Galesburg, and Davenport to the
Indianapolis Amtrak station. Four daily single-connection train/shuttle schedules provide
transportation between Chicago and Bloomington. Amtrak’s Thruway Motorcoach, consists
of Amtrak-owned intercity coaches, locally contracted transit buses, through-ticketed local
bus routes and taxi services, to connect Amtrak train stations to areas not served by it rail
system. Passenger rail and Thruway Motorcoach tickets are purchased together from
Amtrak for the length of a passenger's journey, and the connections are timed as best as
possible for convenient transfers between the two services. In addition to providing
connecting service to unserved areas, some Thruway Motorcoaches operate as redundant
service along well-established and utilized passenger rail corridors to add extra capacity
(Figure 9).
While the number of trains is quite impressive, the area served is rather limited. Service is
only available along the most northern part of the state extending from Hammond to
Waterloo and along the corridor from Dyer to Connersville via Indianapolis. Therefore, the
majority of the state is not within reasonable access of Amtrak service.
In FY 2007, Amtrak expended nearly $10 million for goods and services in Indiana. Most of
this money, almost $7 million, was spent in Indianapolis. This is largely attributable to the
location of the major boarding station in Indianapolis and the nearby Beech Grove
maintenance facility. At the end of FY 2007, Amtrak employed 780 Indiana residents, with
wages totaling nearly $38 million.
Also, INDOT has provided over $1 million in financial assistance for capital improvement to
the Beech Grove maintenance facility. This funding has assisted Amtrak with renovating
buildings used to expand repair services and securing jobs of Beech Grove and Indianapolis
area residents.
Amtrak serves eleven Indiana stations, resulting in nearly 125,000 total boardings and
alightings in FY 2008, as compared to about 108,000 during the previous year, an increase
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 51
Figure 9:
Intercity Train, Amtrak, and Amtrak Thruway Bus Route
Lake
Porter
LaPorte
St. Joseph
Elkhart
LaGrange
Noble
Steuben
DeKalb
.
Marshall
Starke
Kosciusko
Whitley
Allen
Pulaski Fulton
Jasper
Newton
Wabash Huntington
Cass Miami Adams
White Wells
Benton Carroll
Grant
Howard Blackford
Jay
Tippecanoe
Warren
Clinton Tipton
Delaware
Madison Randolph
Fountain
Hamilton
Montgomery Boone
Henry
Wayne
Vermillion
Hancock
Parke Hendricks Marion
Putnam Fayette
Rush Union
Shelby
Morgan Johnson
Vigo Franklin
Clay Owen Decatur
Brown Bartholomew
Monroe Dearborn
Ripley
Sullivan
Greene
Jennings
Ohio
Jackson
Lawrence Switzerland
Jefferson
Knox Daviess Martin Scott
Washington
Orange
Clark
Pike
Dubois
Gibson Floyd
Crawford
Harrison
Warrick
Vanderburgh Perry
Posey Spencer
Amtrak Thruways Bus
Amtrak
NICTD - South Shore Line
52
of over 15 percent. The stations are noted below with the total boardings and alightings for
FY 2007 and FY 2008.
Table 10
Station Total Boardings and Alightings
FY 2007 FY 2008 % Change
Connersville 497 647 30%
Crawfordsville 4,431 5,040 14%
Dyer 1,723 2,162 25%
Elkhart 11,718 14,115 20%
Hammond-Whiting 6,457 6,289 (2%)
Indianapolis 29,110 34,089 17%
Lafayette 18,483 23,083 25%
Michigan City 1,941 2,176 1%
Rensselaer 1,630 1,830 12%
South Bend 15,856 17,576 11%
Waterloo 16,217 17,881 10%
Total Indiana Station Usage 108,066 124,888 16%
Source: Amtrak
MAJOR FACILITIES
The largest of Amtrak’s three heavy maintenance facilities is located in Beech Grove,
southeast of Indianapolis. At this facility, approximately 550 employees rebuild and overhaul
Amtrak’s Superliner, Viewliner, Surfliner, Hi-Level, Heritage, and Horizon car fleets. The P32,
P42, and F59 locomotives also are overhauled and rebuilt here for use across the Amtrak
system.
During FY 2007, 10 passenger car and 15 locomotive wreck repairs were completed at
Beech Grove and returned to service. Also, 94 Superliners, 23 Horizon cars, 12 Viewliner
sleepers, and 37 diesel locomotives were overhauled or remanufactured. Five Superliner
Sightseer lounges were converted to an experimental diner/lounge configuration, allowing
cost savings in onboard food service. Beech Grove forces also overhauled six coaches for
commercial customers.
During FY 2008, Beech Grove is expected to complete overhauls on 81 Superliners, 17
Surfliners, 13 Viewliner sleepers, 19 Horizon coaches and cafes, five Hi-Level coaches, 13
Heritage diners and sleepers, and 36 baggage cars inherited from predecessor railroads.
Four coaches and two locomotives will be overhauled for the State of California’s fleet. Also
planned are overhauls on 35 diesel locomotives and wreck repairs on nine locomotives and
11 passenger cars.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 53
It is anticipated that Beech Grove would likely see considerable growth if it were used to
service a proposed high-speed rail system linking Indiana with locations from Cleveland to
St. Louis, including Chicago, Cincinnati and Louisville. Beech Grove would be a logical point
for cars and locomotives to be serviced which could result in 500 – 600 new workers at the
facility.
STATION IMPROVEMENTS
Recent station improvements have been modest within the state with the Town of Dyer
signing an agreement formally “adopting” the station in that community. Town employees
and volunteers will beautify and maintain station grounds and update train information
boards at the passenger shelter. The passenger shelter at Crawfordsville and surrounding
area was cleaned and improved by students from Crawfordsville High School. At the request
of local government, a new passenger shelter was installed at the Michigan City station.
OTHER STATE RAIL SERVICES
The South Shore Line is an electrically powered interurban streetcar line operated by the
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) between the Randolph Street
Terminal in downtown Chicago and the South Bend Regional Airport. However, the South
Shore Line has quite a history dating back to the early 1900’s.
Revenue service was initiated on the line in 1908 from Michigan City east to South Bend, with
the first through electric train service from Chicago to South Bend initiated in 1926. The line
was operated as the Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad (CSS&SB) and ridership
flourished until highway competition and suburban growth resulted in significant declines in
ridership in the 1960’s. In 1971 the CSS&SB was one of only six long-distance passenger
trains to decline joining the new Amtrak system. In 1976 the CSS&SB asked the Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC) to abandon passenger service along the line. The ICC gave
the State of Indiana the opportunity to respond to this imminent service termination. In 1977
the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation enabling the four counties served by the
South Shore Line (St. Joseph, LaPorte, Porter and Lake) to create the NICTD as a means to
provide the operation with state financial support to maintain and improve the South Shore
passenger service.
The CSS&SB continued to operate the South Shore Line until it went bankrupt in 1989, at
which time the NICTD took over operation. In December 1990 the track was sold to the
NICTD, and freight service was taken over by the new Chicago South Shore and South Bend
Railroad, a subsidiary of the short line operator, Anacostia and Pacific. In November 1992 an
extension was built from the old South Bend terminal at the Amtrak station to the South Bend
Regional Airport.
The South Shore Line is one of only a few surviving interurban streetcar lines in the United
States. The main rail yard, maintenance shops, and dispatching office are in Michigan City,
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 54
while the NICTD corporate headquarters are in Chesterton. The line operates along ninety
miles of track between Chicago and South Bend, stopping in twenty stations. The Indiana
portion of the service is sixty-nine miles long with twelve passenger stations.
In 2006, the service resulted in over 11,000 weekday riders at the Indiana stops. South Shore
Line trains make the following station stops in Indiana:
♦ Hammond;
♦ East Chicago;
♦ Gary Airport/Clark Road;
♦ Gary Metro Center;
♦ Miller;
♦ Ogden Dunes/Portage;
♦ Dune Park;
♦ Beverly Shores;
♦ 11th Street (Michigan City);
♦ Carroll Avenue (Michigan City);
♦ Hudson Lake; and
♦ South Bend Airport.
The South Shore Line route, along with the state’s Amtrak routes, is shown in Figure 11.
The Indiana Public Mass Transportation Fund (PMTF) provides the NICTD with an annual set-
aside of 12.34 percent of the total PMTF amount available for operating and capital needs.
Of the total $42.5 million in FY 2009, $5,244,500 is allocated to the NICTD, an increase of
1.85 percent from the previous year. PTMF receives 0.635 percent of the state sales and use
tax. These funds are allocated to public transit agencies on a calendar year basis using a
performance based formula. Awards are limited to an amount equal to 100 percent of the
project's locally derived income (system revenues and local taxes) or the system's total
formula allocation, which ever is less. Service area population, passenger trips, total vehicle
miles, and locally derived income data are utilized to compute the formula allocations.
At this time efforts are underway to extend the South Shore Line to Lowell and Valparaiso.
With it having a lower cost and much higher ridership projections, it appears likely that the
Lowell portion will receive FTA New Start funds, with the Valparaiso section being delayed at
this time. The NICTD wants to move forward and study the feasibility of running the
Valparaiso extension on the former Amtrak corridor from Gary to Valparaiso. The previous
plan called for the extension to operate on the rights of way of the Canadian National
Railway.
Also, there is interest in the development of commuter rail service for central Indiana. In 2007
the Indiana General Assembly passed an act requiring INDOT to conduct a feasibility study
for commuter rail service along two central Indiana corridors – Muncie to Indianapolis and
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 55
Figure 11:
South Shore Line and Amtrak Routes
Lake
Porter
LaPorte
St. Joseph
Elkhart
LaGrange
Noble
Steuben
DeKalb
.
Marshall
Starke
Kosciusko
Whitley
Allen
Pulaski Fulton
Jasper
Newton
Wabash Huntington
Cass Miami Adams
White Wells
Benton Carroll
Grant
Howard Blackford
Jay
Tippecanoe
Warren
Clinton Tipton
Delaware
Madison Randolph
Fountain
Hamilton
Montgomery Boone
Henry
Wayne
Vermillion
Hancock
Parke Hendricks Marion
Putnam Fayette
Rush Union
Shelby
Morgan Johnson
Vigo Franklin
Clay Owen Decatur
Brown Bartholomew
Monroe Dearborn
Ripley
Sullivan
Greene
Jennings
Ohio
Jackson
Lawrence Switzerland
Jefferson
Knox Daviess Martin Scott
Washington
Orange
Clark
Pike
Dubois
Gibson Floyd
Crawford
Harrison
Warrick
Vanderburgh Perry
Posey Spencer
Amtrak Throughways Bus
Amtrak
NICTD - South Shore Line
56
Bloomington to Indianapolis. The objective of the Central Indiana Commuter Rail Feasibility
Study was to determine the benefits, costs, risks, and timing of commuter rail implementation
in these corridors. The study defined the alternatives that could likely be advanced for further
study, but found it difficult to determine how competitive the rail projects would be in the FTA
New Starts funding process.
It is significant to note that, to this point, the State of Indiana’s interest in funding passenger
rail service has been limited to commuter service such as the South Shore Line and possibly
future central Indiana service. The NICTD’s South Shore Line provides a valuable state
service with its substantial daily ridership of over 11.000 commuters. Research has
concluded that interest in providing state financial assistance for conventional Amtrak
passenger rail service has not materialized due to it being primarily non-essential in nature as
opposed to commuter rail service. Potential state participation in the Midwest Regional Rail
Initiative (see below) may prove to be an exception to this trend. As previously noted, state-
supported Amtrak service can not be a commuter train due to Amtrak regulations.
The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MRRI) is a cooperative effort between Amtrak, the
Federal Railroad Administration, and nine states - Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin - to develop an improved and
expanded high-speed passenger rail system in the Midwest. Once completed, the system
would be a 3,000-mile rail network serving nearly 60 million people. (See Figure 12.)
The passenger rail network would operate as a hub-and-spoke system providing through-
service in Chicago to locations throughout the Midwest. Trains operating at speeds up to 110
mph would link Chicago with Milwaukee, Madison and Minneapolis; Des Moines and
Omaha; St. Louis and Kansas City; Indianapolis and Cincinnati; Grand Rapids and Detroit;
Toledo and Cleveland; as well as many smaller cities and towns. Routes initiating in Chicago
and traversing through Indiana would include routes to Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati.
Increased speeds and service efficiencies would reduce travel times dramatically. The
Chicago-Detroit trip, for example, would drop from the current six hours to less than four,
while the nearly nine hour Chicago-Cincinnati and Chicago-Cleveland trips would be cut in
half. These efficiencies would be achieved through state-of-the-art train communication and
control systems, highway/railroad grade crossing safety enhancements, rehabilitation of
existing and construction of new track and sidings.
It is estimated that the infrastructure and rolling stock costs to fully implement the system will
total $7.7 billion (2002 dollars). Funding would be provided at an 80 percent federal/20
percent state matching ratio. Indiana has made no decisions as to how to pay for its share
of these costs. Once completely implemented, the system would operate with over 63 new
train sets that would provide passengers with modern and spacious facilities and offer on-
board amenities for business and leisure travelers. It is estimated that ridership on the entire
system would increase from the current 1.5 million passengers per year to 9.6 million
passengers per year once fully developed.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 57
Figure 12
Midwest Regional Rail System
EXECUTIVE REPORT
Proposed Midwest
Regional Rail System
Duluth
Minnesota
Superior
Staples
Wisconsin
St. Cloud
Marinette
Wausau Michigan
Minneapolis- Eau Claire
Green Sturgeon
St. Paul Bay Bay Cadillac
Mankato Winona Manitowoc Mt.
Oshkosh Pleasant Midland
Ludington
Rochester
La Crosse
Grand Port Huron
Madison Milwaukee Rapids Pontiac
Iowa Howell Anchorville
Holland Lansing
Janesville
Sioux City Ft. Dodge Cedar Falls
Detroit
St. Joseph Kalamazoo
Rockford Monroe
Nebraska Cleveland
Ames Chicago
Cedar Rapids Iowa
Rock
Illinois
City Waterloo
Blair Island South Bend Toledo
Gary Youngstown
Des Moines
Princeton Ft. Wayne Lima Canton
Omaha
Galesburg Indiana Ohio
Lincoln Peoria
Lafayette Kokomo
Nebraska Normal
City Danville Muncie
Columbus
Kirksville
Springfield Champaign
Indianapolis Dayton
St. Joseph Quincy Decatur Terre
Jacksonville Haute
Mattoon Cincinnati
Leavenworth
Kansas City
Bloomington
Topeka Columbia
Centralia
Sedalia St. Louis
Jefferson City
Evansville Louisville
Lexington
Rail Corridor*
Ft. Leonard Wood
Rolla Carbondale 110 mph top speed
90 mph top speed**
Joplin Missouri 79 mph top speed
Springfield
Paducah Feeder Bus Route
Branson
*Indiana DOT is evaluating additional passenger rail service to South Bend and to Louisville.
**In Missouri, current restrictions limit train speeds to 79 mph.
6
58
PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE NEEDS
Indiana’s passenger rail service needs have been analyzed utilizing the following
sources/perspectives:
♦ Results of Needs Assessment Survey;
♦ Existing passenger rail service level;
♦ Ridership history of current service; and
♦ The document - Scheduled Intercity Transportation: Rural Service Areas in the United
States: June 2005
This study’s Needs Assessment Survey resulted in 82 percent of those responding indicating
their support for the use of state funds to support the operation of Amtrak passenger rail
service in some areas of the state. However, information provided regarding areas or routes
that should be served by Amtrak was limited to:
♦ Fort Wayne;
♦ Large urbanized areas;
♦ Indianapolis – Cincinnati corridor through Shelbyville; and
♦ South Bend – Indianapolis through Marshall County.
Fort Wayne, with a population of approximately 250,000, is by far the largest city in Indiana
without passenger rail service. The closest Amtrak station to Fort Wayne is in Waterloo, a
distance of about twenty-five miles, a stop for the Lake Shore Limited.
Regarding the recommendation of Indianapolis – Cincinnati service through Shelbyville, it is
doubtful that Amtrak would be interested in initiating service along this corridor due to
already operating the Cardinal just to the north through Indianapolis and Connersville on its
run between Chicago and Cincinnati/New York.
A South Bend – Indianapolis route through Marshall County is only possible via existing rail
lines with a most circuitous route due to there being no rail line that extends from South Bend
due south to Indianapolis. The most likely route would be along the Norfolk Southern line
from Elkhart to Anderson and then utilize the CSX line into Indianapolis. Experience has
shown that while it is certainly possible to operate passenger service along a freight rail line,
and this is done in many areas across the country, obtaining operation rights on these lines
is arduous at best. Negotiations among the freight rail company, Amtrak, and the state could
take months before a compromise could be reached and operation rights secured. See
Figure 13, a map of Indiana’s current rail system.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 59
Figure 13: Indiana Railroads
RAY
FREMONT
VISTULA
MICHIGANK
GRANGER
CITY M
T CSSB HUDSON
BRISTOL
INDIANA RAILROADS AND ABBREVIATIONS STEUBEN
CN
A LAKE
NS LYDICK
EWR NS
ROLLING NEW
ARDMORE SOUTH LAGRANGE
E
WHITING TRAIL BEND ELKHART
ELKHART
CARLISLE
SB
IN
PRAIRIE NS
INDIANA CREEK CS
CS
OSCEOLA
HARBOR BAILEY SB
SX
EAST TOWN NS MISHAWAKA
NS ANGOLA
BUFFINGTON BURNS
C
AMTK AMTRAK CHICAGO
HARBOR DUNLAP
NS CSSB NS CHESTERTON
LAPORTE
GARY PORTER
NS PINOLA CS CRUMSTOWN
GOSHEN PLEASANT
AWW ALGERS, WINSLOW, & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. HAMMOND LAKE
STATION
BURDICK OTIS SB CN LAKE
IHB CSX NS INE
EJ&E
R NEW CSX LA PORTE SOUTH
NS
STILLWELL WATERFORD HUDSON STEUBENVILLE
MILFORD HELMER
NS CHICAGO CF DILLON MILLS
BLEX BEE LINE RAILROAD GRIFFITH
ER INE ASHLEY HAMILTON
MILLERSBURG
N
HOBART WHEELER ALIDA KINGSBURY
EJ&E ST. JOSEPH NS DEKALB
S
DYER CN COBURG ARTIC
LOTTAVILLE HASKELL TRACY CSX NEW PARIS
ST.JOHN WELLSB
NS
UNION ORO WAWAKA
CAPA CITY OF AUBURN PORT AUTHORITY AINSWORTH
VALPARAISO MILLS TEEGARDEN BRIMFIELD
C
KENDALLVILLE
MILFORD LIGONIER NS BUTLER
SX
NAPPANEE GRAVELTON
CFER LA PAZ JUNCTION
CORUNNA
WANATAH BREMEN SYRACUSE WATERLOO
NS ALBION KTR
PORTER
N
CERA CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. OF INDIANAPOLIS HANNA TYNER MILFORD CSX
S
PA
NS
CFER
SOUTH
MARSHALL CROMWELL
AUBURN
CA
WANATAH KIMMELL
THOMASTON GROVERTOWN AVILLA
CK
LAKE
NS
HAMLET DONALDSON
CFER CHICAGO,FT. WAYNE & EASTERN RR MALDEN IN IN PLYMOUTH CSX
CK
ALTONA GARRETT
NS
CRESTON
BREMS
LEESBURG NOBLE
INWOOD SAINT
CKIN CHESAPEAKE & INDIANA RAILROAD LA CROSSE KNOX
BOURBON
KOSCIUSKO JOE
CK
ETNA
NORTH LOWELL GREEN
HAYDEN
IN
OBER ATWOOD
N
ENGLISH CFE
S
HIBBARD
CIND CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. OF INDIANA LAKE
STARKE RUTLAND R WARSAW
CS
BELSHAW BURR ARGOS
OAK
NS
GRABILL
X
NORTH TIPPECANOE WINONA
CIW CENTRAL INDIANA & WESTERN RAILROAD CO. SCHNEIDER NS SHELBY DEMOTTE
NS JUDSON LAKE
PIERCETON LARWILL COLUMBIA ALLEN
KERSEY WALNUT MENTONE CITY
NS
WHEATFIELD
THAYER
TIOSA NS BURKET CFE
R WOODBURN
MW
CMPA MADISON RAILROAD, DIV. OF CITY OF MADISON COESSE
FORT
WHITLEY
ROSELAWN CLAYPOOL
PORT AUTHORITY WAYNE NS
R
ARCOLA GAR
SIDNEY
FCR
CREEK
NS
RIVER
JASPER PULASKI PACKERTON NS NS
FULTON
HAVEN
FAIR DUNFEE
CN CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILROAD OAKS MEDARYVILLE
SILVER SOUTH PEABODY NEW EDGERTON
LAKE WHITLEY HAVEN
ROCHESTER
CSX
PARR MAPLES
CNC C & NC RAILROAD NORTH
MANCHESTER CF
NEWTON
ABOITE ER
NS
CS
CF
FRANCESVILLE
MIAMI
X
MONROEVILLE
ER
CSSB CHICAGO, SOUTHSHORE, & SOUTH BEND RR ROANOKE
PLEASANT
WABASH YODER
HOAGLAND DIXON
WILLIAMS
RIDGE
CSX CSX TRANSPORTATION INC. RENSSELAER
McCOYSBURG LEE URBANA NS MARDENIS OSSIAN MONMOUTH
NS
DCR DUBOIS COUNTY RAILROAD MONON
SPEICHERVILLE HUNTINGTON
ANDREWS KINGSLAND DECATUR
WHITE CASS LAGRO
WABASH
HUNTINGTON WELLS
TPW
EJE ELGIN, JOLIET, & EASTERN RAILWAY CO. HARTMAN
CRAIGVILLE
KENTLAND LAKE
R NS RICH
GOODLAND REMINGTON WOLCOTT
BURNETTSVILLE CICOTT
LE LOGANSPORT PERU VALLEY
EVWR EVANSVILLE WESTERN RAILROAD
WC
NEW
TPW REYNOLDS IDAVILLE TPW WAVERLY BLUFFTON
MONTICELLO R
WS ADAMS
LIBERTY
NS
RAUB
NS
ANOKA TREATY
SHEFF CENTER
EWR ELKHART & WESTERN RAILROAD EARL BENTON CLYMERS
WC
TRAVISVILLE
PARK WARREN
BURROWS
KBS
LA FONTAINE
CHALMERS
CSX
CARROLL
PONETO
SR
WALTON
KB
WS
ROCKFIELD
FCRR FULTON COUNTY RAILROAD
NS
S
W
FOWLER
R
NS
FREE LANDESS VAN
LINCOLN HANFIELD BUREN
CAMDEN AMBOY KEYSTONE
BROOKSTON
HCR HONEY CREEK RAILROAD SWANINGTON
DELPHI GALVESTON CONVERSE
MIER SWEETSER NS
ATKINSON CERA MARION MONTPELIER
TIPPECANOE FLORA
HHPA HOOSIER HERITAGE PORT AUTHORITY CERA
BLACKFORD JAY
HOWARD
BOSWELL OXFORD COLBURN BRINGHURST HERBST
BATTLE
HANDY TEMPLETON GAS
CHASE GROUND SYCAMORE SWAYZEE CITY
TALBOT KBS OTTERBEIN SIMS
BUCK KOKOMO
JONESBORO NS
NS
AMBIA MONTMERENCI
HOS HOOSIER SOUTHERN RAILROAD CREEK GREENTOWN
HARTFORD PORTLAND
GRANT
UPLAND
NS
WEST WEST
KBS CITY
NS
LAFAYETTE MIDDLETON NS
BLEX
OAKFORD FAIRMOUNT BLAINE BRICE
IER INDIANA EASTERN RAILROAD TAB LAFAYETTE RUSSIAVILLE
NS
MILLGROVE
WARREN ELSTON
NS DAYTON
SHARPSVILLE DUNKIRK COMO
IHBR INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD GLENHALL FOREST REDKEY
TIPTON
EATON
NS
STUART MULBERRY SUMMITVILLE
RIVERSIDE
MICHIGANTOWN MADISON SCHIDELER
INE INDIANA NORTHEASTERN RAILROAD WILLIAMSPORT WEST
ALBANY
DELAWARE
SOUTH BOYLESTON SCIRCLEVILLE GOLDSMITH
WEST
RAUB
ELWOOD NS ORESTES
NS
LEBANON ATTICA KEMPTON
FRANKFORT NS HILLISBURG TIPTON HOBBS
ELWOOD DUNDEE ALEXANDRIA ROYERTON
INCR INDIAN CREEK RAILROAD CO. NS DESOTO
MARSHFIELD ROMNEY UNION
GILMAN CITY
CSX
ATLANTA CAMMACK
JOHNSONVILLE REED PARKER
INOH INDIANA & OHIO RAILROAD INC. CLINTON MILLERSBURG
LINWOOD
STATION MAYFIELD CITY FARMLAND CSX
NS
STATE SELMA HARRISVILLE
YORKTOWN
LINE
LINDEN
ARCADIA INCR MUNCIE WINCHESTER
CITY
SX
VVR FLORIDA
CSX
HAMILTON
MONTGOMERY
NS
BOONE
C
INRD INDIANA RAILROAD CO. FOSTER
CHESTERFIELD DALEVILLE
RILEYSBURG
CICERO
EDGEWOOD COWAN RANDOLPH
OAKVILLE
CSX
CIW
HHPA
IRRM INDIANA RAILROAD MUSEUM GESSIE ANDERSON
FOUNTAIN LAPEL
SPRINGPORT
LEBANON
CS
CRAWFORDSVILLE NOBLESVILLE
ISRR INDIANA SOUTHERN RAILROAD NEW
X
COLUMBUS
EMPORIA MT.SUMMIT
LINNSBURG PENDLETON
ISW INDIANA SOUTHWESTERN RR X
CS INGALLS
EUGENE FISHERS
WHITESVILLE NEW CS
ROSS X ASHLAND
CAYUGA JAMESTOWN FORTVILLE NEW MILLVILLE
HAGARSTOWN
KBS KANKAKEE, BEAVERVILLE, & SOUTHERN RR
MARION
GREENS
CASTLE NS
CS
LADOGA CASTLETON WOODBURY FORK
CS
NEWPORT HAW NEW McCORDSVILLE
X
LIZTON OAKLANDON
AUGUSTA
X
CREEK
PA
KTR KENDALLVILLE TERMINAL RAILWAY SIDING CSX PITTSBORO
HENRY NEW WAYNE NS
H
LAWRENCE X LISBON
H
CS
CSX
CSX
ROACHDALE
INDIANAPOLIS HANCOCK RICHMOND
CAMBRIDGE
BROWNSBURG
CITY
LER LOGANSPORT & EEL RIVER SHORTLINE CO. INC DANA CSX CSX
CARPENTERSVILLE HENDRICKS CLERMONT SPEEDWAY MILTON
HILLSDALE
HIGHLAND
PARKE CSX
CNC
VERMILLION
ALTA DANVILLE AVON CSX
IER
LI LOUISVILLE & INDIANA RAILROAD CO. CSX BOSTON
CSX
BAINBRIDGE
SUMMIT
PUTNAM HADLEY BEN
CSX NEW
PALESTINE RUSH
GROVE DAVIS BEECH CS CARROLLTON
MARS
HILL
GROVE X KITCHEL
LORL LUCAS OIL RAIL LINE
HCR
FAIRVIEW CSX VALLEY EDGEWOOD FOUNTAINTOWN BROWNSVILLE
PARK GWYNNSVILLE LYONSVILLE
INRD
MILLS MORRISTOWN
LIBERTY
LI
FILLMORE SOUTHPORT
R
CLINTON CAMBY ARLINGTON
LYFORD
R
MGR MG RAILROAD ACTON BROOKFIELD GLENNWOOD
CONNERSVILLE
CSX
IS
X CSX
NUMA CS GREENCASTLE GREENWOOD LONDON
LENA MOORESVILLE FRANCES COTTAGE WEST
MW MAUMEE & WESTERN RAILROAD
ATHERTON
COAL
BLUFF
LIMEDALE
FAIRLAND RUSHVILLE FAYETTE GROVE COLLEGE
CORNER
SHEPARDSVILLE CARBON CS
CSX
FONTENET PERTH PUTNAMVILLE STONES
WW
X
UNION
IER
X CS
MORGAN
CROSSING
CS
NORTH BROOKLYN
SANDFORD TERRE X WHITELAND
V
NS NORFOLK SOUTHERN HAUTE
BURNETT BETHANY SHELBYVILLE CI
ND
C
ST. MARY BATH
CLOVERDALE
SX
FRANKLIN
CENTERTON BARGERSVILLE
TERRE
OVR OHIO VALLEY RAILROAD
MARION
HEIGHTS
HAUTE CAMBELSIDING PROVIDENCE
FRANKLIN SHELBY PRESCOTT
RAYMOND
METAMORA
CSXWEST
D
WALDRON
BROOKVILLE
INR
TERRE
X
HAUTE ST.PAUL
SIND SOUTHERN INDIANA RAILWAY INC.
CS
AMITY
CLAY PARAGON MARTINSVILLE
IN
R
VIGO
RILEY
CSX ISR JOHNSON
ADAMS
O
H
CSX
SWR SOUTHWIND RAILROAD WHITAKER MORGANTOWN
GREENSBURG CEDAR
INR
YOUNGSTOWN GOSPORT EDINBURG GROVE
NEW NEW
CIND TRENTON
D
FRUITDALE POINT
TPW TOLEDO, PEORIA, & WESTERN RAILWAY CORP. BLACKHAWK MONROE TAYLORSVILLE
BATESVILLE
RD
BARTHOLOMEW
DECATUR
PIMENTO CI
OWEN N
MORRIS
DEA WEST
IN
TREVLAC D HARRISON
SPENCER RBO
LI
LEWIS
VVR VERMILLION VALLEY RAILROAD HELMSBURG SPADES
FARMERSBURG
RN
RD
SUNMAN WEISBURG
CSX ELLETSVILLE
COLUMBUS
IN
NEW
WC WABASH CENTRAL RAILROAD FREEDOM UNIONVILLE RIPLEY
CS
COALMONT GUILFORD
SHELBURN
KENNEDY
X
JASONVILLE CIND
BLOOMINGTON
ND
PIERCEVILLE
INRD
WSR WINAMAC SOUTHERN RAILROAD SULLIVAN GILMOUR
GREEN RD BROWN
WALESBORO
CSX
MOORES
CI
OSGOOD GREENDALE
MIDLAND WORTHINGTON IN MILAN HILL X
WAYNESVILLE
CS
X CS
LAWRENCEBURG
SULLIVAN
JENNINGS
ELWREN COLD
RR
WWV WHITEWATER VALLEY RAILROAD CASS
VICKSBURG SOLSBERRY HOLTON DABNEY
RD
SPRINGS
INRD
NEBRASKA
CSX
IS
D IN JONESVILLE
INR
NR
DUGGER AURORA
I NEW LINTON
SWITZ
CITY
BUTLERVILLE
D
LEBANON NORTH
PAXTON BLOOMFIELD VERNON
LI
RIVERTON
SPONSLER HAYDEN VERNON
ROCKFORD
JACKSON
LYONS
BEE SEYMOUR CSX
LAWRENCE
CARLISLE HUNTER
OHIO
INR
MARCO
X
D
CS
NEW
ELIZABETHTOWN DUPONT
IS
RR SANDBORN
OAKTOWN
ELNORA
BROWNSTOWN JEFFERSON
ODON
BEDFORD
CS
X SWITZERLAND
MEDORA VALLONIA
BUSSERON INR
CM
INRD D RETREAT
BURNS WILLIAMS
PA
RD
EMISON PLAINVILLE CITY CALE SPARKS- CROTHERSVILLE
CS
INDIAN VILLE
IN TARRY FT.RITNER MADISON
R
SPRINGS PARK
X
ISR
DAVIESS TUNNELTON
KNOX CSX
AUSTIN
MARTIN
GRAHAM MITCHELL
CSX
HURON WASHINGTON
SCOTT
GEORGIA
FRITCHTONC
SX CSX SCOTTSBURG
WASHINGTON CSX CANNELBURG LEIPSIC
SALTILLO
VINCENNES LOGOOTEE
LI
WHEATLAND MONTGOMERY SHOALS IRONTON ORLEANS CSX CAMPBELLSBURG
VIENNA
MAYSVILLE HITCHCOCK
CSX
THOMAS UNDERWOOD
SALEM
PURCELL ORANGE HARRISTOWN
WEST BADEN CLARK
SPRINGS HENRYVILLE
DECKER
FRENCH LICK
RM NEW PEKIN
HAZELTON PIKE PETERSBURG IR NEW PROVIDENCE
MEMPHIS
X
CS
DUBOIS
LI
CARWOOD CHARLESTOWN
CS
X
R
CATO DUBOIS
R
CSX
IS
SPEED
GLEZEN W R ST.JOSEPH
E.MT.CARMEL PATOKA AW JASPER DC SELLERSBURG
STATE OF INDIANA
FLOYD
SIN
WINSLOW
CSX
MARENGO
NS
D
PRINCETON NS
SX
VELPEN WATSON
OAKLAND
TEMPLE
NS X
NS CS
C
SKELTON
DOUGLAS CITY MILLERSPORT TASWELL MILLTOWN
RAMSEY NEW
ISRR BIRDSEYE
ENGLISH DEPAUW ALBANY
M
FRANCISCO ST.ANTHONYS MOTTS
GIBSON
2007
G
KYANA
AW
COE ECKERTY CORYDON
R
STATION GEORGETOWN
KING
BRETZVILLE ST.MARKS NS JUNCTION NS
W
HUNTINGBURG
CRANDALL EDWARDSVILLE JEFFERSONVILLE
LORL
CLARKSVILLE
FORT CRAWFORD
BRANCH
RAIL SYSTEM MAP
JOHNSBURG
CORYDON
CSX
HAUBSTADT
ISW ST.JAMES
ISR
CYNTIANA R
NS
DALE
POSEYVILLE
WARRICK
STACER
IANA
ELBERFIELD
PERRY
IND
HARRISON
LINCOLN
INGLEFIELD CITY
DE
R TA T I O N
GENTRYVILLE
I
NS
DAYLIGHT
HILLSDALE
POSEY
R
N
VANDERBURG
ISW
NS
ISR
PA R T M E
HO
CHANDLER S
D
OV
BOONVILLE EVANSTON
O
R
T
STEVENSON CHRISNEY
ST.PHILIP NS TROY
NS
CABORN
NS
PO
UPTON EVWR HOS
TELL
EVANSVILLE CITY
T S
N
OF TRAN
ROCKHILL
SWR MT. VERNON YANKEETOWN
CANNELTON
CYPRESS
SPENCER
CSX
RAHM ROCKPORT
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Mitchell E. Daniels, Governor
Karl B. Browning, Commissioner
INDOT Base Map Generated from
U.S. Geological Survey
GRAPHICS &
U.S. Census Tiger Files
The preparation of this publication has been
financed in part through a grant from the
60
REVISION DATE:__1______
5-2-2007
DRAWING:________________
IMRR (BASE)
__________________________
MAIN-RR-07.AI
United States Department of Transportation
SCALE:___________________
1"=10 MILES (APPROX.)
Based on information found in the previously referenced document, Scheduled Intercity
Transportation: Rural Service Areas in the United States: June 2005, approximately 43 percent
of the rural residents of Indiana have reasonable access to passenger rail service. Figure 14
indicates the state’s transit propensity by census tract and the twenty-five mile radius around
Indiana’s train stations. This provides a visual illustration of the limited amount of the state
population that is within reasonable access of an Amtrak station. In addition, Table 15 below
notes the twenty-five Indiana cities exceeding a population of 25,000 that lack passenger rail
service.
Table 15:
Indiana Cities Lacking Passenger Rail Service
City 2005 Pop. Est.
Anderson 57,360
Bloomington 71,374
Carmel 61,394
Columbus 39,300
Evansville 115,956
Fishers 57,222
Fort Wayne 247,849
Gary 97,719
Goshen 30,889
Greenwood 42,194
Hobart 27,446
Jeffersonville 28,560
Kokomo 46,232
Lawrence 41,236
Marion 30,890
Merrillville 31,174
Mishawaka 48,260
Muncie 66,176
New Albany 36,665
Noblesville 38,826
Portage 35,267
Richmond 37,367
Schererville 28,130
Terre Haute 58,438
Valparaiso 29,245
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 61
Figure 14:
Indiana Transit Propensity by Census Tract
.
With Indiana Train Stations
_
[ _
[ _
[ LaGrange Steuben
_
[ LaPorte
St. Joseph Elkhart
_
[ Lake
Porter
Noble DeKalb _
[
Marshall
Starke
Kosciusko
Whitley
Allen
Pulaski Fulton
Jasper
Newton
_
[
Wabash Huntington
Cass Miami Adams
White Wells
Benton Carroll
Grant
Howard Blackford
Jay
Warren
_
[
Tippecanoe
Tipton
Clinton
Delaware
Madison Randolph
Fountain
Hamilton
_
[
Montgomery Boone
Henry
Wayne
Vermillion
_
Hancock
Parke Hendricks [
Marion
Putnam
Rush _
[
Fayette Union
Shelby
Morgan Johnson
Vigo Franklin
Clay
Owen Decatur
Indiana Transit Propensity
Brown Bartholomew
Monroe
Ripley
Dearborn By Census Tract
Sullivan
Greene
Jennings
Very Low
Ohio
Jackson Low
Lawrence Switzerland
Jefferson Medium
Knox Daviess Martin Scott
High
Washington
Orange Very High
Clark
Pike
Dubois
Gibson
Crawford
Floyd
_
[ Indiana Train Stations
Harrison
Warrick
25-mile Radius Around Each
Vanderburgh
Posey Spencer
Perry Station
62
STATE-SUPPORTED AMTRAK SERVICE
Nationally, Amtrak operates three types of passenger rail service:
♦ A network of thirteen overnight cross-country trains, such as the Capitol Limited;
♦ Intercity trains such as the Acela in the northeast part of the country; and
♦ State-supported corridor trains serving fourteen states, such as the Carolinian and
Piedmont in North Carolina.
State-supported trains play an ever-increasing important role in Amtrak’s operations. Amtrak
currently has partnerships with fourteen states to improve rail passenger service in their
jurisdictions. These states include California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New York,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and
Wisconsin. Under Section 403(b) of the legislation that established the organization, Amtrak
was authorized to operate intercity trains or routes funded by states. State-supported Amtrak
trains are often referred to as “403(b) trains,” such as the Saluki that operates between
Chicago and Carbondale. Figure 16 provides a list of the state-supported Amtrak trains
along with their finance and operating characteristics.
In most situations, the state-supported Amtrak service is administered at the state level by
the state department of transportation’s rail division, not the department’s transit division.
Administering Amtrak service and related rail programs requires the expertise and availability
of staff focused specifically on the state’s rail program. Two states administer their state-
supported Amtrak program through authorities, and Amtrak indicates that this structure has
been successful. In fact, an Amtrak representative provided the opinion that for a state in the
initial stages of considering possible state-supported Amtrak service, the authority option is
recommended because it allows the greatest flexibility. These authorities are the Capital
Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) in California and the Northern New England
Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) in Maine.
None of the state-supported Amtrak trains are designated by Amtrak as commuter trains. In
fact, Amtrak cannot by law operate "commuter service" under the Amtrak name. While
Amtrak does operate commuter trains under contract, such as the Virginia Railway Express
that operates from the Northern Virginia suburbs to Washington D.C., Amtrak must charge a
profit and cannot label these services as "Amtrak."
Although the economy is depressed, higher fuel prices have resulted in significant increases
in ridership for Amtrak. This includes the state-supported trains as well. For example,
ridership on the aforementioned North Carolina supported trains increased over 20 percent
from FY 2007 to FY 2008. In FY 2008, Amtrak’s income from state support is projected to be
$167 million. State payments to Amtrak to operate state-supported trains range from just
under $2 million for Texas to over $76 million for California.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 63
Figure 16. Service, Finance and Operating Characteristics of State-Supported Amtrak Trains
STATE NUMBER TRAIN ROUTE(S) FY08 REVENUE SOURCE(S) RIDERSHIP TICKET
OF DAILY OPERATING FY07 REVENUE
TRAINS SUPPORT/ FY07
CONTRACT
AMOUNT
California 68 1)Oakland‐Fresno‐ $76,600,000 Portion of gasoline tax 4,962,042 $89,391,956
Bakersfield
2)Sacramento‐Oakland‐San
Jose
3)Santa Barbara‐LA‐San
Diego
Illinois 28* 1)Chicago‐Carbondale 27,999,978 General revenue 1,402,096* *27,770,668
2)Chicago‐St. Louis, MO
3)Chicago‐Milwaukee*
4)Chicago‐Quincy
Maine 10 Portland‐Boston, MA **7,209,623 1)CMAQ 361,634 4,800,036
2) General revenue
Michigan 4 1)Grand Rapids‐Chicago, IL 6,124,306 General revenue 232,461 6,223,632
2)Port Huron‐Chicago, IL
Missouri 4 Kansas City‐St. Louis 7,400,000 General revenue 116,517 2,508,912
New York 2 New York City‐Montreal 4,260,562 General revenue 101,097 5,065,860
North 4 1)Charlotte‐New York City ***4,938,736 Lease fees derived from 306,763 14,343,745
Carolina 2)Charlotte‐Raleigh freight railroad
operating on state‐
owned track
Oklahoma 2* Oklahoma City‐Fort Worth 2,298,500 General revenue *68,246 *1,260,579
TX*
Oregon 4 Portland‐Eugene 4,200,000 1)Portion of fee charged *674,153 *18,165,351
for customized license
plates
2)General revenue
Pennsylvania 26 Philadelphia‐Harrisburg 7,240,917 General revenue 988,454 20,582,838
Texas 2* Fort Worth‐Oklahoma City, 1,998,500 General revenue *68,246 *1,260,579
OK*
Vermont 4 1)St. Albans‐Burlington‐NYC 3,940,033 General revenue 107,241 5,548,083
2)Rutland‐NYC
Washington 10 Vancouver, BC‐Seattle‐ 11,200,000 Vehicle registration fees *674,153 *18,165,351
Portland, OR
Wisconsin 14* Milwaukee‐Chicago* 7,094,214 General revenue *595,336 *10,230,272
* Route cost shared with adjacent state. Revenues reflect total derived from ticket sales on route(s);
ridership represents total for route; figures duplicated in shared state’s row.
** Base cost not including fuel, less ticket revenue.
*** Estimate that may vary based upon factors that may include fuel costs.
Source: Amtrak Government Affairs
September 2008
64
Prior to participating in state-supported train service, Amtrak procedures call for the
preparation of a feasibility study of the proposed service. These studies are conducted by
Amtrak at the formal request of the state. In most situations, the state is responsible for the
entire cost of the study. An upcoming Kansas DOT feasibility study for proposed Kansas
City – Oklahoma City – Fort Worth service is budgeted at $200,000. Conversations with
Amtrak representatives indicated that Amtrak is currently inundated with requests for
feasibility studies to be completed. A typical feasibility study would address such issues as:
♦ Potential ridership based on where and when the train may stop;
♦ Projected annual capital and operating costs;
♦ Projected revenue;
♦ Market share the train could capture;
♦ Economic benefits;
♦ Potential state support needed;
♦ Track improvements and associated costs;
♦ Highway/rail crossings;
♦ Feasible train schedules;
♦ Train set configuration; and
♦ Route capacity of shared tracks owned by the freight railroads.
Start-up costs to initiate Amtrak service is the responsibility of the sponsoring state, typically
coming from their general revenue funds. Federal funds have only been made available for
start-up costs in a couple of unusual situations, one with congressional earmarked funds and
another using Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. Start-up costs include
such items as:
♦ Acquiring rolling stock such as locomotives and cars. The cost of rolling stock
depends on the number of train sets needed to serve the schedule and expected
number of passengers; and
♦ Improving infrastructure such as tracks, ballast, ties, crossings, signals, and sidings.
The cost of infrastructure improvements depends on the pre-existing infrastructure
conditions and on the train’s desired operating speed.
Once the funding for new service is appropriated, it can take as little as two construction
seasons to initiate the service. However, this is dependent on the level of infrastructure
improvements needed and, assuming the rail line is not state owned, the degree of difficulty
in negotiating operating authority over the freight line railroad. Experience has shown that
this is often a most difficult obstacle to overcome.
With state-sponsored passenger rail services, host communities are responsible for the costs
of planning, upgrading and maintaining their depots and stations. In many situations,
depots, if available, may not have been utilized for years, resulting in substantial
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 65
refurbishment costs. Federal funding assistance for station studies and improvements is
very uncertain at this time.
There is also a potential shortage of passenger rail cars that could further delay service
initiation. In many situations, the state and Amtrak have decided to use rehabilitated
equipment, with the cost ranging from $800,000 to $1,200,000 million per rail car. The
rehabilitation work typically includes new wheels, interiors, and restroom facilities. It is
conceivable that the state could receive some assistance from Amtrak with the acquisition
and maintenance of rail cars and locomotives due to the presence of the Beech Grove
maintenance facility. The leasing of rail cars is also an option. Also, some states have or are
considering buying cars for use by Amtrak.
Operational funding needs are generally independent of the length of the service route.
Amtrak determines the cost for intercity passenger rail service based upon ridership, fare box
recovery, and food sales on the route. Ridership and ticket revenue varies greatly from state
to state depending on the schedule, route, stops, amenities and other factors.
State and regional agencies pay most of the operating costs for the service, reimbursing
Amtrak for direct expenses. In most situations, the state annually negotiates the payment of
operating costs based on revenue from the previous year and anticipated costs. Each state
is unique in its cost and payment structure with Amtrak. Generally states use state general
revenue funds or state fuel taxes to reimburse Amtrak for operating expenses. It is not
unusual for state-supported trains to operate across state lines, resulting in each state
negotiating its respective shares differently. State supporting shares are typically based on
train miles and/or anticipated ridership.
Amtrak’s operating costs are high, and the financial support required from the state is
significant. For example, the North Carolina Department of Transportation supports the
operation of two Amtrak trains that operate through North Carolina, the Carolinian and
Piedmont. The operating costs for the two trains were just over $21 million in FY 2008. Even
with a remarkable farebox recovery rate of 76.5 percent, generating over $16 million in
revenue, the state’s required participation was still over $4.9 million. Amtrak operating costs
for each train are based on the costs of their entire national network, with costs allocated
uniformly throughout the Amtrak operation. Therefore, this minimizes the impact of cost
saving measures on individual trains such as those that are state supported.
It should be noted that the possibility of federal funds being available to assist states with
operating support, start-up costs, or infrastructure improvements has recently improved. On
October 1, 2008, the U.S. Senate passed the $13 billion Federal Railroad Safety
Improvement Act, and it was signed into law on October 16, 2008. The Act reauthorizes
Amtrak and authorizes significant federal funding for intercity passenger rail service and
corridor development. For example, it creates a new State Capital Grant program for intercity
passenger rail projects. The Act provides $1.9 billion over five years for grants to states to
pay for the capital costs of facilities and equipment necessary to provide new or improved
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 66
passenger rail services, with the federal share of the grants up to 80 percent of the cost.
Grants would be awarded on a competitive basis for projects based on economic
performance, anticipated ridership, and other factors.
In addition, in July 2008 the Train Cars Act was introduced in Congress. If enacted, the Act
will promote the replacement and rehabilitation of Amtrak’s fleet of passenger cars and
hopefully revive the train car industry in the U.S. Specifically, the legislation includes the
following actions:
♦ Create a new matching grant program for Amtrak and states to rehabilitate existing rail
equipment and purchase new, American-made equipment;
♦ Authorizes Amtrak to issue up to $2.8 billion in qualified bonds over four years to finance
train car projects;
♦ Allow states to receive a dollar-for-dollar match on any equipment fee they impose for the
purchase of new domestically produced train cars; and
♦ Create a trust fund to give Amtrak and the states a source of capital funding to replace
the nation’s supply of passenger train cars. The legislation would transfer one-quarter
cent of the per-gallon motor fuels tax into the new Rolling Stock Trust Fund for three
years generating approximately $400 million annually.
States wanting to apply for federal matching funds through the above referenced legislation
will need to have an intercity passenger rail plan. It is possible that federal funds may be
available to the states to support the preparation of the plan. The scope of this study does
not address a detailed analysis of potential rail corridors, rail condition, station stops, cost
estimates, etc. that would be evaluated in such a passenger rail plan. The consultant
recommends that INDOT conduct such a detailed rail study to further evaluate potential state
participation in passenger rail service.
AMTRAK SERVICE
While the primary purpose of this study was to assess the intercity bus needs in Indiana and
provide recommendations for INDOT’s utilization of Section 5311(f) funds, the study was also
intended to include an evaluation of the level of utilization of Indiana’s Amtrak service and
provide recommendations regarding the use of state funds to support the provision of
Amtrak service. Based on the consultant’s evaluation of existing information and
understanding of Amtrak’s state-supported train program, the following observations and
recommendations are provided.
OBSERVATIONS OF INDIANAÊS AMTRAK SERVICE AND AMTRAKÊS STATE SUPPORTED TRAIN PROGRAM
♦ There are three long distance passenger trains which travel through Indiana along with
two corridor trains operated by Amtrak;
♦ Ridership on these trains increased steadily for the past six years;
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 67
♦ Service is limited geographically to the northern portion of Indiana, with most of the
state not within reasonable distance of an Amtrak station;
♦ There is no Amtrak service in north-central Indiana, but one can travel from South Bend
to Indianapolis in about twelve hours, with a nearly six hour layover in Chicago;
♦ Fort Wayne is the largest Indiana city without Amtrak service, but much of it is within
reasonable access of the Waterloo station;
♦ The branch line from Elkhart to Fort Wayne is not direct, requiring use of the Norfolk
Southern line and Chicago, Fort Wayne and Eastern Railroad to initiate service;
♦ No Amtrak service exists in the southern portion of the state, such as along the
Indianapolis – Bloomington – Evansville corridor (note that Evansville is not served by
Amtrak resulting in no connections at the southern point);
♦ Rail lines along Indianapolis – Bloomington – Evansville corridor are owned by the
Indiana Railroad Co. and the Indiana Southern Railroad;
♦ Indianapolis – Bloomington – Louisville would necessitate a very circuitous route;
♦ 43 percent of the state’s rural population lives within reasonable access to an Amtrak
station;
♦ There are eleven Indiana Amtrak stations, resulting in nearly 125,000 total boardings
and alightings in FY 2008;
♦ Twenty-five Indiana cities with over 25,000 population lack passenger rail service;
♦ The Beech Grove Amtrak maintenance facility serves an important role for Amtrak and
is a major employer for the state;
♦ Modest station improvements have been made recently;
♦ Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) receives state funding and
operates the South Shore Line commuter between Chicago and South Bend;
♦ Historically, INDOT has not shown interest in providing state support for Amtrak due to
it not being commuter service, such as the South Shore Line;
♦ Indiana is part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, a nine-state cooperative effort
with Amtrak, for the purpose of developing an improved and expanded high-speed
passenger rail system in the Midwest;
♦ A total of 14 states participate in Amtrak’s state-supported train program;
♦ None of the state-supported Amtrak trains are considered commuter trains;
♦ Most states administer state-supported rail programs out of the state DOT’s rail division
as opposed to the transit division;
♦ As a prerequisite to state-supported rail service, Amtrak procedures require a feasibility
study to be conducted of proposed state-supported service with the state responsible
for study costs;
♦ Amtrak approval to conduct a feasibility study can be a lengthy process;
♦ Amtrak’s desire for the state to determine potential train stops prior to a study can
become quite political and difficult;
♦ The state is responsible for substantial start-up and operating costs; and
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 68
♦ Recent Congressional legislation may provide additional federal funds to assist states
with operating support, start-up costs, or infrastructure improvements for state-
supported train service.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF STATE-SUPPORTED AMTRAK
SERVICE
♦ Evaluate study findings and stay attuned to changing federal programs and legislation
affecting Amtrak’s state-supported train program;
♦ Facilitate state-level discussions regarding interest in state-supported Amtrak service;
♦ If applicable, keep rail advocacy group(s) involved to negate later issues;
♦ Conduct a detailed rail study to further evaluate potential state participation in
passenger rail service, specifically addressing such issues as potential rail corridors,
rail condition, station stops, and cost estimates;
♦ Following thorough consideration and determination of the preferred service corridor,
contact Amtrak regarding possible feasibility study, if desired.
INDIANA INTERCITY BUS STUDY 69
Appendix A:
Indiana Intercity Bus and Passenger Rail Services
Needs Assessment Survey
The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is conducting a study to determine
the level of intercity bus and passenger rail (Amtrak) needs in the State of Indiana. This
information will be used by INDOT to evaluate the need for Federal and state support of
bus and passenger rail service in Indiana. The following Needs Assessment Survey will
provide the consultant conducting this study with information about the current level of,
and need for, additional services. Intercity bus service is typically considered that
provided by Greyhound although there may be other intercity bus operators that provide
such services.
To assist in this planning process, you are asked to complete this brief survey. INDOT is
surveying transportation planners, regional/economic development professionals, and
city/county executives to obtain wide input on potential needs. Please complete the
survey by September 26, 2008.
If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Mr. Charles W. Glover,
Senior Association, RLS & Associates, Inc. at (919) 233-1552 or via e-mail at
cglover2@nc.rr.com.
If you would like more information about current INDOT intercity bus and rail programs,
please contact:
Mr. Larry Buckel, Section Chief
Indiana Department of Transportation
Public Transit Section
100 North Senate Avenue
Room N808
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-5292
E-mail: lbuckel@indot.in.gov
Part 1. Identification of Respondent
1. Name of Organization: ____________________________________________________
2. Organization Director/CEO (Name/Title): ______________________________________
3. E-mail Address of Individual Listed above: ___________________________________
4. Street or Mailing Address: _______________________________________________
5. City: ___________________________________________________________________
6. State: _____________________________________________________________
Appendix A:
7. Zip: _____________________________________________________________
8. Telephone _____________________________________________________________
9. Fax: _____________________________________________________________
10. Name of Individual Responding to Survey: ___________________________________
11. E-mail address of Respondent: ______________________________________________
12. Title of Respondent: ____________________________________________________
13. Agency Website: __________________________________________________________
14. Please check the box that best describes your organization. (Check one only).
County government Economic development agency
City government Chamber of commerce
Transit agency Private nonprofit social services
Planning commission/MPO/RPO Other (please specify below):
_____________________________
15. Does your organization provide passenger transportation services?
Yes No
If the answer to Question 15 was “No,” please go to Part 3,
Question 22.
Part 2. Transportation Providers Only
16. If your agency provides public transportation services, list all counties in which these
services are provided:
Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
List
County: __________ __________ __________ __________ __________
Please tell us anything else to assist in understanding your service area:
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A:
17. Is your service open to the general public?
Yes No
18. Do you provide service to an intercity bus or Amtrak station??
Yes No
If “Yes,” what stations do you serve?:
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
19. Do you receive federal and/or state transit funds to support this service?
Yes No
20. How many vehicle trips to these stations do you make per month?
No. of vehicle trips
21. What is your average ridership per month to these stations?
No. of passenger trips
Part 3. Subjective Assessment of Intercity Needs
22. Are you aware of any intercity bus services operating in your area? (Check one only.)
Yes, there are intercity services.
No, I am unaware of any intercity bus services in our area.
Not sure.
23. Are you aware of any passenger rail bus services operating in your area? (Check one
only.)
Yes, there are passenger rail services.
No, I am unaware of any passenger rail bus services in our area.
Not sure.
Appendix A:
24. Do you think there are currently intercity bus needs in your area that are not being
met?
Yes No
25. If you think there are unmet intercity bus needs in your area, please identify route(s)
(list the origin/destination pairs) that could benefit most from the provision or
improvement of services.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
26. Do you presently have or are there needs in your area for intermodal passenger
facilities that could allow connections between local public transportation, intercity
bus, and intercity passenger rail?
Yes No
If “Yes,” please explain:
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
27. On a scale of 1 – 4, with “1” representing no importance and “4” representing a high
degree of importance, please rank the value of intercity bus and/or passenger rail
service in your area. (Circle one only.)
Not important Somewhat important Important Very Important
1 2 4 5
28. Would you support the use of Federal and state funds to support the operation of
intercity bus services in your area?
Yes No
Comments?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A:
29. Would you support the use of state funds to support the operation of Amtrak
passenger rail service in some areas of the state?
Yes No
Comments?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
30. Are there existing intercity transportation services that you believe are vulnerable to
termination in your area?
Yes No
If “Yes,” please explain:
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
31. Please describe any intercity bus or passenger rail needs that you have not
addressed in an earlier question.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Thank You For Taking The Time To Complete The Survey
Please mail or fax this survey to:
RLS & Associates, Inc.
3131 South Dixie Highway
Suite 545
Dayton, OH 45439
Facsimile: (937) 299-1055
Appendix B
Sample Intercity Bus Needs Assessment Survey
Indiana Department of Transportation
Public Transit Section
Organization: _________________________________________________
Contact Person: _________________________________________________
Address: _________________________________________________
Telephone: _________________________________________________
E-Mail: _________________________________________________
The following Needs Assessment Survey will provide the Public Transit Section with
information about areas of the state that would benefit from assistance for intercity bus
services to either provide new service or maintain existing service. Intercity bus service
is defined as: regularly scheduled bus service for the general public which operates with
limited stops over fixed routes connecting two or more urban areas not in close
proximity, which has the capacity for transporting baggage carried by passengers, and
which makes meaningful connections with scheduled intercity bus service to more distant
points, if such service is available. The information will be collected and evaluated to
determine which proposed services would provide the greatest public benefit and have
long term sustainability.
Is your agency a provider of public transportation services? ___ Yes ___ No
Including needs for intercity bus services (as defined above), what are the greatest unmet
public transportation needs in your rural/regional area (please prioritize)?
Are there existing intercity and public transportation services that are vulnerable to
termination in your area? ___ Yes ___ No
If yes, please explain.
If you are a transportation provider, do you currently provide any services that connect
with existing intercity bus, passenger rail, or commercial airline services? ___
Yes ___ No
If yes, please explain.
Appendix B
Do you presently have or are there needs in your area for intermodal passenger facilities
that could allow connections between local public transportation, intercity bus and
passenger rail (where available)? ___ Yes ___ No
If yes, please explain.
6. Provide a narrative for each proposed intercity bus route (origin – destination
pairs, for example city A to city B) if you see a need for new services in your
region or a route that is vulnerable to termination. Note that proposals for such
services can include feeder services designed to provide connections to intercity
bus service. (Please identify route(s) on attached map).
7. What do you view to be the primary purpose of the trips in your identified
intercity bus route?
8. What other county/regional entities could benefit from and be included in the
discussion of intercity bus services in your area?
9. Please describe any intercity bus needs that you have not addressed in an earlier
question.
Appendix C:
Tentative Schedule of INDOT Intercity Bus Program Activities
March: Distribute by Email Intercity Bus Needs Assessment
Survey
April: Evaluate Returned Surveys and Compile List of Proposed
Intercity Bus Services
May: Evaluate Proposed Services Based on FTA Requirements
and State Funding Criteria and Develop Prioritized List of
Potential Intercity Bus Projects
June: Conduct Consultative Process with Indiana’s Intercity Bus
Providers and Other Transportation Providers Proposing an
Intercity Bus Project
July: Finalize List of Intercity Bus Services for which INDOT
Will Solicit Applications for Service Operation
July: Distribute Application Package to Intercity Bus Companies
and Other Public Transportation Providers
August: Evaluate Submitted Applications Based on Established
Criteria
September: Select Applicants to Provide Services and Receive Section
5311(f) Funding Support
October: Include Section 5311(f) Projects in State Application
Submittal to FTA
November: Receive FTA Approval of Statewide Application
November/ Prepare and Distribute Contracts to Selected Service
December: Providers
January: Contracted Intercity Bus Services Initiated
