1993Unpublished venueRequires access

Intercity bus industry in Texas

Kay Fitzpatrick, Karen Kuenzer, T Lienau, Thomas Urbanik

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

The intercity bus industry in the United States has been in a decline since the end of World War 2. The decline is attributed to the increase in the use of private automobiles and competition for intercity passengers by airlines. Passage of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act in 1982 allowed bus companies to exit from unprofitable routes, resulting in a decrease in the number of places served by intercity buses. Despite the exit from unprofitable routes, bus companies in the United States still have not enjoyed the profitability they had during earlier years. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 mandates that states spend a certain portion of their Section 18 (rural transit) funds on intercity bus purposes. This mandate can be waived by the governor of a state if the governor certifies that intercity bus needs in the state are being adequately met. An informal telephone survey of nine states known to have active intercity bus programs revealed that the states were planning to use their Section 18(i) funds on instituting vehicle loan programs, providing route operating subsidies, helping with capital costs, placing highway signs, printing intercity bus brochures, and making terminal improvements. Two surveys were performed to elicit the opinions and demographic characteristics of both the Texas general public and intercity bus riders. A survey of bus station characteristics was performed concurrently with the bus rider survey. A final survey solicited comments from representatives of Texas bus companies. Government-owned multimodal transportation facilities was a frequently cited improvement that would serve two purposes: first, they would streamline the transfer from one mode of transportation to another, and second, they would eliminate the reliance the smaller bus companies have on terminal facilities owned or operated by larger companies. Operating subsidies for rural routes and billboards or highway signs advertising intercity bus service were other suggestions mentioned by bus company representatives.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The intercity bus industry in the United States has been in a decline since the end of World War 2. The decline is attributed to the increase in the use of private automobiles and competition for intercity passengers by airlines. Passage of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act in 1982 allowed bus companies to exit from unprofitable routes, resulting in a decrease in the number of places served by intercity buses. Despite the exit from unprofitable routes, bus companies in the United States still have not enjoyed the profitability they had during earlier years. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 mandates that states spend a certain portion of their Section 18 (rural transit) funds on intercity bus purposes. This mandate can be waived by the governor of a state if the governor certifies that intercity bus needs in the state are being adequately met. An informal telephone survey of nine states known to have active intercity bus programs revealed that the states were planning to use their Section 18(i) funds on instituting vehicle loan programs, providing route operating subsidies, helping with capital costs, placing highway signs, printing intercity bus brochures, and making terminal improvements. Two surveys were performed to elicit the opinions and demographic characteristics of both the Texas general public and intercity bus riders. A survey of bus station characteristics was performed concurrently with the bus rider survey. A final survey solicited comments from representatives of Texas bus companies. Government-owned multimodal transportation facilities was a frequently cited improvement that would serve two purposes: first, they would streamline the transfer from one mode of transportation to another, and second, they would eliminate the reliance the smaller bus companies have on terminal facilities owned or operated by larger companies. Operating subsidies for rural routes and billboards or highway signs advertising intercity bus service were other suggestions mentioned by bus company representatives.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The intercity bus industry in the United States has been in a decline since the end of World War 2. The decline is attributed to the increase in the use of private automobiles and competition for intercity passengers by airlines. Passage of the Bus Regulatory Reform Act in 1982 allowed bus companies to exit from unprofitable routes, resulting in a decrease in the number of places served by intercity buses. Despite the exit from unprofitable routes, bus companies in the United States still have not enjoyed the profitability they had during earlier years. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 mandates that states spend a certain portion of their Section 18 (rural transit) funds on intercity bus purposes. This mandate can be waived by the governor of a state if the governor certifies that intercity bus needs in the state are being adequately met. An informal telephone survey of nine states known to have active intercity bus programs revealed that the states were planning to use their Section 18(i) funds on instituting vehicle loan programs, providing route operating subsidies, helping with capital costs, placing highway signs, printing intercity bus brochures, and making terminal improvements. Two surveys were performed to elicit the opinions and demographic characteristics of both the Texas general public and intercity bus riders. A survey of bus station characteristics was performed concurrently with the bus rider survey. A final survey solicited comments from representatives of Texas bus companies. Government-owned multimodal transportation facilities was a frequently cited improvement that would serve two purposes: first, they would streamline the transfer from one mode of transportation to another, and second, they would eliminate the reliance the smaller bus companies have on terminal facilities owned or operated by larger companies. Operating subsidies for rural routes and billboards or highway signs advertising intercity bus service were other suggestions mentioned by bus company representatives.

Key concepts: Subsidy, Public transport, Governor, Business, Mandate, Government (linguistics), Finance, State (computer science)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Intercity bus industry in Texas — Research Paper | ScholarLens