Implementation of the National Intercity Bus Atlas (2025) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

2 Research Approach: Engagement
Pages 7-12

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 7...
... Each carrier identified was also assigned a category to allow for a tailored approach to engagement; these categories included the following: • Carriers interlined with Greyhound • Independent carriers • Publicly run carriers requiring contact • Publicly run carriers with publicly available GTFS • Carriers primarily serving Spanish-speaking populations In addition, the research team identified 110 transit agencies providing at least one long-distance trip that could be considered intercity service. Because of FTA reporting requirements and the benefits of having services show up in trip planners, many of these agencies do have GTFS developed and available to the public.
From page 8...
... This was an effort without a set endpoint and would be helpful to continue through the lifespan of the ICBA project, by whichever organization is selected to inherit the responsibilities of maintaining this resource. Elements of the engagement approach included the following: • Indirect outreach: – Project websites and online MOU – Webinars – Newsletters – Conferences, meetings, and other forums • Direct outreach: – Emails and phone calls to known carrier contacts – Email outreach to carriers without known contacts, but for whom an email address could be found – Mailed outreach to DOTs and carriers for whom email did not work – Coordination with ticketing service providers as a potential way to obtain data from carriers Memorandum of Understanding and Project Website As one component of indirect outreach, the research team published a website with informa tion about the project (https://rsginc.com/busatlas/)
From page 9...
... Direct Outreach In addition to the previously mentioned methods of engagement, the research team contacted all targeted carriers that had email addresses available. The team drafted emails corresponding to the different categories assigned to carriers (e.g., independent bus lines, interlining carriers)
From page 10...
... The team was able to collect many feeds from these sources, including many publicly supported intercity bus services like Colorado's Bustang, Oregon's POINT, and Virginia's The Virginia Breeze, as well as several rural transit carriers with intercity services. Data Creation Because many carriers did not participate in the ICBA, the research team decided to develop a small number of GTFS feeds on its own, something discussed as a possibility earlier in the
From page 11...
... and adequately specific stop location information and were further prioritized by the size of their networks and how well they filled the gaps in the current map identified earlier. Feeds were created for the following carriers: • Badger Bus Lines • Mountain States Express • North Central Montana Transit • Northern Transit Interlocal • Northfield Lines Metro Express • Panhandle Trails • Red Coach Results As discussed previously, after examining and removing inactive entries from the former AIBRA list of intercity carriers, conducting its own research, and consulting with industry contacts and research panel members, the research team selected 126 bona fide intercity carriers for inclusion.
From page 12...
... The research team also hopes that such a map can be used to encourage unrepresented carriers to participate.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.