Intercity
Bus
U.S. Department of Transportation, Climate Change Center
Climate Strategies that Work
Intercity buses bridge critical
transportation gaps in rural
areas, between urban centers,
and during high traffic
periods, by offering
sustainable, accessible, and
convenient travel options.
Overview
Intercity buses provide sustainable and convenient travel options for
a diverse range of journeys and contexts. Intercity bus routes may
connect major cities as a longer haul public transportation option or may
serve rural communities that have otherwise limited to no public
transportation networks-The national intercity bus network is extensive,
with over 1,800 carriers operating nearly 28,000 buses, according to the
American Bus Association Foundation. The intercity network has seen
significant growth over the last two decades, with scheduled trips
reaching nearly 5,000 every weekday – a 35% increase since 2006. This
translates to an annual ridership of 62 million passengers, which can
be compared to the 650 million served by commercial airlines each year.
Bus routes are significantly cheaper and quicker to establish and
implement than other forms of public transit and are also highly flexible,
responsive to changing travel patterns and passenger demand. On a per-
passenger basis, particularly for journeys between 200 and 500 miles, bus
travel has much lower greenhouse gas emissions per trip than single-
occupancy vehicles and air travel. For example, a comparative analysis
shows that travelling from St. Louis to Chicago (approximately 300 miles)
by bus emits one-fifth the CO₂ of travelling in a single-occupancy vehicle.
Intercity buses help to ensure equitable transportation access. The
Bureau of Transportation Statistics compiles data on rural transportation
access and found that in 2018, 79% of rural residents had access to
intercity bus services, a nearly 10% increase from 2006.
Targeted investments in stations and stops, which grew from 1,718 in
2006 to 2,632 in 2018, have helped to strengthen the network and grow
ridership.
These services connect rural residents to major urban centers, offering
connections to essential services and economic opportunities. State
and local efforts to improve user experience and accessibility
– such as comprehensive trip planners and connected statewide
networks – can further bolster the appeal of intercity bus services and
ensure they remain a sustainable mode of transportation for diverse
populations.
Long Term & Short term
Urban, Suburban, Rural & Tribal
Best Suited for:
Intercity buses cater to a diverse range of travel needs. Different use cases may include:
Urban to Urban Areas
Express routes linking major cities provide
convenient and sustainable travel for
commuters and leisure travelers in high-
demand corridors.
Rural Feeder Service
This specialized service utilizes small
vehicles, offering demand-responsive
rather than fixed-schedule transportation
to connect rural areas with rail or air
passenger services where feasible. By
providing flexible and tailored
transportation solutions, rural feeder
services enhance connectivity and
accessibility for residents in remote
regions.
Rural to Urban Areas
Intercity buses linking small towns in
rural regions to larger urban hubs and
activity centers provide vital
transportation links for residents in
areas with limited transit options.
Operating at lower frequencies, typically
offering a single roundtrip per day,
these services ensure rural communities
remain connected to essential services.
Student Tourism
Intercity buses serve as a convenient
mode of transportation for students
traveling between educational
institutions and urban centers.
For example, routes like the Ram’s route,
which provides weekend service between
Colorado State University in Fort Collins and
Denver, offer students affordable and
accessible travel options.
Special Events & Seasonal
Services
Intercity buses can offer dedicated
routes for special events and
seasonal activities, catering to
increased demand during specific
times of the year.
For example, Bustang in Colorado
provides special event routes:
- Snowstang, offering weekend
service from Denver to ski resorts
during the winter. - Bustang to Broncos for
professional football games in
Denver.
greenhouse gas Reduction Potential
Several studies have assessed the carbon footprint of intercity bus travel, with a slight range in estimates across studies due to varying methodologies.
GHG Emissions per passenger-mile:
In 2019, carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from intercity buses (including
charter buses and tour buses) averaged 0.15 pounds per passenger-
mile (CBO, 2022).
- Rail transit averaged 0.17 pounds per passenger-mile.
- Personal vehicles averaged 0.47 pounds per passenger-mile.
- Transit buses, which often operate at a low capacity, averaged 0.95
pounds per passenger mile. Emissions per passenger-mile decline
as the number of occupants increases.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, in a 2008 study, estimated intercity
bus emissions to be 0.17 pounds per passenger-mile (Union of
Concerned Scientists, 2008). Note, this includes upstream emissions.
The Texas Transportation Institute estimated that motorcoaches emit 53 grams of CO₂ per passenger-mile (0.12 lbs. per passenger mile)
compared to the second most efficient mode of travel, vanpool, which emits 106 grams of CO₂ per passenger-mile. For further reference, intercity
rail emits 183.5 grams per passenger-mile and ferryboats emit 1,392 grams of CO₂ per passenger-mile (TTI, 2023).
CO₂ Emissions for Real-World Intercity Passenger Trips
A trip by intercity bus can avoid significant greenhouse gas emissions compared to a trip of the same length taken by car, even in a hybrid car. A
2008 report found that generally, a couple boarding an intercity bus can cut their carbon nearly in half compared with driving even a hybrid car. If
they take the bus instead of flying, they will cut their emissions by 55 to 75%, depending on the distance they travel (Union of Concerned Scientists,
2008).
A study comparing the operational CO₂ emissions across various travel modes for four different city pairs in the United States reveals traveling by
bus or rail significantly reduces operational CO₂ emissions compared to car or air travel (Simon et al., 2022).
Operational CO₂ emissions (total) by scenario and main mode of travel – last-mile
emissions included (Source: Simon et al., 2022).
Application of Electric Vehicles:
The intercity bus industry is undergoing a shift towards sustainable
solutions and practices, with a growing focus on electric vehicles.
Major manufacturers like Motor Coach Industries (MCI) and Van Hool
are introducing electric versions of their full-size intercity buses. For
example, the MCI D-series coach is currently undergoing testing by
USDOT at the Altoona Bus Test Center in Pennsylvania.
Current electric intercity buses have a range of 170 to 230 miles, with
high-power plug-in charging taking around four hours to reach a full
charge. Although they are not yet well suited for long-distance routes
with continuous operation, electric buses have higher potential for
shorter commutes with midday layovers and routes under 150 miles.
Electric intercity buses could also service feeder routes from
smaller cities or rural areas. To fully realize the benefits of
electric intercity buses, a robust national charging network is
essential (Schaper, 2022).
Emerging Niches in Intermodal Bus Travel:
Luxury bus services offer a potential alternative to air and car travel for
business travelers, particularly for trips between 200-500 miles. These
services can provide comparable or even faster door-to-door travel
times compared to airplanes on certain routes, potentially at competitive
This section provides an overview of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions associated with the strategy. It highlights key findings and relevant metrics
from GHG modeling resources, peer-reviewed studies, and real-world applications.
prices. They may also offer a more relaxed and work-supportive environment compared to both air and passenger vehicle travel, due to
amenities like Wi-Fi, work desks, and food service.
Their lower passenger density (20 to 30 passengers) compared to traditional intercity buses suggests potentially more limited
greenhouse gas emissions avoided as compared to a higher carbon-intensity mode, particularly for medium-distance travel. However,
more comprehensive analysis is needed to confirm environmental impacts of luxury services vs. traditional intercity buses and other
modes of travel.
Carbon dioxide emissions per passenger-mile from travel by personal vehicles are higher on a
per-mile basis than emissions from other forms of passenger travel (CBO, 2022).
Electric Bus Range and Charging
Intercity bus services play a vital role in connecting rural
communities to regional transportation hubs and activity centers,
enhancing access to essential services, employment opportunities,
and educational institutions.
As of 2021, 85% of the nation’s 88.8 million rural residents had
access to intercity transportation. Access is defined as living within
25 miles of an intercity bus stop (BTS, 2023).
Co-benefits
Safety
Intercity bus services contribute to roadway safety by providing
a reliable and comfortable transportation option, reducing the
risks associated with long-distance driving, such as fatigue.
Nearly 17% of fatal motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. involve a
drowsy driver (Tefft, 2012).
There is limited data on motorcoach safety relative to long-
distance car travel. However, studies of transit bus systems can
provide some insight into the safety of intercity bus travel.
- In the U.S., for every 100 million person-trips, one study
found that fatality rates for car occupants are 23 times
higher than those for bus occupants (Beck, et al., 2007).
Other research found fatality rates to be 66 times greater for
car occupants than bus occupants per passenger-mile
(Savage, 2013). - A study of 10 bus routes in Montreal, Canada found that the
rate of fatally or severely injured vehicle occupants is 6 times
greater for car occupants than for bus occupants (Morency,
et al. 2018). - The same study found that the rates of pedestrian and
cyclist injuries are also significantly greater for car travel (4.1
times) than bus travel (Morency, et al. 2018).
By connecting communities and promoting travel to diverse
destinations, intercity buses stimulate economic activity.
Motorcoach travel and tourism generates as many as 1.98 million
jobs in communities across the United States, paying over $86.4
billion in wages and benefits (American Bus Association, 2023).
“Student tourism” in the United States represents a significant
portion of motorcoach tourism, encompassing 30.1% of passenger
trips, highlighting the importance of intercity buses in facilitating
student travel experiences (John Dunham & Associates, 2013).
Economic Growth
Accessibility and Equity
Intercity buses represent a cost-effective alternative to driving or
flying, offering affordable fares and reducing the financial burden
of travel for individuals and families.
A study using data from 20 bus routes in January 2021 found bus
travel was cheaper than air and rail fares 60 to 85% of the time
(Schwietrman et al., 2021).
The Percent of Routes in which Bus Fares are Lower than Air and Rail Fares
(Source: Schwietrman et al., 2021).
Unlike traditional train or air travel, intercity buses can offer
a network of pick-up and drop-off locations closer to where
people live and work. This expands access to transportation
for those with limited means or without access to personal
vehicles. These benefits are fully realized when stops
provide a comfortable and secure pre- and post-boarding
experience (Talbott, 2011).
Implementing alternative ticket purchasing methods
ensures inclusivity and accessibility for diverse populations,
including elderly individuals and unbanked individuals (Pike
et al., 2022).
Watch the National Rural Transit Assistance Program (National
RTAP)’s video on how intercity bus transportation supports
equitable and affordable access.
Rural Communities
Map displaying intercity bus access across U.S. counties
(Source: U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Access to
Intercity Transportation in Rural Areas).
This section outlines the multiple co-benefits associated with the strategy, including safety benefits, local air quality improvements, and improved
accessibility. Each co-benefit presents examples that demonstrate how the strategy enhances regional or community well-being while addressing
emissions.
air quality and health
Bus service helps to reducing the number of emissions-emitting
vehicles on the road, which decreases air pollutants that are harmful
to human health (Litman, 2024).
Since intercity buses are a denser form of transport, they allow for
more efficient travel on a single gallon of fuel. Fuel savings translates
directly into emissions savings and less air pollution. A typical
intercity bus will get about 152 passenger-miles per gallon (MPG),
compared to only 30 MPG for a single-occupancy vehicle
(Schwieterman et al., 2022).
When considering a 2021 fleet average, motorcoaches have the
lowest per-passenger emission rates for particulate matter among
all on-road transportation modes, with 6.6 grams of PM2.5 per 1,000
passenger-miles compared to 1.9 for vanpool (2nd best), 6.8 for
transit buses, and 7.5 for passenger cars (TTI, 2023).
Cost savings
Intercity and inter-regional bus service are generally much less
expensive than owning and operating a car. Research shows that
shifting away from cars and towards more sustainable mobility
options can save urban Americans an average of $2,000 each year
(ITDP, 2024).
Cost Considerations
Intercity bus service typically requires less upfront capital investment compared with intercity rail, since buses can leverage the existing right-of-
way. Capital expenses include vehicle purchase, ticketing counters and online platforms, and marketing. Operating expenses include fuel
purchase and maintenance. Some services, such as the Virginia Breeze Bus Lines, have seen rising demand and revenues in recent years, which
helps to offset operating costs (Schieterman, et al., 2024).
Government subsidies can help bridge gaps in intercity bus service and improve existing service, increasing ridership. For example, in 2022,
Ontario Northland buses in Canada carried 281,790 passengers and 34,707 packages. Out of its $148 million annual budget, $95 million came
from fares, while $54 million (36%) was provided by a provincial subsidy (Litman, 2024).
Intercity bus levels of service (LOS) scale with affordability and other factors, such as frequency, speed, and amenities. High LOS, where bus
travel is much cheaper than driving, can attract travelers who would otherwise drive. Litman (2024) lists LOS A through F, where LOS A includes
more than 25 daily trips, provides speeds as fast as driving, and includes amenities, such as free WiFi. LOS A can reach mode shares of 15 to
25%, while LOS D for comparison, with only 1 to 4 daily trips and costs comparable to driving, might only reach 3 to 6% mode share (Litman,
2024).
Funding Opportunities
FTA’s State of Good Repair Grants Program provides capital
assistance for maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation projects
of high-intensity fixed guideway and motorbus systems to help transit
agencies maintain assets in a state of good repair in urbanized areas.
FHWA’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ) Program funds can be used to, install electrification
infrastructure for buses, and support intermodal stations. CMAQ
funds can also be used towards transit amenity improvements.
FTA’s Nonurbanized Area Formula Grant Program (Section 5311)
Funding requires 15% of each state’s overall Section 5311 funding
allocation be spent on rural intercity bus projects under Section 5311(f)
unless the state certifies to the FTA that there are no unmet rural
intercity needs, and that it has determined that there are no needs as
the result of a consultation process that includes outreach to the
intercity carriers and other stakeholders.
FHWA’s Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG)
provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for
projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on
any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public
road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects,
including intercity bus terminals.
FTA’s Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program supports state
and local efforts to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and
related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including
technological changes or innovations to modify low or no emission
vehicles or facilities.
Complementary Strategies
Intercity rail and intercity buses together offer travelers flexible and efficient options for long-distance travel.
Electric vehicles and charging infrastructure are essential for the advancement of electric intercity buses.
Including intercity bus routes and timing alongside intra-city public transit options supports public education about medium-
and long-haul passenger public transportation options and encourages use of intercity buses.
Cross-jurisdictional planning and collaboration can support efficient and high utilization intercity and cross-regional bus routes.
Expanded public transit options can support access to intercity bus lines and mutually reinforce use of both in-city and intercity
transit networks.
Trip planning tools and modal integration support intercity bus operations by providing travelers with comprehensive
information on routes, schedules, and ticketing options, enhancing the overall travel experience.
In a rural context, transit oriented development would focus on a rural downtown or town center, which could co-locate with
intercity bus routes, supporting additional economic growth and mobility options.
Case studies
Kayak Public Transit in Pendleton, OR is administered by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). The agency operates a
rural regional transportation system reaching into southeastern Washington and northeastern Oregon, with three fixed routes and four long
distance commuter bus services spread throughout four counties and connecting 15 communities. The name “Kayak” is reflective of the
Cayuse/Nez Perce word “K’ay’ák” which means “to be free of obstructions.” Some of those obstructions or obstacles were people not having a
vehicle, not living in the town where they’re employed, and not having access to education and medical services. Their transportation service
currently provides nearly 100,000 rides per year. Kayak Public Transit was awarded the National RTAP 2019 Tribal System Award for their
innovation, efficiency, commitment, and performance in the tribal transit industry.
The Free Ride system in Breckenridge, Colorado, a mountain destination
that attracts year-round visitors, uses intercity buses to address traffic
congestion and promote environmentally friendly travel options. The bus
system is a convenient, and reliable option for users that otherwise would
be traveling in private cars. The town Transit Agency, in a Livability Grant to
the federal government, cited a reduction of 202,336 pounds of CO₂
emissions in a year from choice riders using the system (NASEM, 2012).
Greenway Public Transportation provides fixed-route, flex-route, and demand-responsive
transportation in rural North Carolina through Western Piedmont Regional Transit Authority (WPRTA).
Greenway saw the need to expand their service to rural areas, particularly to meet the needs of
underserved riders. The service expansion initiative took about three years and involved many
stakeholders, including county municipalities, government leaders, the Community Foundation of
Burke County, representatives from the manufacturing and industry sectors, and non-profit
organizations. The routes were tailored to include low-income and affordable housing as bus stops so
underserved populations could access transit to get to town. There was a “ride-free” promotional
period to help people learn and become acclimated to using public transit. This new route was
advertised by the local public housing authority. After implementing the new flex routes, Greenway
saw an increase in ridership of nearly 70%, from 1,300 riders in 2018 to 2,200 in 2019.
(Source: Breck Free Ride)
(Source: Greenway Public Transportation)
Implementing Intercity bus Service:
What to Read Next
Successful intercity bus networks rely on strong local, state, and private
sector collaboration. Key considerations for state and local agencies may
include:
Safe and Comfortable Bus Stops
Agencies can invest in bus stops with adequate shelter and amenities. In
some cases, establishing a transit hub may be necessary to serve as a
centralized location for intercity bus services, facilitating seamless transfers
between routes and connecting with other modes of transportation.
Coordinating with existing infrastructure such as transit centers or
transportation hubs can optimize the use of resources and improve
connectivity within the transportation network.
First/Last-Mile(s)
Addressing the journey to and from intercity bus facilities is crucial
to ensure accessibility for all riders. Implementing feeder services or
carpool programs can facilitate connections for passengers
traveling from remote areas or areas without direct access to bus
stops. Providing convenient and reliable transportation options to
and from bus facilities enhances the overall travel experience and
encourages modal choice towards intercity bus services.
Bus charging infrastructure on key corridors can support an
industry shift towards electric vehicles.
See FHWA’s EV Toolkits for Rural
Electric Mobility and Urban Electric
Mobility infrastructure.
Parking Guidelines and Permitting
Coordination between city DOTs and private operators to establish
clear parking policies, can minimize unnecessary idling and ensure
smooth layovers between trips.
See the University of Delaware UTC’s
reference document Curbside Intercity
Bus Industry: Research of Transportation
Policy Opportunities and Challenges.
Key considerations for bus operators:
Tracking Systems and Signage
Implementing bus tracking systems or on-site support allows
passengers to monitor bus arrival times and receive real-time
updates on potential delays, ensuring passenger safety and
comfort, particularly in adverse weather conditions or during
nighttime travel. Utilizing signage and outreach campaigns can
effectively communicate the benefits of bus travel and inform
passengers about routes, schedules, and fare options.
Pace buses in Chicago, Illinois facilitate data collection and
communication between drivers and passengers using
Intelligent Bus System (IBS) technology. Read more here.
Accessible Booking and Ticketing
Establishing a seamless booking process will help attract new
ridership. User-friendly features such as those below contribute to
overall convenience and accessibility:
- Having to purchase tickets online can be challenging, especially
for elderly and non-English speaking riders. To address this,
intercity bus operators can implement alternative ticket
purchasing methods such as phone reservations or in-person
ticket sales at terminals. Additionally, providing multilingual
customer support and offering clear instructions in multiple
languages on the booking platform can enhance accessibility for
non-English speakers. - Implementing accessible options for individuals who may not
have access to traditional banking methods is crucial for
ensuring inclusivity and equity in intercity bus services. Some
operators, such as Greyhound offer cash payments at
convenience stores and participating retail spaces, allowing
users to make reservations online and then complete their
payment in person. - Offering new schedule options that require transfers
necessitates that bus lines deal with late-arriving buses,
cancellations, customer confusion, and other issues at transfer
points. Metasearch travel websites, including Busbud and
Wanderu are pivotal to making travelers aware of the new
schedule options, allowing them to comparison shop, and
providing customer support.
Resources
U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics Intercity Bus Atlas
(ICBA): The ICBA is a mapping application which features scheduled
intercity bus service data. The BTS collects the data from various
provider websites, compiles them into a single, geospatially enabled
database, and then publishes them for research, analysis, and
planning.
American Bus Association Local Economic Impact Study: This
interactive map details information on the local economic
contributions of motorcoach-based group tourism in counties and
select cities across the United States. When an area is selected, a
report can be generated to share with stakeholders.
Transportation Research Board Toolkit for Estimating Demand for
Rural Intercity Bus Services: This toolkit provides a sketch-planning
guide and supporting CD-ROM–based tools that can be used to
forecast demand for rural intercity bus services.
FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
Calculator Toolkit: This toolkit is designed to estimate the air quality
and greenhouse gas reduction benefits of different projects,
including transit buses.
Depaul University Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development
Intercity Bus Research Hub: This research on intercity bus service
spans nearly a decade, with year-in-reviews for the past five years
highlighting the innovation and technological advances undertaken
by the intercity bus industry in the United States.
Toolkits and Modeling Approaches
General Resources
Rural Specific
FTA National Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP): This is a program of
the FTA administered by the Neponset Valley TMA, serves to create rural and
tribal transit solutions through technical assistance, collaboration, training,
and transit industry materials. They host trainings, resources, and peer
networking for public agencies and rural operators.
FTA and Transportation Research Board Effective Approaches to Meeting
Rural Intercity Bus Transportation Needs, TCRP Report 79: This report
addresses funding for intercity bus projects; discusses barriers to
implementation; and identifies strategies for initiating, preserving, and
enhancing effective intercity bus transportation.
References
American Bus Association. 2023. Economic Impact. https://buses.org/aba-foundation/aba-foundation-research-summary/economic-impacts/
American Bus Association. January 2022. Motorcoach Census A Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in the United States and Canada in
2020. https://buses.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Motorcoach_Census_Survey_2020.pdf
Beck, L. F., Dellinger, A. M., & O'neil, M. E. (2007). Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to
quantify differences. American Journal of Epidemiology, 166(2), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm064
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). (2023). Rural access to Intercity Transportation. https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Rural-Access-to-Intercity-
Transportation/gr9y-9gjq/
Congressional Budget Office. December 2022. Emissions of Carbon Dioxide in the Transportation Sector. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-12/58566-
co2-emissions-transportation.pdf
Federal Transit Administration, December 2022. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Four Real World InterCity Passenger Trips: A Comparison of Rail, Air, and
Road Travel Modes by City Pair. https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12/CO2EmissionsByMode_FinalReport_FRA_12.2.22_PDFa.pdf
Institute for Public Administration, (August 2013). Curbside Intercity Bus Industry: Research of Transportation Policy Opportunities and Challenges. School
of Public Policy & Administration College of Arts & Sciences University of Delaware. https://udspace.udel.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/8522b55a-d0fc-
4590-95d3-97c8f737f5ac/content
Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP). 2024. The High Cost of Transportation in the United States. January 24, 2024.
https://itdp.org/2024/01/24/high-cost-transportation-united-states/
International Council on Clean Transportation, August 2019. Estimating electric vehicle charging infrastructure costs across major U.S. metropolitan areas.
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EV_Charging_Cost_20190813.pdf
John Dunham & Associates. 2013. The Impact of Student Motorcoach Tourism in 2012 A Report on the Size and Activity of the Student Motorcoach Tourism
Industry in the United States in 2012. http://buses.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Report-Impact-of-Student-Tourism.pdf
Litman, T. 2024. Win-Win Transportation Emission Reduction Strategies. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 16 December 2024.
https://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf
M.J. Bradley & Associates. June 2019. Updated Comparison of Energy Use & Emissions from Different Transportation Modes.
https://www.buses.org/assets/images/uploads/general/2019%20UPDATE%20Comparative%20Fuel%20CO2%20FINAL-July%202019.pdf
Morency P, Strauss J, Pépin F, Tessier F, Grondines J. 2018. Traveling by Bus Instead of Car on Urban Major Roads: Safety Benefits for Vehicle Occupants,
Pedestrians, and Cyclists. J Urban Health. 95(2):196-207. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-017-0222-6.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), (2011). Toolkit for Estimating Demand for Rural Intercity Bus Services. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22857.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), (2012). Implementation and Outcomes of Fare-Free Transit Systems. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22753.
Nookala and Kahn. Cost-Efficiency of Intercity Bus Technology Innovations. Transportation Research Record 1125.
https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1125/1125-008.pdf
O’Toole, Randal. June 2011. Policy Analysis No. 680. Intercity Buses, The Forgotten Mode. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA680.pdf
Pike, S., D’Agostino, M., & Flynn, K. (2022). Un-and Underbanked Transit Passengers and the California Integrated Travel Project.
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/61204
Savage, I. (2013). Comparing the fatality risks in United States transportation across modes and over time. Research in transportation economics, 43(1), 9-
22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2012.12.011
Schaper, David. April 2022. National Public Radio, All Things Considered. Airlines are replacing planes with buses on some short routes.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/11/1092117516/airlines-are-replacing-planes-with-buses-on-some-short-routes
Schwieterman, J., Chesney, B., Das, A. 2024. Back on the Bus: 2024 Outlook for the Intercity Bus Industry in the United States. Chaddick Institute: Depaul
University. Annual Intercity Bus Review. https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/Documents/2024%20-
Outlook%20for%20the%20Intercity%20Bus%20Industry%20Feb%202023.pdf
Schwieterman, J., Mader, A., Woodward, A. (2022). The Intercity Bus Bounceback. Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development: Depaul University.
Intercity Bus Brief. https://buses.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2022_Intercity_Bus_Bounceback.pdf
Schwieterman, Antolin, Bell. (2021). On the Brink: 2021 Outlook for the Intercity Bus Industry in the United States. https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-
institutes/chaddick-institute-for-metropolitan-development/research-and-
publications/Documents/2021%20Outlook%20for%20Intercity%20Bus%20Travel%20report%5B1%5D.pdf
Simon, Mittelman, Solman, Gilman, Henning, Raymand, Blatnica. (December, 2022). Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Four Real World Inter-City Passenger
Trips: A Comparison of Rail, Air, and Road Travel Modes by City Pair. U.S. DOT, Federal Rail Administration.
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-12/CO2EmissionsByMode_FinalReport_FRA_12.2.22_PDFa.pdf
Talbott, Matthew. May 2011. Bus stop amenities and their relationship with ridership: a transportation equity approach. The University of North Carolina at
Greensboro (UNCG). https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/listing.aspx?id=7532
Tefft, (2012). Prevalence of motor vehicle crashes involving drowsy drivers, United States, 1999-2008. Accident Analysis & Prevention
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22269499/#:~:text=In%20the%20imputed%20data%2C%20an,%25)%20involved%20a%20drowsy%20driver.
Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). December 2023. Updated Comparison of Energy Use and Emissions from Different Transportation Modes Using
the Latest Available Datasets. https://buses.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Task1_4_Report_Draft_07Dec2023-edited-FINAL-DRAFT.pdf
Union of Concerned Scientists. December 2008. Getting There Greener The Guide to Your Lower-Carbon Vacation.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/getting-there-greener
USDOT, (May, 2005). Transit Signal Priority (TSP): A Planning and Implementation Handbook.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060923120521/http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/TSPHandbook10-20-05.pdf
For more information visit the DOT Climate Change Center,
https://www.transportation.gov/priorities/climate-and-
sustainability/dot-climate-change-center