Measuring the Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail: A Study

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5-8: Passenger Travel Distance To/From Rail Station, Percent of All Trips Travel Distance April (To/From) (186/119) July (To/From) (224/149) 10 Miles or Less 35/39 32/38 11 to 20 Miles 26/20 18/17 21 to 30 Miles 9/12 11/9 31 to 40 Miles 3/3 8/7 41 to 50 Miles 3/3 4/5 51 to 75 Miles 2/4 5/7 76 to 100 Miles 5/4 10/7 101 to 150 Miles 7/3 6/3 151 to 200 Miles 5/5 3/4 201 Miles or More 5/8 4/3 Note: Sample size shown in parenthesis. Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. For travel from the alighting station to the final destination, almost 40 percent of passengers estimated that their final destination was less than 10 miles from the station. Median distance to final destination was approximately equal in April (16 miles) and July (17 miles). The reader should note that passenger response to this question was markedly lower than the other items on the survey form. Passenger Trip Purpose Table 5-9 shows passengers’ reported trip purpose. Passengers on the Heartland Flyer reported primarily pleasure trips, with most passengers traveling to visit family or friends or for leisure/recreation purposes. Collectively, these trips accounted for more than three-fourths of all Heartland Flyer passenger trip purposes. As a percentage of all passengers, trips to visit family or friends composed a higher percentage in July while trips for leisure/recreation were a higher proportion in April. One possible cause for this discrepancy is that families with school-age children may be most likely to visit family or friends in the summer, when more time is available for discretionary activities. As expected, vacation comprised a relatively high percentage of trips on the Heartland Flyer in July, with about 15 percent of passengers reporting this purpose. The conceptual difference between “leisure/recreation” and “vacation” is the duration of the activity, with the latter being the longer of the two. While this distinction was not made on the survey form, it appears that the responses generally aligned with this definition. 100
Table 5-9: Passenger Trip Purpose, Percent of All Trips Trip Purpose April (382) July (522) Visiting Family or Friends 36 42 Going To/From University/College 2 1 Going To/From Business Trip 5 2 Leisure/Recreation 45 33 Personal Business 6 5 Shopping 1 2 Vacation 4 15 Note: Sample size shown in parenthesis. Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. Another comparison of note between the two survey periods is the percentage of business travel, which was higher in April than in July. Trips for personal business, such as medical appointments or funerals, comprised approximately 5 percent of the total travel in both seasons. Personal business is not likely to be impacted by seasonal variations in travel like other purposes might be impacted. Among the remaining trip purposes, the overall percentage and the difference between seasons were negligible. Table 5-10 provides a more detailed summary of passenger trip purpose comparing weekday (Monday-Friday) and weekend travel. The findings in Table 5-10 show that leisure/recreation travel dominated weekend trips on the Heartland Flyer. Business travel and personal business appeared to be more frequent on weekdays rather than weekends, another reasonable finding. One finding that was surprising was the low proportion of trips going to or from higher education. Given the presence of the University of Oklahoma in Norman as well as several schools in Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, one might expect to find a much greater share of trips to or from a university or college among the route’s passengers. Table 5-10: Passenger Trip Purpose, Percent by Day Type Trip Purpose Weekday April (233) July (356) Weekend April (149) July (166) Visiting Family or Friends 40 44 30 39 Going To/From University/College 2 1 3 1 Going To/From Business Trip 6 2 3 1 Leisure/Recreation 39 29 55 43 Personal Business 8 7 4 2 Shopping 2 1 0 4 Vacation 4 17 5 11 Note: Sample size shown in parenthesis. Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 101
Page 1:
1. Report No. SWUTC/10/169116-1 2.
Page 5:
ABSTRACT In recent years, the polic
Page 8 and 9:
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 3-1: He
Page 11 and 12:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION In i
Page 13 and 14:
ail service along intercity corrido
Page 15 and 16:
planning faces a variety of challen
Page 17 and 18:
of travel (in the absence of rail s
Page 19 and 20:
participate in the study. Throughou
Page 21 and 22:
such as medical appointments or fun
Page 23 and 24:
Heartland Flyer annually. Induced t
Page 25 and 26:
Heartland Flyer identified in this
Page 27:
DISCLAIMER The contents of this rep
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In its Dece
Page 33 and 34:
to Fort Worth intercity corridor wa
Page 35:
• An overview of intercity passen
Page 38 and 39:
passenger deficit for the year 1969
Page 40 and 41:
In April 2009, the Federal Railroad
Page 42 and 43:
conditions across the United States
Page 44 and 45:
Table 2-2: State-Supported Routes i
Page 46 and 47:
Oklahoma and Texas support service
Page 48 and 49:
conducted by the Southeastern Wisco
Page 50 and 51:
Discussion of State-Supported Rail
Page 52 and 53:
• The 1993 Illinois Passenger Rai
Page 54 and 55:
INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL PLANNING T
Page 56 and 57:
Data Needs for Intercity Passenger
Page 58 and 59:
supported routes. The following par
Page 60 and 61:
• Third, the total non-business r
Page 62 and 63:
demand model varies, Horowitz and F
Page 64 and 65:
Survey Design Literature Deploying
Page 66 and 67:
Table 2-4: Elements Included in On-
Page 68 and 69:
question. This pattern is consisten
Page 70 and 71:
a particular corridor. For example,
Page 73 and 74:
CHAPTER 3: DESCRIPTION OF HEARTLAND
Page 75 and 76:
• After passing through Davis, th
Page 77 and 78:
minutes early. A later section of t
Page 79 and 80: corridor. Table 3-1 shows a snapsho
Page 81 and 82: enefits resulting from the route’
Page 83 and 84: state of Oklahoma (71). This action
Page 85 and 86: served by the route are Pauls Valle
Page 87 and 88: Figure 3-4: Typical P42DC Locomotiv
Page 89 and 90: during non-peak times when the usua
Page 91 and 92: effect during this research study w
Page 93 and 94: HEARTLAND FLYER SERVICE DATA The fo
Page 95 and 96: Examining the 10-year monthly avera
Page 97 and 98: surprisingly, is Oklahoma City-Fort
Page 99 and 100: Figure 3-9: Heartland Flyer On-Time
Page 101 and 102: CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION The main
Page 103 and 104: amenities that could increase rail
Page 105 and 106: pool be increased to 3,000. The IRB
Page 107 and 108: Summary of Data Collection Tables 4
Page 109 and 110: Ineligible Passengers Several group
Page 111 and 112: QUALITY CONTROL After completing th
Page 113 and 114: For the access mode to station ques
Page 115 and 116: One question on the survey asked th
Page 117 and 118: trip). However, researchers determi
Page 119 and 120: eporting how far passengers were fr
Page 121 and 122: CHAPTER 5: DATA ANALYSIS This chapt
Page 123 and 124: survey item by the total number of
Page 125 and 126: Comparing the total column in Table
Page 127 and 128: Tables 5-5 and 5-6 display another
Page 129: Heartland Flyer Market Area Researc
Page 133 and 134: PASSENGER CHARACTERISTICS Passenger
Page 135 and 136: is entirely possible that a passeng
Page 137 and 138: In both April and July, the two mos
Page 139 and 140: Table 5-19: Passenger State of Resi
Page 141 and 142: Figure 5-2: Residential Zip Codes o
Page 143 and 144: Gender Table 5-22 reports passenger
Page 145 and 146: Household Income Table 5-26 reports
Page 147 and 148: In FFY 2009, the Heartland Flyer ra
Page 149 and 150: Table 5-28: Passenger Alternatives
Page 151 and 152: Urban and Rural Mobility Another co
Page 153 and 154: passenger was approximately $120 in
Page 155 and 156: if the service did not exist (appro
Page 157: This study measured the mobility im
Page 160 and 161: questions on the passenger’s boar
Page 162 and 163: made is related to the similarity b
Page 164 and 165: valuable insight on the design of f
Page 167 and 168: REFERENCES 1. National Surface Tran
Page 169 and 170: 35. Corey, Canapary & Galanis Resea
Page 171: 74. Able Consulting. Tier 1 Environ
Page 174 and 175: Figure A-3: Purcell Amtrak Station
Page 176 and 177: Figure A-7: Fort Worth Amtrak Stati
Page 178 and 179: 148
Page 180:
150
show all

Measuring the Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail: A Study

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?