Measuring the Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail: A Study

More documents

Recommendations

Info

administrative unit of the DOT, resources for the development of formal documentation of onboard survey data are scarce. In terms of formal survey programs, the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) manages the most robust on-board passenger survey program among all the statesupported passenger rail routes, conducting semi-annual on-board surveys of Capitol Corridor passengers since December 1999 supported by the Agency’s annual marketing budget of approximately $1.2 million (10). On-board surveys of state-supported intercity passenger rail routes in other states appear to be relatively infrequent. Certain states, most notably Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, appear to have a quasi-regular program of passenger surveys within their departments of transportation, having engaged multiple rounds of on-board survey data collection on their routes in the last decade. Other reports or studies obtained in this literature review appear to have been ad hoc or one-time research efforts. The purpose or motivation to deploy on-board surveys of state-supported corridor passengers also varied among the states currently supporting passenger rail service. Motivations cited by the studies reviewed included basic information gathering about the current users of state-supported rail service and the evaluation of on-board services, including customer service and amenities. Most of the studies identified in this review were generally designed to examine rail passengers’ response to a central question, such as proposed high-speed rail service or measuring economic impacts. This was true for both continuing survey programs as well as ad hoc or one-time research efforts. In one study, on-board survey data were used to identify the residential location of passengers, which supported the negotiation of a cost-sharing agreement between the two states where the service operated. The infrequent nature of on-board rail passenger surveys is not surprising, given that the limited budget available for supporting intercity passenger rail service is oversubscribed, funding for service evaluation or marketing activities may be even harder to obtain. Intercity Passenger Rail Planning Planning for intercity passenger rail service encompasses a broad range of activities from adjusting service configurations (frequencies or on-board amenities, for example) to the establishment of new routes where no service currently exists. Presently, intercity passenger rail xiv
planning faces a variety of challenges, including a lack of expertise and resources at the agency level, in part due to the relatively low investment in intercity passenger rail in the United States in the last 50 years. As a result, there are limited examples of “best practices” or “on-theground” implementation of passenger rail from which to build a knowledge base to guide new investments. This is less of an issue for other modes, where rich time-series and cross-sectional data sets are available to the analyst. Other challenges facing intercity passenger rail planning include evolving travel demand models, the need to develop multi-state partnerships, and the need to identify cost-sharing agreements with private freight railroad companies. Rail planning at the public-agency level, for both passenger and freight rail, is expected to increase in the coming years (mostly due to PRIIA language and regulations), which will ultimately result in better-defined participant roles and increased technical capacity at the public agency level. Demand modeling for “conventional” intercity passenger rail services can vary in scope and complexity of data requirements. Sketch-level models can be applied with simple and easily accessible data elements (such as Census data) but are limited in accuracy. Comparison between the proposed passenger rail corridor and “peer” corridors is also used in practice. More complex models, including the Amtrak demand estimation model, require more advanced (and costly) specification and calibration but produce demand forecasts with greater detail. Demand modeling for high-speed passenger rail is particularly challenging, given that few high-speed rail projects exist in the United States today. As a result, the primary source of data for high-speed passenger rail planning is stated preference responses from potential users of the proposed service. In turn, analysts incorporate these responses into complex travel demand models that are often quite expensive to develop at an acceptable level of precision. The most common technique used to estimate demand for proposed high-speed passenger rail routes is to estimate passenger diversion from existing travel modes (generally automobile and air carrier) separately, as the characteristics of passengers using each of these modes and their propensity to divert to high-speed rail are different. Induced demand is generally related to the amount of diverted demand, and also depends upon increased travel accessibility resulting from the proposed service. In certain situations, rail planners can utilize data from a statewide travel demand model to estimate demand for proposed passenger rail services. xv
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: ail service along intercity corrido
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 and 130:
Heartland Flyer Market Area Researc
Page 131 and 132:
Table 5-9: Passenger Trip Purpose,
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?