Measuring the Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail: A Study

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors recognize that support for this research was provided by a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program to the Southwest Region University Transportation Center which is funded, in part, with general revenue funds from the State of Texas. The authors wish to thank the numerous individuals who contributed to the successful completion of this project. Special thanks are due to Joe Kyle, Rail Programs Division Manager at the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, who served as the Project Monitor for this study. Additional support from the Oklahoma Department of Transportation was provided by Rail Programs Division Assistant Manager John Dougherty. Texas Department of Transportation staff supporting this project included Orlando Jamandre, Jennifer Moczygemba, and Gil Wilson. Amtrak staff that provided background information and supplemental data included Mike Franke, Bruce Hillblom, Jason Maga, Tracy Robinson, Karen Seibert, and Carol Shannon. The authors would also like to thank DOT rail planners in the many states that supported this effort by providing information about past on-board surveys of rail passengers. Special thanks are due to Kathy Hundt of the Michigan Department of Transportation and Ethan Johnson of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation for their support. The research team also wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the Texas Transportation Institute’s administrative staff that provided editing assistance in the production of this report and other invaluable assistance throughout the duration of the study. Finally, the researchers owe a great debt of gratitude to all the Amtrak staff in the Fort Worth division office and the on-board staff of the Heartland Flyer. The support and assistance provided by these outstanding Amtrak employees, led by Joy Smith in the division office and Heartland Flyer conductors Michael Doty and Robert Villarreal, were invaluable and much appreciated by the researchers. xxix
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 32 and 33: and timely above and beyond the ori
Page 34 and 35: ound of data collection, which took
Page 37 and 38: CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This c
Page 39 and 40: Amtrak: The History and Politics of
Page 41 and 42: to New Haven; Washington, D.C., to
Page 43 and 44: took place almost immediately after
Page 45 and 46: The details provided in Table 2-2 d
Page 47 and 48: February 1995 report entitled Learn
Page 49 and 50: Washington The states of Washington
Page 51 and 52: problematic. This is likely to occu
Page 53 and 54: family or friends or for vacation/r
Page 55 and 56: service in the corridors where it i
Page 57 and 58: esidents in the communities served
Page 59 and 60: models used in this application wer
Page 61 and 62: travelers likely differ from those
Page 63 and 64: Discussion At the present time, a v
Page 65 and 66: obtaining more information and also
Page 67 and 68: others extended the question to ide
Page 69 and 70: No single trip purpose was provided
Page 71: provides the most clarity for the s
Page 74 and 75: Figure 3-1: Heartland Flyer Route 4
Page 76 and 77: Timetable Schedule Figure 3-2 shows
Page 78 and 79:
two sections—I-35W (toward Fort W
Page 80 and 81:
the two lines met in Purcell in Apr
Page 82 and 83:
Oklahoma City-Fort Worth corridor t
Page 84 and 85:
Oklahoma City and Tulsa are include
Page 86 and 87:
evidence of use during the Amtrak L
Page 88 and 89:
On the Heartland Flyer, the NPCU fa
Page 90 and 91:
that the right passengers depart th
Page 92 and 93:
on-time (as defined in the incentiv
Page 94 and 95:
Also reported in Table 3-3 is the a
Page 96 and 97:
across Thursday, Friday, and Saturd
Page 98 and 99:
the average scores for its peer gro
Page 100 and 101:
• Other Delays, 1,892 (8.1 percen
Page 102 and 103:
questions also reduce respondent bu
Page 104 and 105:
Stakeholders also provided guidance
Page 106 and 107:
Once the train had departed the ori
Page 108 and 109:
Table 4-1: Data Collection Details:
Page 110 and 111:
the passenger is “captive” on t
Page 112 and 113:
Survey Item Table 4-4: Treatment of
Page 114 and 115:
Survey Item Table 4-5: Treatment of
Page 116 and 117:
northbound train, suggesting that m
Page 118 and 119:
error cleaning used in this study a
Page 120 and 121:
During the data collection process,
Page 122 and 123:
sampling technique. A more efficien
Page 124 and 125:
analysis, as the sample appears to
Page 126 and 127:
travel mode from the alighting stat
Page 128 and 129:
Table 5-5: Passenger Travel Mode To
Page 130 and 131:
Table 5-8: Passenger Travel Distanc
Page 132 and 133:
Passenger Alternative Travel Mode O
Page 134 and 135:
Travel Duration Researchers evaluat
Page 136 and 137:
was approximately three times the p
Page 138 and 139:
items but rather estimated based up
Page 140 and 141:
Figure 5-1: Residential Zip Codes o
Page 142 and 143:
Party Size Tables 5-20 and 5-21 rep
Page 144 and 145:
epresented approximately 4 percent
Page 146 and 147:
Diverted and Induced Trips In this
Page 148 and 149:
Influences on Diverted and Induced
Page 150 and 151:
Table 5-29: Passenger Alternatives
Page 152 and 153:
ECONOMIC IMPACTS The economic impac
Page 154 and 155:
communities along the route ranged
Page 156 and 157:
sales tax and do not include hotel
Page 159 and 160:
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS This chapter
Page 161 and 162:
Heartland Flyer most closely resemb
Page 163 and 164:
passenger rail routes, particularly
Page 165:
Future research can also focus on i
Page 168 and 169:
19. Economic Development Research G
Page 170 and 171:
53. Robertson, H.D., J.E. Hummer, a
Page 173 and 174:
APPENDIX A: PROJECT PHOTOS Figure A
Page 175 and 176:
Figure A-5: Ardmore Amtrak Station
Page 177 and 178:
APPENDIX B: ON-BOARD SURVEY FORM 14
Page 179 and 180:
APPENDIX C: IRB DOCUMENTATION 149
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?