National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Summary
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

1

Introduction

Americans travel to engage in work, school, and leisure activities, among other reasons. Most trips are short and begin and end at or near the traveler’s home. In large urbanized areas, one-way trips covering distances of 25, 50, and even 100 miles may be considered local if they are confined to a single metropolitan region.1 Local travel has been the subject of considerable study and is relatively well understood by planners and public officials concerned with urban and intrametropolitan transportation. Another important component of personal travel is the long-distance trip, which is generally defined as a one-way trip that exceeds about 100 miles.2 Most long-distance trips are shorter than 500 miles, but some cross-country and international journeys extend for thousands of miles.3 To save time, the latter trips are usually made in airplanes. This report is concerned with the shorter-haul component of long-distance travel, specifically trips of 100 to 500 miles, which is a distance range suited to transportation by several alternative modes, including automobiles, airplanes, trains, and buses. Trips of such length are referred to as “interregional” in this report because most involve travel that begins in one metropolitan region and ends in

________________

1 Among transportation planners, a “region” is generally associated with a greater metropolitan area. The Census Bureau uses core-based statistical areas (CBSAs) to represent greater metropolitan areas. Therefore, all references in the report to core “cities” (e.g., Los Angeles, New York) are shorthand for the entire CBSA. The land area of a CBSA can be large; for example, the driving distance between Palmdale, California, on the northern edge of the Los Angeles CBSA, and Irvine, California, on the southern edge, is about 100 miles. When the straight-line distance between two CBSAs is measured, the centers of the two core cities are used as the endpoints.

2 The 100-mile threshold was used to define a long-distance trip by the 1995 American Travel Survey; accordingly, this threshold is used in this report.

3 As discussed in Chapter 2, trips of less than 500 miles account for about three-quarters of all long-distance trips.

Page 11
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

another. They are of particular interest because of their modal substitutability and because they are the largest component of long-distance travel in terms of trips made.

Interregional trips are seldom studied. One reason may be that transportation planners and public officials prioritizing infrastructure investments seek to accommodate the much larger number of trips made locally for commuting, shopping, entertainment, and other routine purposes. Because many people make only a handful of trips longer than 100 miles each year, the destinations and other details of these trips may go unrecorded in the household travel surveys conducted by metropolitan and state planners concerned mainly with local and in-state trips. Another reason may be that some of the line-haul modes used, such as buses and airplanes, are supplied by commercial entities that are viewed as outside the scope of metropolitan and state transportation investment plans. Regardless of their specific causes, these data deficiencies hinder the understanding of the people making interregional trips, where and why they travel, and the transportation modes they use and prefer.

Although the data on interregional trip making are scarce, people making such trips—or those who will make them in the future—are often the target of proposals for public investments in new or substantially improved transportation systems. Passenger rail service, which is missing or skeletal in most interregional corridors, is frequently the subject of these proposals. The proposals sometimes involve the inauguration of a new conventional or high-speed rail service or the enhancement of an existing service with faster and more frequent trains.4 Passenger trains have been the recipient of billions of dollars in federal aid over more than 40 years since the creation of Amtrak in 1971.5 During the past two decades, many state governments have increased funding for passenger rail, which has been supported in recent years by the availability of

________________

4 Trains that have top speeds of 125 miles per hour represent an upgrade over conventional intercity rail and are usually characterized as “higher speed.” California’s planned trains would have top speeds of more than 200 miles per hour and a goal of being capable of traveling between metropolitan Los Angeles and metropolitan San Francisco in less than 3 hours (http://www.hsr.ca.gov/).

5 According to a recent National Cooperative Rail Research Program report (CPCS et al. 2015, 16), Amtrak operating losses have totaled more than $68 billion (in 2013 dollars) since its creation.

Page 12
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

federal stimulus grants for improving rail infrastructure.6 The creation of a high-speed passenger railway connecting California’s northern and southern cities, approved by state voters in 2008, represents one of the largest public commitments to interregional transportation that has ever been made in the United States.

The 100- to 500-mile market is also the subject of periodic proposals for using public funds to prompt the development and introduction of transformational transportation technologies. Among such technologies are trains operating on magnetic levitation (maglev) guideways,7 Interstate highways capable of accommodating platoons of self-driving cars and buses,8 commercial tilt-rotor aircraft flying outside of congested airports and airspace (OTA 1991), increasingly automated small airplanes offering on-demand passenger service from general aviation airports,9 and even “hyperloop” systems that would transport passengers long distances in reduced-pressure tubes (Bilton 2013).10

Public officials face uncertainty with regard to how to invest public resources in transportation systems intended to serve travelers decades into the future. The unanticipated growth in the availability and popu-

________________

6 On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which included more than $8 billion in grants for intercity and high-speed rail projects.

7 Maglev trains have demonstrated speeds exceeding 250 miles per hour. Although no maglev systems serve interregional markets, three intracity (<35 miles) systems are in commercial operation in Shanghai, China; Aichi, Japan; and Seoul, South Korea. Section 1218 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, passed in 1998, created a National Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program. The special infrastructure required for maglev trains necessitates high construction costs and precludes compatibility with the railway network. Maglev trains have since been proposed for the Los Angeles–Las Vegas and Baltimore–Washington, D.C., markets.

8 See, for example, the current Google Self-Driving Car Project (http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/) and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Automated Highway System Research Program from the 1990s and early 2000s (TRB 1998).

9 For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Aeronautics Research and Mission Directorate has spent more than 15 years supporting research to further the development of systems that would improve the ability of small (one- to nine-seat) general aviation aircraft to serve interregional markets of 50 to 500 miles (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140002448.pdf). NASA envisions air-taxi service and traveler-operated applications of small aircraft with advanced technologies as well as the eventual development and use of autonomous, self-operated aircraft for on-demand transportation. A Transportation Research Board committee reviewed the program in 2002 (http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/153338.aspx).

10 http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop.

Page 13
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

larity of express intercity bus services over the past decade illustrates this uncertainty. During the 1990s, the nation’s intercity bus industry was in the midst of a long-term decline in ridership. Today, the industry is rejuvenated by bus companies providing fast, nonstop service between the downtowns of major cities. On the one hand, public officials considering whether to invest in passenger rail cannot help but notice the renaissance in bus service, and they might wonder whether capital-intensive rail investments are needed or will be competitive with the private bus. On the other hand, they might view the growing popularity of intercity buses as an indication that more people are seeking transportation alternatives to the automobile and thus as a positive sign for the future of intercity trains.

In 1991, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) issued Special Report 233: In Pursuit of Speed: New Options for Intercity Passenger Transport.11 That report also concentrated on the 100- to 500-mile market and examined the experience with public investments in high-speed interregional systems such as passenger rail. Since publication of the report, surprisingly little attention has been given to understanding this market, even as interest in investments in high-speed rail and other transportation alternatives has waxed and waned. Without an understanding of the interregional market, potentially beneficial investments in transportation capacity to serve it may be neglected, while some large investments may be made on the basis of envisioned benefits that do not materialize.

In sponsoring this study, the TRB Executive Committee recognized the dilemma that public officials face in deciding whether to make potentially large commitments to transportation systems under conditions of uncertainty. Therefore, the study examines the demand for and supply of interregional transportation in the United States in detail, in part to identify gaps in understanding that need to be filled. After additional background on interregional travel and its relevance to transportation institutions and policy issues is provided, the chapter concludes with a more detailed review of the study charge and organization of the report.

________________

11 http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/153319.aspx.

Page 14
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

The metropolitan population of the United States grew by more than one-third from 1990 to 2010, compared with the nation’s overall population growth rate of 24 percent.12 Today more than 250 million people live in the country’s metropolitan areas, and the largest 75 of them—all having more than 500,000 people—now account for about half the population.13 Although the United States is geographically vast, its population is concentrated in a relatively small number of large metropolitan areas, and many of them are located in a few geographic regions. Hence, when residents of these metropolitan areas leave their homes for personal, leisure, and business trips, they often travel to neighboring metropolitan areas that are within a few hundred miles: three of every four long-distance trips are to destinations less than 500 miles away.14

Unlike cross-country and international trips, which are made predominantly by airplane to save time, shorter-haul interregional trips are made by automobile, bus, train, and airplane. These modes have different prices and service attributes, and their substitutability can depend on many factors, including the availability of the service, traveler valuations of time, sensitivities to ticket prices, requirements for hauling luggage and gear, and the need for local transportation at the destination. Because of its advantages with respect to many of the factors, private automobiles account for most trips under 500 miles. Use of the automobile is especially prevalent among families and others traveling for leisure and other nonbusiness purposes. As travel distances approach 200 miles, business travelers, who tend to place a high value on time, are more likely to fly or use trains when that service is both available and fast. When trip lengths approach about 300 miles, airline use increases more generally, and use of buses and trains drops off.

While the automobile and airplane dominate interregional travel, there is notable variability in the use and availability of the other transporta-

________________

12 http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html; http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt.

13 According to the Census Bureau, the New York–Newark metropolitan region is the most populated urbanized area, while Cleveland, Ohio; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Columbia, South Carolina rank 25th, 50th, and 75th, respectively.

14 Chapter 2 contains statistics on trip making by distance.

Page 15
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

tion modes by region and among individual city pairs. In general, travelers beginning and ending their trips in large cities are likely to have more transportation options than are travelers between smaller cities where traffic volumes are light. In addition, the service options available in a given city-pair market can depend on the traffic characteristics of the corridor in which it resides. This is particularly true for service by passenger rail. Unlike buses, which can offer schedule frequency with as few as 40 passengers per trip, interregional trains that operate with frequency in the United States average about 200 passenger miles per train mile. They require 250 to 300 seats in sets of five, six, or seven passenger cars.15 Thus, trains can be scheduled with high frequency even in relatively small markets (e.g., Newark, New Jersey–Wilmington, Delaware) when they fall within longer travel corridors anchored by major cities (e.g., New York–Washington, D.C.). In particular, the likelihood of an interregional trip being made by rail or bus increases significantly if the trip occurs within the densely traveled Northeast Corridor (NEC), where travelers have many mode and schedule options.

For the most part, the transportation infrastructure used for interregional travel serves local and longer-distance travelers as well as freight. For example, most of the vehicle traffic on the country’s urban Interstate highways is local, airlines use hub-and-spoke networks to carry both long- and short-haul passengers on the same flights, and intercity passenger trains often share track with commuter and long-distance freight trains. Accordingly, these transportation systems are seldom planned, designed, or operated with interregional travelers exclusively in mind. The transportation options available to interregional travelers are the outcome of many choices made for many reasons and by many entities. Private individuals and companies own and operate the automobiles, buses, and airplanes, but the highways, airports, and airways they use are largely owned and operated by federal, state, and local authorities. Most of the rail infrastructure used by intercity passenger trains is owned and operated by private railroads

________________

15 For example, the Amtrak trains operating on the Northeast Corridor routes average about 220 passenger miles per train mile, with some portions of the corridor exceeding this average. See Federal Railroad Administration Rail Service Metrics and Performance: Quarter Ended June 2015, Table 5 (https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L17088).

Page 16
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

whose primary interest is the movement of freight, which adds to the complexity.

Although they lack the formal institutions that coordinate transportation investments within metropolitan areas and states, a few of the country’s interregional corridors are the subject of public- and private-sector coalitions. In the conurbation of the Northeast, heavy volumes of local, regional, and longer-distance passenger and freight traffic compete for highway capacity. This situation has prompted state and local governments on the corridor to join with industry users in creating the I-95 Corridor Coalition,16 which advocates more government coordination in the prioritization of highway investments and has conducted analyses of corridor capacity and bottlenecks as they pertain to the rail, bus, air, and waterborne modes. More generally, the coalition has served as a forum for members of the transportation community in exchanging best practices, promoting professional capacity building, and identifying issues where a broader interregional perspective is needed. Similar public–private coalitions have been created by governments and industry in other parts of the country, such as the West Coast Corridor Coalition, the I-81 Corridor Coalition, and the I-80 Coalition.17

Several multistate partnerships help to sustain passenger train service on a number of interregional routes. For example, the states of Illinois and Missouri are collaborating in financing upgrades to the freight rail infrastructure between Chicago and Saint Louis to allow for faster and more frequent passenger trains. Virginia and North Carolina are coordinating similar upgrades between Charlotte, Raleigh, and Richmond, with the intent of strengthening rail connections to Washington, D.C., and the other cities of the NEC. Oregon and Washington State contribute to the funding of passenger rail service between Eugene, Portland, and Seattle, and Oklahoma and Texas have partnered to support service between Oklahoma City and Dallas. The most notable example of a multistate body coordinating passenger rail is the Northeast Corridor Commission,18 which was created by Congress to advise on the financing

________________

16 http://www.i95coalition.org/.

17 The Federal Highway Administration maintains a list of these regional coalitions at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/corridor_coal.htm.

18 http://www.nec-commission.com/resources/mission/.

Page 17
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

and planning of infrastructure serving the many commuter, freight, and intercity trains using the NEC lines.

Funding transportation infrastructure, particularly projects that require long-term funding commitments from multiple states, is challenging under most circumstances. As motor vehicle fuel economy improves and the revenues generated from traditional fuel taxes wane, states confronted with tighter transportation budgets may be inclined to focus their resources on local and state needs rather than on interregional projects. However, even in the face of growing funding constraints, public officials are being asked to respond to new policy concerns in the planning of transportation investments. Long-standing interests such as improving transportation safety, curbing congestion, and reducing energy consumption are now accompanied by an interest in controlling greenhouse gas emissions and making transportation services more accessible and convenient, especially for those lacking access to an automobile.

STUDY CHARGE AND APPROACH

The TRB Executive Committee noted the Obama administration’s proposal to spend more than $8 billion of stimulus funds on state rail projects and California’s initiative to pursue high-speed rail. Members of the committee discussed whether and how circumstances had changed since the publication of Special Report 233 (TRB 1991) to justify these investments. That study had urged the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop the databases and analytical capacity required for assessing interregional travel demand before committing to high-speed rail or other technology options. For the most part, these recommendations have not been pursued. In the meantime, the market for interregional transportation has clearly changed, as evidenced by the growing popularity of express intercity bus services, which the Executive Committee observed.

The last comprehensive survey of long-distance travel in the United States was conducted in 1995. The Executive Committee questioned whether the nearly 20-year-old survey and current analytical capacity, which has been little improved, would be sufficient to inform the policy

Page 18
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

makers who have demonstrated a renewed interest in interregional corridors. The members concluded that the transportation community would benefit from a study focused on this travel segment and elected to sponsor this review of

  • Interregional travel behavior and patterns, including traveler and trip characteristics and factors that influence travel choices, such as service price, accessibility, convenience, comfort, frequency, reliability, safety, and travel time;
  • The supply of interregional transportation infrastructure and services by automobile, airplane, bus, and train;
  • The characteristics of interregional travel markets and corridors that affect their suitability for service by particular modes of transportation, including spatial and demographic conditions as revealed by conditions and experience in the United States and in other industrialized countries;
  • Planning, programming, and funding challenges that arise in the provision of interregional transportation, including those associated with forecasting travel demand and evaluating public benefits and costs associated with long-term government commitments to interregional transportation systems such as passenger rail; and
  • The data and analytical capabilities needed to plan and program transportation investments to serve interregional travelers.

These five bullet items are a synthesis of the study’s full charge, which is given in Box 1-1. To carry out this charge, TRB convened a committee of experts in transportation system planning and operations, economics, policy analysis, travel data, behavior, and modeling. In reviewing the transportation literature, the committee found a large number of studies pertaining to long-distance and intercity travel generally but relatively little information specific to the shorter-haul, interregional segment and to its transportation planning and decision-making processes. Consequently, the committee spent much time at the outset of the study meeting with individuals knowledgeable about interregional travel markets, including service providers, transportation analysts and planners, modal experts, and representatives of government agencies. These individuals are acknowledged in the Preface.

Page 19
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

BOX 1-1

Statement of Task

This study will examine U.S. regional intercity passenger transportation, with a focus on markets for which there are potentially multiple modal options with distances in the range of 100 to 500 miles. Consideration will be given to travel by personal automobile, airplane, motor coach, and train, including attention to opportunities and challenges for service by high-speed and conventional passenger rail, curbside bus, and future modes of travel made available by emerging system technologies.

The study will describe U.S. intercity travel markets, including mode share for tripmaking, geographic patterns (e.g., coast, regional corridors), traveler characteristics (e.g., party size and household income), and trip characteristics (e.g., duration, distance). In examining market demand, the committee will compile available information on factors that influence travel choices, such as service price, accessibility, convenience, comfort, frequency, reliability, safety, and travel time. To the extent possible, this information will be interpreted with respect to traveler demographics and how they are expected to change over time.

In examining transportation supply, the study will draw upon experience in the United States and other industrialized nations with respect to factors such as modal competition and cooperation, service cost and revenues, funding requirements, and alternative institutional and financing mechanisms, including public–private partnerships. The study will also consider the physical condition, structure, and capacity of transportation networks. The study will assess future travel markets and potential mixes of services to meet the demand for short-haul intercity passenger transportation.

The committee will examine policy and planning issues that arise in public debates concerning the provision of transportation services. The report will offer guidance to policy makers where warranted to inform these debates, acknowledging areas of uncertainty and identifying those that may be addressed through further research.

Page 20
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

The literature reviews, expert consultations, and examinations of interregional transportation systems in other countries yielded many insights. They helped shape the committee’s views about the importance of decision makers having better data, analytical tools, and institutional means for planning and investing in interregional transportation. The committee did not try, as requested in the statement of task, to characterize each transportation mode’s current physical condition and capacity. Such sweeping characterizations are bound to be misleading given the variability in circumstances among individual facilities, corridors, and regions. The immense highway, air, and rail transportation systems, which cross many regions and serve many purposes (i.e., local and long-haul trips and freight and passenger traffic) are not homogeneous across markets and regions. Attempts to characterize their physical condition and capacity at the national level would be misleading or require too many caveats to be informative. The same logic holds for assessing future travel markets. The committee was not in a position to project interregional travel trends given the many uncertainties about future demand and supply and their variability from one corridor to the next. The committee reasoned that decision makers considering investments in interregional transportation do not need speculative forecasts of demand; they need access to travel behavior data and forecasting tools that can be applied to their individual circumstances. Instead of trying to provide the mode- and site-specific details needed by public officials to inform investments in individual corridors, the committee reasoned that its time and resources were best spent in examining the general state of interregional transportation planning and decision making to advise on ways to strengthen their processes.

REPORT OVERVIEW

The remainder of the report consists of six chapters. Chapter 2 gives general information about interregional travel in the United States. The information comes mainly from the only database offering sufficient detail, the 1995 American Travel Survey. The chapter thus provides a snapshot of interregional travel behavior from 20 years ago. The snapshot sheds light on some of the basic factors affecting the demand for interregional travel

Page 21
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

and mode choice, but its ability to offer detailed information needed by transportation planners is questionable in light of two decades of changes in demographics, economics, and technology.

Chapter 3 describes the four main modes of transportation used for interregional travel—automobiles, buses, airplanes, and trains. Consideration is given to how the modes compare in attributes such as price, travel speed, and schedule frequency.

Chapter 4 examines the location and shape of the country’s major interregional transportation corridors. Particular attention is given to how the size, spacing, and relative position of cities in a corridor can affect traffic flows and the functioning of different interregional transportation systems.

Chapter 5 describes the public sector’s role in supplying interregional transportation infrastructure and services. The few funding programs and institutions that align with interregional corridors are identified and discussed. For comparative purposes, the public sector’s role in providing interregional passenger rail in Europe is summarized.

Chapter 6 describes the kinds of data and analytical tools needed to inform investments in interregional transportation. Among the topics discussed are more up-to-date travel surveys, models for forecasting traveler demand, and methods for assessing and conveying uncertainty.

Chapter 7 summarizes the key findings from the study. It concludes with recommendations on how the federal government can help improve long-distance travel data, support the development and application of state-of-the-art analytical tools, and provide incentives for the creation of interregional transportation planning entities to support sound decision making.

REFERENCES

Abbreviations

OTA Office of Technology Assessment
TRB Transportation Research Board

Bilton, N. 2013. Could the Hyperloop Really Cost $6 Billion? Critics Say No. New York Times, Aug. 15. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/could-the-hyperloop-really-cost-6-billion-critics-say-no/?_r=0.

Page 22
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×

CPCS, Harral Winner Thompson Sharp Klein, Inc., Thompson, Galenson and Associates, LLC, First Class Partnerships, Limited, and Portscape, Inc. 2015. NCRRP Report 1: Alternative Funding and Financing Mechanisms for Passenger and Freight Rail Projects. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

OTA. 1991. New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles. OTA-SET-507. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Oct.

TRB. 1991. Special Report 233: In Pursuit of Speed: New Options for Intercity Passenger Transport. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/153319.aspx.

TRB. 1998. Special Report 253: National Automated Highway System Research Program: A Review. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr253.html.

Page 10
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21887.
×
Page 22
Next: 2 Interregional Travel Behavior and Patterns »
Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making Get This Book
×
 Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making
Buy Paperback | $77.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB Special Report 320: Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making examines the demand for and supply of interregional transportation in the United States. Major additions to transportation infrastructure, including high-speed rail, are being considered for some of the country’s most heavily traveled 100- to 500-mile corridors. The availability and use of the automobile, airplane, and train for interregional travel are reviewed along with the rejuvenated intercity bus. U.S. interregional corridors and transportation options are contrasted with those in Japan and Europe, where substantial investments have been made in passenger rail.

Public investments in new, long-lived transportation infrastructure can be risky because of uncertainty about future demand and the development of new technologies and competing transportation services. Decisionmakers in interregional corridors face the added challenge of having to coordinate investments across multiple jurisdictions. The report recommends actions to reduce this uncertainty and create stronger institutional means for developing the country’s interregional corridors.

TR News 303 features an article on Interregional Travel: A New Perspective for Policy Making.

A video about the research is now available:

At the 2016 TRB Annual Meeting, January 10-14, 2016, a session entitled Interregional Travel: Policymaking from a New Perspective was webcast live. These videos provide an overview of various components of the project.

Introduction:

Part 1: Overview of Project Scope

Part 2: Data and Information Needs

Part 3: Intercity Bus Operations

Question and Answer Session

Presenters:

  • Tom Deen
  • Nancy McGuckin
  • Joe Schweiterman

Moderated by: Martin Wachs

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!