Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E R A I L R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCRRP REPORT 4 Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets RSG White River Junction, VT i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Matthew Coogan White River Junction, VT AECOM New York, NY Icek Ajzen Amherst, MA Chandra Bhat Austin, TX Brian Lee Burlington, VT Megan Ryerson Philadelphia, PA Joseph Schwieterman Chicago, IL Subscriber Categories Passenger Transportation ⢠Planning and Forecasting ⢠Railroads TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2016 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE RAIL RESEARCH PROGRAM The National Cooperative Rail Research Program (NCRRP) conducts applied research on problems important to freight, intercity, and commuter rail operators. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and introduce innovations into the rail industry. NCRRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared by freight, intercity, and commuter rail operating agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. NCRRP undertakes research and other technical activities in various rail subject areas, including design, construction, maintenance, operations, safety, security, finance and economics, policy, planning, human resources, and administration. NCRRP was authorized in October 2008 as part of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PL 100-432, Division B). The Program is sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and managed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi- cine, acting through its Transportation Research Board (TRB), with pro- gram oversight provided by an independent governing board (the NCRRP Oversight Committee [ROC]) including representatives of rail operating agencies. NCRRP carries out applied research on problems that address, among other matters, (1) intercity rail passenger and freight rail services, includ- ing existing rail passenger and freight technologies and speeds, incremen- tally enhanced rail systems and infrastructure, and new high-speed wheel- on-rail systems; (2) ways to expand the transportation of international trade traffic by rail, enhance the efficiency of intermodal interchange at ports and other intermodal terminals, and increase capacity and avail- ability of rail service for seasonal freight needs; (3) the interconnectedness of commuter rail, passenger rail, freight rail, and other rail networks; and (4) regional concerns regarding rail passenger and freight transportation, including meeting research needs common to designated high-speed cor- ridors, long-distance rail services, and regional intercity rail corridors, projects, and entities. NCRRP considers research designed to (1) identify the unique aspects and attributes of rail passenger and freight service; (2) develop more accu- rate models for evaluating the impact of rail passenger and freight service, including the effects on highway, airport, and airway congestion, environ- mental quality, energy consumption, and local and regional economies; (3) develop a better understanding of modal choice as it affects rail passenger and freight transportation, including development of better models to pre- dict utilization; (4) recommend priorities for technology demonstration and development; (5) meet additional priorities as determined by the advisory board; (6) explore improvements in management, financing, and institu- tional structures; (7) address rail capacity constraints that affect passenger and freight rail service through a wide variety of options, ranging from oper- ating improvements to dedicated new infrastructure, taking into account the impact of such options on operations; (8) improve maintenance, operations, customer service, or other aspects of intercity rail passenger and freight service; (9) recommend objective methods for determining intercity pas- senger rail routes and services, including the establishment of new routes, the elimination of existing routes, and the contraction or expansion of ser- vices or frequencies over such routes; (10) review the impact of equipment and operational safety standards on the further development of high-speed passenger rail operations connected to or integrated with non-high-speed freight or passenger rail operations; (11) recommend any legislative or regu- latory changes necessary to foster further development and implementation of high-speed passenger rail operations while ensuring the safety of such operations that are connected to or integrated with non-high-speed freight or passenger rail operations; (12) review rail crossing safety improvements, including improvements using new safety technology; and (13) review and develop technology designed to reduce train horn noise and its effect on communities, including broadband horn technology. The primary participants in NCRRP are (1) an independent govern- ing board, the ROC, appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from freight, intercity, and commuter rail operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organiza- tions such as the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) as vital links to the rail commu- nity; (2) TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FRA as program sponsor. NCRRP benefits from the coopera- tion and participation of rail professionals, equipment and service suppli- ers, other rail users, and research organizations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE RAIL RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCRRP REPORT 4 Project 03-02 ISSN 2376-9165 ISBN 978-0-309-37537-5 Library of Congress Control Number 2016936605 © 2016 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Rail Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCRRP REPORT 4 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lawrence D. Goldstein, Senior Program Officer Anthony P. Avery, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Senior Editor NCRRP PROJECT 03-02 PANEL Field of Policy and Planning Donald Maley, NEC Advisory Commission, Washington, DC (Chair) Andreas Aeppli, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Cambridge, MA John F. Betak, Collaborative Solutions, LLC, Albuquerque, NM Mark Burton, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN Kenneth L. Casavant, Washington State University, Pullman, WA Max Johnson, AMTRAK, Washington, DC Kristen Keener-Busby, ULI Arizona, Phoenix, AZ David Valenstein, FRA Liaison Scott Babcock, TRB Liaison
NCRRP Report 4: Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets develops an analytical framework or structural plan to improve understanding of how current or potential intercity travelers make the choice to travel by railâa choice that is often made in a competitive context that includes options to travel by air, rail, bus, or private automobile for the majority of their trip. This framework provides guidance for use by a diverse audience of practitioners and decision makers considering alternative planning, operating, financing, service, and capital investment strategies for intercity passenger rail service in existing and potential travel markets; and it allows users to evaluate how mode choice is affected by a variety of changing and evolving parameters. The framework devel- oped through this research is based on an examination of fundamental values, preferences, and attitudes affecting travel mode choice. Identification of relevant parameters extracted from this analysis served as input to a comprehensive survey used to gather necessary data for developing an Integrated Choice/Latent Variable (ICLV) forecasting model. Building directly on the results calculated in this forecasting model is the scenario testing tool, a series of interconnected spreadsheets which make available to the analyst a wide variety of data and procedures needed in the application of quick-turn-around scenario testing. Together, the ICLV forecasting model and scenario testing tool provide a sophisticated framework for analyzing intercity travel behavior. Intercity passenger rail in the United States is often studied from the supply-side perspec- tive. As a result, the importance of travel times, frequency, and service quality is generally well documented in the literature and in actual market experience; however, intercity pas- senger decisions regarding mode choice in a changing marketplace are less well studied. Because of this imbalance, decision makers responsible for planning, financing, building, and operating intercity passenger rail lack an effective analytical framework that takes into account changing demand-side attributes (consumer demand) in the context of changing supply-side capacity (available level of service) by competing travel mode. This is a problem when considering levels of service, modal attributes, costs, and other relevant factors that are necessary when evaluating alternative transportation system improvement strategies. Also contributing to this uncertainty is a lack of understanding of the decision-making process from the perspective of the passenger: ⢠What are the factors behind an individualâs decision to choose rail or some other mode of travel for an intercity trip? ⢠How do these factors vary among individuals, markets, types of service, and trip purposes? F O R E W O R D By Lawrence D. Goldstein Staff Officer Transportation Research Board
Many travel markets have recently experienced major shifts in travel patterns, illustrated by three characteristics: (1) a rapid rise of intercity bus travel in selected city-to-city travel markets, (2) significant air-to-rail mode shift in markets such as the Northeast Corridor, and (3) significant changes in mode preference among younger and older generational cohorts. Some of these changes are directly related to changes in the supply or quality of service, but many are based on additional factors that have not been as thoroughly researched or documented. Given this complex decision-making environment, the research team, under NCRRP Project 03-02, developed an analytical method testing the range of variables affecting mode choice, including demographic factors that potentially have a significant impact. These factors are separate from the usual supply-side factors considered in traditional demand analysis. The team, which included a wide range of professional disciplines, was led by RSG with Matthew Coogan, an independent consultant, serving as the Principal Investigator for the project. The research presented in NCRRP Report 4 demonstrates how these additional factors can be used to compare demand for rail and other travel modes so that future decision makers can more accurately measure the benefits and costs of alternative investment strategies on the multimodal transportation network. NCRRP Web-Only Document 2, available on the TRB website (www.trb.org), contains a bibliography and technical appendices to this report. The extensive bibliography in NCRRP Web-Only Document 2 concerns related research and background data and analysis in support of development of the ICLV hybrid model. The technical appendix for ICLV and Hybrid Choice Model Development, in particular, demonstrates that the results obtained in this study have the ability to help formulate real policy implications using advanced modeling techniques in a real-world setting. The scenario testing tool will be available to download from the TRB website in June 2016 (by searching for âNCRRP Report 4â).
1 Chapter 1 Introduction and Major Conclusions 1 1.1 The Purpose of This Research 2 1.2 Need to Understand the Nature of Intercity Demand 6 1.3 Major Conclusions 12 1.4 Report Organization 14 Chapter 2 Previous Research and the Collection of New Data 14 2.1 Highlights from the Project Bibliography 20 2.2 Data Collection Methodologies 23 2.3 Survey Respondent Sample Overview 30 Chapter 3 Survey Results by Demographics, Region, and Market Segment 30 3.1 Relationship Between Key Demographic Categories and Survey Responses 35 3.2 Results by Coastal Region 38 3.3 Latent Class Cluster Segmentation 44 3.4 Summary of the Market Segmentation 46 Chapter 4 Understanding Values, Preferences, and Attitudes in the Choice of Rail 47 4.1 The NCRRP Attitudinal Model for Rail 52 4.2 The TBP Model for Rail 59 Chapter 5 Merging Economic Modeling Theory with Analysis of Attitudes and Preferences 60 5.1 A Mode Choice Model with No Attitudes or Preferences 62 5.2 Integrated Choice and Latent Variable Modeling 66 5.3 Model Results 71 Chapter 6 Model Application for Scenario Analysis 71 6.1 Introduction 72 6.2 The Four Illustrative Scenarios 73 6.3 Sample Expansion and Initial Model Calibration 78 Chapter 7 The Role of Rail in a Rural Market 78 7.1 The University of Vermont Rural Intercity Transportation Survey 84 7.2 Conclusion for the Rural Corridor Market 85 Chapter 8 Competition to Rail from Intercity Bus 85 8.1 Introduction 85 8.2 Previous Research on Intercity Bus Service 87 8.3 NCRRP Attitudinal Model for Intercity Bus Travel 89 8.4 Interpreting Results from the NCRRP Attitudinal Model for Intercity Bus Travel C O N T E N T S
96 Chapter 9 Competition Between Rail and Air 96 9.1 Introduction 97 9.2 Air/Rail Diversion Model 102 9.3 Case Study Example: New York CityâBoston 104 9.4 Conclusion 105 Chapter 10 Bringing It All Together: Where Do We Go from Here? 105 10.1 Bringing Together the Separate Themes: What Was Learned 108 10.2 Major Conclusions from the Project 112 10.3 Recommendations for Further Research 116 References 120 Abbreviations
