Long-Distance and Rural Travel Transferable Parameters for Statewide Travel Forecasting Models (2012)

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.

C-1 This appendix discusses long-distance travel data for non-auto modes. Publicly available data on long-distance rail and bus travel is very limited at the present time to national statistics and major station/terminal traffic throughput volumes.” For the purposes of this report, the research team analyzed only readily available data on long- distance air travel, intercity bus, and intercity passenger rail. These databases did not permit the analysis of individual trip-makers as found in household or even roadside intercept surveys, which limited what transferable parameters could be gleaned from the data (e.g., no trip rates per household or person). Information was also limited to specific modes of travel so it was not directly useful in terms of mode choice either. The hope is that by summarizing average travel distance by travel mode in this appendix, conclusions can be drawn later about mileage break- points where certain modes become a more pre dominant choice. C.1 Air Passenger Travel Data The research team pulled together some data from BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statis- tics, 2011) related to air passenger travel. This database had about 20 million records from the past year so data were aggregated up to origin to destination airport data for the whole year. The individual records had details about layovers/stops along the way and were summarized by quarter of the year. Data were exported into a manageable spreadsheet that included fare and distance averaged over the O/D pairs. Data were also evaluated in terms of airport size as listed in an FAA report (Federal Aviation Administration, Terminal Area Forecast Summary Fiscal Years 2009–2030,http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forecasts/ taf_reports/) by FAA region, intraregional/interregional (FAA regions) trips, and continental U.S. trips (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands). “This table contains (directional) origin and destination markets from the Origin and Destination Survey (DB1B), which is a 10 percent sample of airline tickets from reporting carriers. It includes such items as passengers, fares, and distances for each directional market, as well as information about whether the market was domestic or international. The file also reports operating and ticketing carrier information for flight segments within the directional market. This table is related to both the Origin and Destination Segment and ticket files by the unique Market ID on each record. Market data are passenger, freight, and/or mail that enplane and deplane between two specific points, while the flight number remains the same. If the flight number changes, a new market begins.” Initial trip lengths appeared higher than expected so results were summarized using alternate calculation methodologies available in the database. The distances that were reported initially were based on median market distance. Market distance, in the context of this analysis, provides A p p e n d i x C Modal-Based Travel Data

C-2 Long-distance and Rural Travel Transferable parameters for Statewide Travel Forecasting Models the distances that are likely traveled for a given airport pair, including ground transportation. Looking up the airport-to-airport distance provided results that were comparable with nonstop miles (another option also known as radian measure). For instance, someone flying between two smaller airports will probably not even have the option of flying a nonstop commercial flight and will likely make a few stops. The other two calculation options are market distance group (aggregates market distance into categories) and market miles flown (most often exactly equal to market distance or else a little shorter of a trip due to exclusion of ground transportation). Market miles flown came out just between market distance and nonstop miles but very close to market distance. For the market distance group, the number of passengers was summed by the grouped categories (distance in 500-mile increments). About half the trips are under 1,000 miles and half above 1,000 miles. Distances recalculated using the radian measure had a minimal impact with slightly lower and more reasonable average trip lengths, potentially due to the exclusion of ground transportation mileage. Average trip lengths for air passenger trips, using radian mileage estimates, are summarized in Table C.1 by airport type and FAA region. These regions are depicted in Figure C.1. As a point of reference, raw survey results for the California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) Air Travel Survey were also summarized to get a sense of trip purpose for air passengers. Airline Airport Type (Origin Airport) Trip Type Annual Air Travel Statistics A ll A ir po rt s L ar ge H ub M ed iu m H ub Sm al l H ub In tr ar eg io na l T ri p In te rr eg io na l T ri p Total Number of Passengers (Millions) 40 24 10 6 7 33 Total Number of Passenger Miles (Millions) 45,248 28,248 10,764 6,236 2,933 42,315 Average Number of Miles Traveled per Passenger 1,137 1,198 1,035 1,071 433 1,281 Average Fare Paid per Mile Traveled $0.18 $0.18 $0.18 $0.20 $0.37 $0.17 FAA Region (by Origin Airport) AEA ASW AGL ASO ANE ACE ANM AWP Annual Air Travel Statistics E as te rn A tl an ti c So ut hw es t G re at L ak es So ut h N ew E ng la nd C en tr al N or th w es t/ M ou nt ai n W es te rn / P ac if ic Total Number of Passengers (Millions) 5 4 5 6 1 1 2 4 Total Number of Passenger Miles (Millions) 6,338 3,808 5,099 6,483 1,867 824 2,042 5,053 Average Number of Miles Traveled per Passenger 1,194 991 1,025 1,041 1,283 1,013 1,090 1,292 Average Fare Paid per Mile Traveled $0.18 $0.21 $0.19 $0.19 $0.16 $0.19 $0.19 $0.16 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics. U.S. Air Carrier Traffic Statistics Through December 2010 (http://www.bts.gov/data_and_statistics/), January 2011. Table C.1. Estimated 2010 air passenger travel distance, continental United States.

Modal-Based Travel data C-3 passenger surveys were conducted at six key airports throughout California. The surveys were conducted on the following dates: • Sacramento Airport—Conducted August 17–18, 2005; • San Jose Airport—Conducted August 24–25, 2005; • San Francisco Airport—Conducted September 20–22, 2005; • Fresno Airport—Conducted October 13, 2005; • Oakland Airport—Conducted November 1, 2005 (outside the security area); and • San Diego Airport—Conducted November 9, 2005 (outside the security area). The average trip distance from the California High-Speed Rail surveys (Corey, Canapary and Galanis Research, 2005) was 390 miles while the longest distance surveyed was 501 miles (San Diego to Sacramento). The resulting survey trip purposes are summarized in Table C.2. Source: Federal Aviation Administration (https://tpss.faa.gov/tpss/public/airports_regions.jsp). Figure C.1. FAA regions. Trips by Purpose Number of Passengers Percent Share Business 775 63 Work Commute 22 2 Vacation/Pleasure/Recreation 158 13 Visit Friends or Relatives 157 13 Personal or Family Matters 83 7 Go to or from School 17 1 Other (Specify) 7 1 Blank 14 1 Total 1,233 100 Source: California Air Travel Survey for High-Speed Rail Model. Table C.2. Passenger air trip purpose from intrastate travel.

C-4 Long-distance and Rural Travel Transferable parameters for Statewide Travel Forecasting Models C.2 Intercity Passenger Rail (Amtrak) Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) is the sole provider of long-distance intercity passenger rail in the United States. Ridership on Amtrak has been on a steady upward trend over the last decade, particularly since September 11, 2001. More recently, as the price and difficulty factor of air travel has risen, renewed growth has been observed. As of the end of April 2011, ridership has increased for 17 consecutive months. Amtrak service can be roughly divided into the following three categories. Category 1 is the Northeast Corridor spine, centered on the former Pennsylvania Railroad Northeast Corridor line. This service represents the bulk of Amtrak ridership and is exempli- fied by the electric Boston to Washington, D.C. Acela Express and Northeast regional services. The corridor serves the most densely populated urban areas in the country with New York City’s Pennsylvania Station being the focus and is the most naturally suited in the country for rail travel. Service in this corridor is fast and frequent and is time competitive with air and auto trips. Category 2 is defined as state-supported corridor services and other short-distance corri- dor services. This service type is similar, in many respects, to Category 1, with relatively short distances but these are usually geographically limited to one state or neighboring states. They tend to be located away from the electrified Northeast Corridor and its branches and serve some less-dense urban areas that are less suited for rail travel. The intra-California services are the best examples. Service is less frequent than in the Northeast Corridor with somewhat lower speeds because routing generally relies on freight railroad infrastructure and uses diesel- powered equipment. Category 3 is defined as traditional long-distance intracontinental service. These routes are very long and usually are operated over freight rail lines outside of the dense Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor and Michigan lines. Several of these routes are in excess of 2,000 miles long, taking 2 to 3 days for complete traversal. Service is infrequent, sometimes being one train or less per day per direction. Like the corridor-supported trains outside of the Northeast Corridor, travel speeds are modest, usually being no faster than the national 79 mph speed limit on freight railroads, with a few exceptions. Many of these routes provide essential links in some of the most remote reaches of the country. In FY 2010, Amtrak reported that it carried 28.7 million passengers, which represents an increase over the FY 2009 number of around 5 percent. An O/D table of routes was obtained from Amtrak and used to determine the trip totals by regions defined similarly to the FAA regions (excepting the rail-isolated areas of Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico). Table C.3 illustrates the breakdown of linked passenger trips by region using the O/D data. Please note, the differences between the total and Amtrak’s reported total may be attributable to differences in reporting assumptions regarding data summation. Not surprisingly, the Northeast Region had the most trips, due primarily to the high-frequency Northeast Corridor. Somewhat more surprising is that the state-supported intra-California services and the Cascades Talgo services made the Western Region the second highest in number of intercity rail passenger trips. The regions serviced only by infrequent intercity long-distance service like the Southwest, Mountain, and Central Regions saw the lowest passenger volumes. Table C.4 indicates key travel behavior characteristics such as revenue, average trip distance, passengers, and passenger miles traveled of Amtrak trains derived from Amtrak-published national and long-distance train fact sheets (Amtrak Media Relations, 2010.) As can be seen, the average passenger on an Amtrak long-distance train travels a distance of 622 miles. The system- wide average is 220 miles whereas the corridor services are 148 miles.

Modal-Based Travel data C-5 An attempt was made to calculate the average trip length by region using the Amtrak-supplied O/D data via an alternate analytical process. This effort involved using a rail trip length matrix for counties along rail lines, matching the O/D data to the specific counties, and calculating aver- ages using travel modeling software. The systemwide calculated value was 573 miles using this approach. It is surmised that the aggregation to county level is distorting the actual trip lengths, especially for the short corridor sectors. A better strategy may be to use the actual station loca- tions and conduct a skim based on the passenger rail routes in the National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD) rail file. C.3 Intercity Passenger Bus (Greyhound, Trailways, Megabus, etc.) The research team looked at a number of sources for intercity bus data. Among these was a recent study by DePaul University on intercity bus trips, conducted in December 2010. Unlike the case with air travel, there are no recent BTS data on intercity bus trips, hence raw numbers indicated are estimates derived using a combination of statistics found online at the sites of major intercity operators, the DePaul University numbers (which themselves are estimates), and clearly stated assumptions. The intercity bus market has, in the last 4 to 5 years, been growing at a faster pace than growth in other travel modes. This represents a complete reversal of fortune when compared to the previous 25 years. This trend has been driven by the prevalence of a new class of intercity bus operation described as curbside operation. The basic premise of this type of operation is that the buses depart from designated curbside locations or general locations apart from traditional municipal Region Total Western/Pacific 6,414,561 Southwest 410,163 Southern 1,343,867 Northwest/Mountain 208,693 Central 384,605 Eastern/Atlantic 12,365,838 Great Lakes 3,142,396 New England 2,750,222 Canada 161,539 Total 27,181,884 Source: Amtrak Incorporated (Station-to-Station O/D table). Table C.3. Passengers by FAA geographic region, federal FY 2010. Passenger Miles (Millions) Revenue (Dollars in Millions) Passengers (Millions) Fare per Passenger Mile (Dollars) Average Trip Length Long-Distance Trains 2,800 454 4.5 0.16 622 Corridor Services 3,563 2,056 24.2 0.58 148 Total 6,363 2,510 28.7 0.39 222 Sources: 1) Amtrak – National Fact Sheet 2010; 2) Amtrak – Long-Distance Train Facts; 3) www.Amtrak.com Table C.4. Amtrak federal FY 2010 key travel characteristics.

C-6 Long-distance and Rural Travel Transferable parameters for Statewide Travel Forecasting Models bus depots. These operators additionally tend to use reservations systems and yield management techniques similar to airlines with fare purchases in the majority of cases being done in advance via the Internet. Curbside buses generally are equipped with additional legroom, power outlets for mobile devices and Wi-Fi access for mobile connectivity. Trips in many cases are express or very limited stops, and these services tend to cater to larger metropolitan areas. Curbside opera- tors have started to attract a growing clientele who appreciate the ability to continue Internet connections, which facilitate online activities/work while in motion. Another trend driving the renaissance of intercity bus travel has been the gradually increasing cost of operating private automobiles over the last 5 years. The price of gasoline has been on a steady upward trend since 2000, reaching an average of over $4 per gallon in July 2008 and consistently in the range of more than $3 per gallon in recent years. This price represents almost a tripling from the average price during the 1990s. While gas prices are likely impacting the use of intercity bus services, increasing gas costs have influenced travel on other modes, as well as the number of trips and trip lengths. Intercity coaches, among the most fuel-efficient motorized transportation modes, have been better able to adjust and hold fares at reasonable levels in comparison to low-occupancy auto travel and air, the two most energy-intensive modes of travel. Intercity bus passenger trips can be roughly divided into three distinct services. As described above, there are the new curbside services, there is the traditional 100-year-old-style national operation by Greyhound, and there are traditional medium-distance intraregional operations. The Greyhound and intraregional operations are very similar except for size of service terri- tory and are treated as one in the analysis. The traditional operators can be described as those primarily using bus terminals, fares usually being purchased at walk-up counters (not exclu- sively, however), and serving many smaller locations in rural towns and districts. They may be the only public transportation available to the areas served for large distances of up to several hundred miles. Some traditional operators now offer services that mimic curbside to stay competitive. The traditional sector is typified by the large and homogenous Greyhound Lines. Smaller regional lines like the Trailways association of companies, Jefferson Lines, and some statewide transit authorities round out traditional operations. Some of the smaller regional lines are the products of the disintegration of the original Trailways system over the years. Trailways still participates in a loose marketing and operating partnership and many of these services are still branded with the Trailways name. Examples include Trailways of New York and Burlington Trailways of Iowa, which still offer extensive intraregional scheduled service. In most cases, interline agreements are in place among the companies, which ensure that intercity bus transportation has the largest domestic geographic extent of any public trans- portation mode. From the available data collected, it can be surmised that the average bus trip length per pas- senger is somewhere in the 200-mile range, as depicted in Table C.5. The passenger miles trav- eled are estimated at 10.5 billion per year with about 50 million passengers boarded. An attempt was made to determine regional breakdown, but such data were unavailable. A scan of various schedules in select regions was undertaken to get a rough idea of market size. The regions looked at were the Northeast centered on New York City, the Midwest centered on Chicago, and the West Coast primarily looking at California. It is clear from this brief analysis that the Northeast is the largest market in the country based on sheer number of scheduled departures and destinations. A back-of-the-envelope estimate would be that it is at least 2 to 3 times the size of the next largest market, the Midwest. California comes in third behind the Midwest. It must be noted that there is also enhanced activity near the border regions (for Mexico-bound trips in particular).

Modal-Based Travel data C-7 With an intercity bus market dominated by private service providers, it has proven difficult to gain access to operational data that would better pinpoint trip movements. It is anticipated that ATS and NHTS 2001 data on long-distance trips will show a strong income correlation with selecting intercity bus as a mode for long-distance travel. 2010 Annual Figures Greyhounda Curbside Operatorsb Other Scheduled Operators (Jefferson Lines, Trailways, etc.) All Scheduled Amtrak Federal Fiscal Year 2010e Total Passengers (Millions)c 25 6 19 50 29 Total Passenger Miles (Millions)d 5,800 1,216 3,466 10,482 6,363 Average Number of Miles Traveled per Passenger 232 205 187 214 222 Sources: Paul Bourquin – Economist and Industry Survey Analyst. Motorcoach Census 2008: A Benchmarking Study of the Size and Activity of the Motorcoach Industry in the United States and Canada in 2007. December 18, 2008. Joseph P. Schwieterman and Lauren Fischer. Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development, DePaul University. The Intercity Bus: America’s Fastest Growing Transportation Mode, 2010 Update on Scheduled Bus Service. December 20, 2010. Notes: a Greyhound numbers include subsidiary and Greyhound Canada travel and is not split out. An assumption that 20 percent represent the Canada operations gives about 20 million passengers. b Curbside numbers represent estimates from the DePaul University report. c Total passenger trip numbers derived by estimating total scheduled fleet size and then using ABA 2007 Census average trips per coach to get total. d Passenger mile numbers for other operators is estimated based on ABA 2007 Census of motorcoach activity with the scheduled service percentage of 26.5 percent split out from total service miles, applying an average load of 30 per coach for all bus trips, and then removing Greyhound and Curbside numbers. e Amtrak numbers include a small number of transborder Canada trips as well. Table C.5. Key bus travel characteristics.