Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 36
36 100% Frankfurt-Cologne 90% Madrid-Seville 80% Rail market share (%) London-Manchester London-Paris 70% Paris-Marseille 60% London-Brussels 50% 40% Rome-Milan 30% 20% London-Edinburgh 10% Madrid-Barcelona 0% 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 Rail journey time Figure 2.1. Relationship of rail journey time to air- vs. rail- market share (1). The reader may wish to keep in mind this formula in observ- virtually twice the size of any other intramega-region move- ing the design characteristics of HSR in California, which ment. This begins to set the stage for an examination of the does meet the travel-time criteria between Los Angeles and possible role of HSR in the area. By contrast, Figure 2.2 shows San Francisco but does not meet it between San Diego and that the volume of air travelers beginning their trip in San Sacramento, to give an obvious example. Diego with a destination in Los Angeles (or vice versa) is min- imal, and, thus, not included in the diagram. 2.2 Rail Services in the Western Mega-regions that Could Influence Aviation Capacity Issues The analysis of the role of rail services in the two Califor- nia Mega-regions is fundamentally different from the analy- sis appropriate for the East Coast, as the services are radically different. On the one hand, the role of existing services tends to focus on a small number of successful state-sponsored short-distance services. On the other hand, the role of possi- ble future HSR has been examined at a level of detail more intensive than is available in the East Coast study area or any- where else. Figure 2.2 is presented here (reproduced from Chapter 1 of this report) as a point of quick reference. It shows the annual volume of OD aviation trips for key "region pairs" for both of the West Coast Mega-regions. The reader will again note the sheer scale of aviation trip making between the San Fran- cisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin. Similarly, the scale of air trips between Los Angeles and Las Vegas should be noted. By way of comparison, the number of air passengers between these two families of airports is roughly the same as the air markets between New York/Boston and New York/ Washington, D.C., combined. Figure 2.3 shows the number of daily trips by all modes (including car) between key California metro areas, by trip Figure 2.2. West Coast inter-metropolitan air purpose. Note that the Los AngelesSan Diego region pair is travel, by metro-pair (2).
OCR for page 37
37 300,000 250,000 Daily Trips 200,000 Non-business 150,000 Business 100,000 50,000 0 LA-San Sacramento LA-SF San Diego- Sacramento- Diego San Diego SF SF- Key Metropolitan Corridors Figure 2.3. Scale of travel in key inter-metropolitan corridors-- daily trips, all modes, all distances (3). The modeling process undertaken in support of the volumes suggest that Amtrak has an airrail mode share of well California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) summarized over 90% between Sacramento and SFO/OAK (see Table 2.1). the scale of several markets of interest to the mega-regions Between the Los Angeles Mega-region and the San Diego study (3). As Figure 2.3 shows, the volume of daily trips by Mega-region, Amtrak's Surfliner carries 840,000 passengers all modes between Los Angeles and San Diego dwarfs that of per year and another 673,000 within the regions. By contrast, Los Angeles to San Francisco, for example. The figure gives a there are about 320,000 passengers flying between San Diego sense of scale to the market for HSR services, as it includes and the Los Angeles area, including Santa Barbara, which is both trips that are over 100 miles and trips along the corri- the northernmost terminal of the Amtrak Surfliner service. dors that are less than 100 miles. Most of these air passengers are connecting to/from longer distance flights. 2.2.1 Existing Short-distance Rail in California 2.2.2 Proposed New HSR Services in California Section 2.2.1 examines the market between San Francisco and Sacramento, where Amtrak primarily competes with In November 2008, the voters of California supported a the private automobile and not the short-distance airplane. major program of HSR services in California. The implica- Reportedly, Amtrak's Capital Corridor carries over 1 million tions for the demands on airports (and all other modes of annual trips, of which 770,000 are between the Bay Area region transportation) influenced by this possible investment could and the Sacramento region, whereas almost 300,000 are within be immense in terms of intrastate trip-making. either region. The research team estimates that this corridor In terms of the primary focus area of this research, the rail service captures about 3% of the market, with the rest over- system has some potential points of interchange with Cali- whelmingly served by private vehicles. By contrast, total avia- fornia airports. The alignment goes immediately adjacent tion trips between SFO/OAK and Sacramento airport add up to SFO (Millbrae) but not at all near to OAK. It goes very to about 130,000 passengers per year, most of whom are trans- close to Palmdale, but is not in the same geographic area as ferring to other flights at the Bay Area airports. Looking only LAX. Ontario and San Diego airports could be served by at interregional OD passengers, the research team's aviation the proposed alignments. Table 2.1. The role of rail service in major intra-California corridors (3). Mode Share Auto (%) Air (%) Rail (%) Total Daily Trips LA to SAN 97.9 0.0 2.1 262,926 SF to Sacramento 98.7 0.0 1.3 139,580 LA to SF 51.1 48.9 0.0 54,898 SAN to SF 31.0 69.0 0.0 14,939 LA to Sacramento 60.2 39.8 0.0 12,414 SAN to Sacramento 5.8 94.2 0.0 3,033
OCR for page 38
38 Figure 2.4. Proposed California HSR network (3). 25 Millions 20 15 10 5 0 to go F F st th er V F go a ad /S /S /S SJ oa en or th ie ie to go LA ev rN O F/ D lC D m en ie /S ra N an n Fa tra D Sa am ac LA rra /S en n / /S cr LA to ie Sa C LA Sa .S en y/ re am W te cr on Sa M Figure 2.5. Number of interregional California high speed rail trips by corridor, 2030 (4). Figure 2.4 shows the present configuration of the full proj- change.14 Figure 2.6 shows the mode-share forecasts for each ect, as of the summer of 2008. The network configuration has of the major intra-California corridors discussed in this two branches in the Bay Area region and two branches through chapter. the Los Angeles Basin region. Figure 2.5 shows the latest ridership forecasts available to 220.127.116.11 Analysis of Future Ridership in the the research team. The reader should be aware that the fore- West Coast Mega-regions casts have been formulated to allow for variation in input assumptions (e.g., the price of fuel as assumed at the outset As expected, the volume of rail passengers shown in Fig- of the analysis vs. the price of fuel reasonably forecast for the ure 2.5 between Los Angeles and San Diego at above 20 million next 25-year period). The ridership forecasts should be seen riders, is more than double the volume of rail passengers as part of a possible range of predictions, based on a possi- ble range of input assumptions. Thus, these ridership num- bers should be seen as a good summary of the information 14 To maximize their legibility, the figures are presented in color for the Adobe now being reviewed by the California HSRA and may indeed PDF file version of the report.
OCR for page 39
39 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% LA/Sacramento LA/San Diego LA/SF Sacramento/SF Sacramento/San Diego San Diego/SF LA/SF/Valley Cities Other Monterey/Central Coast Far North W. Sierra Nevada Auto Air Rail HSR Figure 2.6. Mode share for interregional travel in California, 2030 (4). between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. As Angeles, the reported decrease in market share (compared demonstrated in the previous section, the LASAN volumes with the present share) would represent about 5 million air are largely diverted from the automobile--not from the passengers diverted to rail.15 If there were about 14 million airplane--with a dominant role in this large market continu- travelers between Los Angeles and Sacramento, air would ing to be played by the automobile. capture 3.6 million or 2 million passengers would be diverted Flows to and from the Valley comprise the second largest to rail. If there were about 7.5 million travelers between the set of HSR users. Most definitions of a Northern California Bay Area and San Diego, air would capture about 3.4 mil- and a Southern California Mega-region do not include the lion, or about 1.8 million passengers would be diverted to area between Fresno and Bakersfield in either mega-region. rail. At this point in the analysis, these diversion potentials A volume of over 8 million rail riders per year is shown in are somewhat speculative and are presented here only to Figure 2.5 for the critical LASF corridor, with an HSR mode give a sense of scale to the possible diversion phenomenon. share of about 40% (Figure 2.6), which is higher than either But it does suggest that some 8.8 million air passengers are air or automobile. Strong market shares to HSR are reported forecast to divert to rail in these three corridors of the larger between Los Angeles and Sacramento, and between San Diego system by the year 2030. and San Francisco. Total system diversions. The California analysis being using is based on about 65 million interregional HSR riders and 18.104.22.168 Scale of Diversions from Air to Rail in the 20 million intra-regional HSR riders (4). Of the interregional West Coast Mega-regions trips, the California forecasting process calculates that 79% were diverted from auto, 16% were diverted from air, 3% diverted On the basis of the calculations presented, three major from other rail, and 2% never made the trip before. Thus, for sources of diversion from air to rail in California can be noted. the ambitious system as a whole, this estimate projects that At present, air captures approximately the following: about 10 million riders would be diverted from air in the analy- sis year of 2030. · 49% of the market between Los Angeles and the Bay Area, Figure 2.7 is reproduced from High Speed Ground Trans- with the rest by auto. In 2030, that share might fall to portation for America (5), the FRA's landmark study of high- about 29%. speed ground systems in 1997, discussed in the following · 40% of the market between Los Angeles and Sacramento, sections. It shows the diversion from air and the diversion with the rest by auto. In 2030, that share might fall to about from auto trips. This 1997 study predicted a diversion of 26% of the total market. about 8 million passengers from air to rail in 2020 based on · 69% of the market between San Diego and San Francisco, a smaller and somewhat slower California HSR system than with the rest by auto. In the analysis year of 2030, the air share falls to about 45%. 15 A more complete analysis would build a revised 2030 air mode share for the Looking exclusively at year 2030 forecasts, if there were no-build rail condition, but this was not done for this report; the purpose is only about 25 million travelers between the Bay Area and Los to establish a sense of scale for the possible diversions.
OCR for page 40
40 60% 50% Source of Diversion 40% % Diverted from air % Diverted from auto 30% 20% 10% 0% 90 110 125 150 HSR Maglev Speed of Train These forecasts resulted in a projected diversion of 8 million riders from air to HSR in 2020 (5). Figure 2.7. FRA Study of the relationship between speed of train and source of diverted riders in California. is proposed at present. It is based on a different forecasting The relationship between the speed of service, arrayed on the process than used in the present study used in the preceding x-axis in terms of rail speeds and the previous mode of proj- paragraphs (4). ected HSR passengers, arrayed on the y-axis in terms of percent of riders diverted from two modes, is explored in Figure 2.7. At speeds in the range of 110 to 125 mph, about 20% of the rail 22.214.171.124 A Consistent View of National riders are projected to have been diverted from competing air Corridor Markets from the FRA services. At speeds of around 200 mph (labeled "HSR" in Fig- The previous sections of Chapter 2 have relied heavily on ure 2.7), about 50% of the rail riders are projected to have been the most recent work for the California HSRA, undertaken in diverted from air, in the 1995 FRA study. cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commis- Looking at the California HSRA's diversion calculations, it sion (MTC) of the Bay Area. In Section 2.3 of this chapter, appears the present HSR program is projected to divert about there is the case of the NEC of the East Coast Mega-region. 10 million air trips in 2030. The present HSR program has In the East, no specific proposal has been agreed upon, and more branches and services than assumed in the FRA study. a major capital investment plan is now being drafted. For In the earlier FRA study, the estimate for a smaller rail system that section, the research team's analysis will first rely on was a diversion of 8 million air trips in 2020. For the purposes the latest comprehensive, nationwide study of the issue of this study, there is a reasonable level of comparability by the FRA (5). This document was produced at the FRA between the two estimates of diversion from air to HSR. The with major input from the Volpe National Transportation scale is massive: given the assumption of a continued growth rate for total volumes between 2020 and 2030, an estimate of Systems Center and traffic forecasting from the firm of over 10 million air diversions in 2030 is not inconsistent in CRA International. A more recent U.S. DOT study, also general scale with the earlier work on diversion. based on the work of CRA International, will be used to As noted in Figure 2.7, the California NorthSouth system update the 1997 work in the NEC. was expected to attract comparatively few air travelers at rail To provide the reader with as much comparable data as speeds of 150 mph or less. Projected diversions from air were possible between the two mega-regions, this section of summarized in a recent independent review of the forecast- Chapter 2 presents a brief summary of the California rail ing for such a "lower" speed alternative in the West; see Las corridor that appeared in the FRA study (5), which still Vegas study, below. Based on the results of the FRA Commer- remains the major benchmark for examining several corri- cial Feasibility Studies, and some additional corridors, a sum- dors simultaneously. mary chart of air diversion by project was created and is In terms of service levels, the FRA's category "New HSR" reproduced here as Table 2.2. seems appropriate for this comparison. The California HSRA is now referring to travel times from San Francisco as some- 2.2.3 HSR between Las Vegas and the what under 3 hours (16), and the FRA analysis refers to an HSR Los Angeles Region travel time of slightly above 3 hours, which is close enough for this kind of comparison. Looking at Figure 2.7 for example, This section of Chapter 2 has so far focused on the California "HSR" is the second category from the right. HSRA's program for the state, which was approved on the
OCR for page 41
41 Table 2.2. Summary of diversions from air (6). Forecast High-Speed Rail Mode Shares from Some Recent Studies Corridor (with HSR top speed and study year) FORECAST MODE SHARE FRA Commercial Feasibility Studies NorthSouth California (150; 1998) 8.6% from air 4.3% from auto Los AngelesSan Diego (150; 1998) 19.8% from air 0.7% from auto Chicago Hub (150; 1998) 18.6% from air 4.3% from auto ChicagoDetroit (150; 1998) 17.6% from air 2.8% from auto ChicagoSt. Louis (150; 1998) 22.2% from air 5.2% from auto Florida (150; 1998) 8.5% from air 2.3% from auto Pacific Northwest (150; 1998) 32.0% from air 3.5% from auto Texas Triangle (150; 1998) 17.9% from air 5.0% from auto Specific Corridor Studies California Statewide (250; 2007) 33% from air 6% auto 27% from rail CleveColumbusCin (150; 2001) 2% from air 1.7% auto 16.2% bus BostonMontreal (110; 2005) 18% from air 0.2% auto BaltimoreWashington (300; 2003) 13% from air 0.1% auto TampaOrlando (150; 2003) 12% auto New YorkBuffalo (150; 1995) 67% from air 6% auto 29% rail New YorkBoston (200; 1996) 50% from air 7% auto 15% rail November 2008 ballot. In addition, other projects are being result in diversions from air at the scale proposed in the Cali- examined by several organizations. One such proposal, the fornia HSR project, with only about 0.7 million diversions "Desert Xpress," is a proposed privately funded rail project from air in the analysis year of 2030. If speed assumptions are between Victorville, CA, to Las Vegas, NV. After an extended similar to those used in the California HSR project, the diver- process of the peer review, estimates were made of ridership sions from air would be significantly higher. The research between the Los Angeles area and Las Vegas (see Table 2.3). team's analysis concludes that projects in California and The rail trip was expected to take 116 minutes, with 30-min Nevada together could divert in the range of 11 million air trips headways, and a present fare of $55. (The rail ridership in the planning horizon. forecasts shown in Table 2.3 were originally done by RSG,16 for inclusion in a complete analysis managed by URS, Inc. 2.2.4 Costs for the New Projects These forecasts were then subject to an independent peer review by the consulting firm Steer Davies Gleave. That In November 2008, California voters approved a $9.95 bil- review was subsequently reviewed by Cambridge Systemat- lion bond issue. At the time of the research team's latest inter- ics, who proposed that the forecasts be lowered slightly. viewsinCalifornia,theexactportion of the full program that will The data contained in Table 2.3 represent the work of the be built from those funds had not been determined. The Cali- previous teams, with the decrease recommended by Cam- fornia HSRA's website refers to the total project as $40 billion. bridge Systematics.) The original projections for the project estimated that rail would capture 2224% of the total market, whereas the peer Table 2.3. Projected rail ridership LA to Las Vegas, 2030 (6). review process lowered the estimates by roughly one tenth. In short, the project is projected to capture about 20% of the total Projected Ridership on the Desert Xpress Rail Project, market, depending on final assumptions used. Importantly, by Source of Diversion, 2030 the use of 150-mph "conventional" rail for the project does not Diverted from Air 733,051 Diverted from Auto 4,399,113 Diverted from Bus 293,983 16 Total Rail Ridership, 2030 5,426,147 RSG is the prime contractor for ACRP 3-10.