Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 49

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 48
48 trips per year. The lower level of the range shows a diversion Table 2.6. 1995 mode shares between Boston of 1.5 million air trips to rail, or about 11% of the predicted and NYCNewark, with Auto (13). air passenger volume in 2025. BOSTON TO NYCNEWARK 1995 By way of comparison, California's absolute value of diverted riders is somewhat more than twice the high esti- Mode Share of All Modes (%) Share of Air+ Rail (%) mate for the northeast for 2025 (as extrapolated.) In general, Auto 48.3 short-distance air trip generation rates in the West Coast Air 37.3 84.0 study area are more than three times those of the East Coast Bus 6.7 study area. In short, there are more short-distance air riders Rail 7.1 16.0 to divert in the California market than there are in the North- Other 0.5 east market. One reason for this is that Amtrak has "already" Total 100 100 captured far more of these short-distance trips in the East than in California. Amtrak ridership in the Northeast Mega- region study area is above 13 million riders in 2008, whereas 2.4.1 Historical Mode Share (Including its California ridership was about 5.5 million riders (12). Autos), Boston to NYC Airports In conclusion, improvements to HSR now under discus- sion at various levels of detail and various levels of probabil- According to the American Travel Survey (ATS) (13), which ity might have profound effects on airport-pair corridors is the only source of multistate public data that includes high- associated with airports with severe capacity problems over way travel, in 1995 the private automobile represented about the next several decades. A planning process is needed to bet- half of the travel between the Boston standard metropolitan ter integrate aviation planning with the public policy options statistical area and the combination of NYC and Newark actively being examined in the United States, consistent both metro areas in the southern end of this corridor (Table 2.6). with the initial $8 billion outlay for HSR in the adopted stim- Because there has been no systematic updating of longer dis- ulus bill and with the proposed intention to continue this tance highway flows, and because the study of longer dis- program over the next years. tance travel relies on unreliable data on the long-distance Section 2.3 of Chapter 2 has focused on the scale and range bus traffic, the rest of the analysis will be confined to the of diversions from air to rail that are possible in the two study two component shares of the total air plus rail market in areas. Section 2.4 now presents an analysis of the extent to this corridor.17 According to the ATS, rail captured about which lowered air passenger volumes (resulting from rail one passenger in six in this corridor. Rail travel times were diversion or from other factors) actually decreases the level of about 5 hours between the two cities.18 congestion at impacted airports and air traffic corridors. The At present (after accounting for the Acela service), travel conclusions of Section 2.4 may have an impact on the need times have been improved to about 3 hours and 25 min. This for the kind of reforms suggested in Chapter 5, which support process of improvement commenced in December 2000.19 As a more transparent and accountable system of management. of 2008, rail can be conservatively estimated to capture more than 50% of the air-plus-rail market between Boston and the three NYC main airports.20 2.4 What Happens at the Airports When Air Passengers Are Diverted to Other Modes? 2.4.2 Changes in Air Passenger Traffic, Boston to NYC Airports A central theme of this chapter is that modal alternatives, and HSR in particular, have a profound impact on aviation patterns In 1993, more than 1 million passengers flew from Boston and thus should be better integrated into a more multimodal and terminated their air trips at NYC's three main airports, aviation capacity analysis process. The previous sections docu- ment well-publicized changes in airrail mode share in corri- dors like LondonParis and MadridBarcelona. This section of 17 The ATS data are important in that they are the only publicly available data that Chapter 2 documents how this process has already taken place directly include auto flows. Direct comparison of data from this source to later rail and air mode shares may be problematical. in the United States, using the BostonNYC corridor as a 18 If the 1995 reported Boston-NYC mode share had been included on the chart case study. Although improvements in rail mode share have reproduced as Figure 2.8, the base-case market share would be located between also occurred in the NYCWashington, D.C., corridor, the the (then) Madrid-Barcelona value and that for London-Edinburgh. 19 From 1999 to 2007, Amtrak ridership grew about 40% systemwide. City-pair change in travel behavior is more dramatic in the BOSNYC mode-share-specific data were not available. corridor, as its base case travel times were considerably 20 Between 2007 and 2008, Amtrak ridership was up sharply, and segment vol- worse. umes on flights between BOS and NYC airports were down by about 10%.