Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets (2016)

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.

30 In the first half of this chapter, key survey responses are reviewed in terms of gender and age. The second half presents the segmentation of the full sample not into predefined categories (e.g., gender and age) but rather into clusters of survey respondents who share similar patterns of attitudes and behaviors; the concept of latent class cluster segmentation is briefly presented in the second half of the chapter, and the market segments are described. 3.1 Relationship Between Key Demographic Categories and Survey Responses This section will present a wide array of relationships between basic demographic categories and key results of the NCRRP survey. Data presented in this section are simply empirical in nature—major interpretations of the meaning of this information are not emphasized here, as most of them benefit from the results of the statistical efforts presented in Chapters 4 (attitudinal model), 5 (hybrid model), and 6 (scenario model). Figure 16 shows that there are stark generational differences in mode choice for intercity trips. Whereas the likelihood of taking rail does not differ between millennials (11%) and those 35 years old and older (11%), pronounced differences occur about taking the bus and a personal car. Twice as many millennials compared to older respondents took the bus for their last intercity trip (15% and 7%, respectively), surpassing rail as the second most preferred mode after car among millennials. On the other hand, millennials are much less likely to have taken a personal car on their last trip (58%) compared to those 35 years old and older (69%). Consistent with prior research, millennials are less likely to hold a driver’s license than older generations. Whereas 91% of the millennial respondents hold a driver’s license, that percentage jumps to 96% for respondents 35 years old and older (Figure 17). As shown in Figure 18, there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) between the mean scores of the millennial group and the older group for auto orientation, privacy in travel, and ICT/productivity (Mean scores for the four basic longer-term values were estimated by taking an unweighted average of the mean scores for each of the observed variables used in the creation of the factors). The differences between the values of the groups for urbanism were not signifi- cant. While the comparative mean scores for auto orientation and desire for ICT were consistent with conventional wisdom, the fact that millennials had more interest in privacy in travel than older respondents was an important result and is further examined in Chapter 8, where factors influencing the use of intercity bus are investigated. As previewed in Chapter 1, Figure 19 demonstrates the important interaction of gender and age on mode choice for intercity travel. Importantly for this project, millennials have the same C H A P T E R 3 Survey Results by Demographics, Region, and Market Segment

Survey Results by Demographics, Region, and Market Segment 31 Figure 16. Mode choice by age. Ha ve D riv er ’s Li ce ns e Figure 17. Percentage of respondents who have driver’s licenses by age. 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Values Auto Values Privacy Values Urbanism Values ICT/Producvity Millennials Older Group Mean Scores for Four Basic Values, Millennials vs Olders Figure 18. Millennials report greater concern about privacy and ICT compared to older groups.

32 Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets propensity to ride trains as older respondents, at about 11% of this sample. However, important variations occur in the choice of intercity bus. For this mode, older male participants have a rate of bus use of 5%, while younger female respondents have a rate of bus use of 17%. Looking at three attitudes toward auto orientation, it is clear that the millennial group has lower positive attitudes toward cars and car ownership than the older age category. As shown in Figure 20, they have a lower propensity to “love the freedom and independence” associated with owning cars than the older group, but still a high portion of them (about three-quarters) report this feeling toward ownership. In a similar manner, only about one-quarter of the millennials would prefer not to own a car—which is still markedly higher than rest of the population. As a cross-check to the observation of lower levels of auto orientation by millennials in the NCRRP survey, the research team undertook a review of similar questions in a metropolitan Female Male Female Male Millennial Group Older Group Bus 17% 12% 9% 5% Rail 11% 12% 11% 11% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% M od e Sh ar e Figure 19. Effects of gender and age on choice of rail and bus. 78% 42% 25% 85% 26% 14% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% I love the freedom and independence I get from owning one or more cars I feel I am less dependent on cars than my parents are/were Rather than owning a car, I would prefer to borrow, share, or rent a car just for when I need it Millennials Older Group Auto Orienta‚on by Age (NCRRP 03-02) Figure 20. Millennials report less dependence on the auto, more willingness to share.

Survey Results by Demographics, Region, and Market Segment 33 sample gathered for a study for TransitCenter (Figure 21). In each case, millennials had lower auto orientation compared to older age groups, consistent with the longer-distance data set. In the NCRRP survey, the millennial group had consistently higher levels of concern for their personal safety on the intercity trip than did the rest of the sample (Figure 22). That concern for safety seems to be associated with the public modes, specifically: In a question (not shown) about “sharing a car with others” for a long-distance trip, the millennials showed less concern than did the older group. This suggests less of an abstract concern for “privacy” than a specific concern about the persons believed to be riding the public modes. To confirm the idea that younger individuals have greater concerns about personal safety on public transportation, the data was cross-checked with the metropolitan sample from the TransitCenter study. In general, in Figure 23 the pattern continues in which millennials reported a higher level of concerns about personal safety than did the older group. However, these concerns did not necessarily rise to the level of reporting feeling more “unsafe” than the older group. Clearly, Source: Metropolitan sample (TransitCenter and RSG Inc. 2014). 35% 45% 75% 16% 32% 86% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% I feel I am less dependent on cars than my parents are/were. Leaving the driving to someone else is desirable for me. I love the freedom and independence I get from owning one or more cars. Older Group Millennials Auto Orientaon by Age (TransitCenter Study) Figure 21. Lower auto orientation among millennials also found in short-distance data sets. 21% 31% 31% 52% 12% 22% 20% 38% 0% 20% 40% 60% It might be unsafe to make this trip by train If made trip by train - I worry about crime or unruly behavior at the staon/on the train The idea of being on a train or a bus with people I do not know is uncomfortable If made trip by train - I might have to be with people whose behavior I find unpleasant Older Group Millennials Personal Safety Concerns by Age (NCRRP 03-02) Figure 22. Millennials report higher concern for crime and lack of privacy.

34 Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets the younger generation has major concerns about traveling with people they do not know, and the disturbing behavior that might be associated with it. In a similar pattern, females consistently report greater concern for their personal safety and being less comfortable traveling with others during a long-distance trip than do males (Figure 24). Although the differences are not pronounced, the survey showed that for both millennials and non-millennials, those with higher levels of education report worrying less about crime or unruly behavior. For instance, those with higher levels of education were less likely to express a concern about being “with people whose behavior I find unpleasant.” While the fear of personal safety and level of “comfort” in traveling with others is a major concern in the study of factors influencing the choice of rail, it is worth noting that the millennial cohort has stronger feelings on this matter than the older groups for all of the long-distance modes, even for the automobile (Figure 25). Thus, it is somewhat troubling that nearly half of the sampled population worries about per- sonal safety in the intercity bus trip, while less than 20% of the same population is concerned about personal safety when taking a car (Figure 25). It is clear that for all four modes being young Source: Metropolitan sample (TransitCenter and RSG Inc. 2014). 40% 40% 56% 58% 36% 14% 38% 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% I feel safe when riding public transportaon. I could use transit more if I weren't concerned about traveling with people I don't know. I would ride transit more if the stops/staons were safer. I worry about crime or other disturbing behavior on public forms of transportaon. Older Group Millennials Personal Safety Concerns by Age (TransitCenter Study) Figure 23. Higher concern by millennials was also found in short-distance data sets. 16% 23% 27% 44% 11% 21% 21% 38% 0% 20% 40% 60% If made trip by train It might be unsafe to make this trip by train The idea of being on a train or a bus with people I do not know is uncomfortable If made trip by train I worry about crime or unruly behavior at the staon/on the train If made trip by train I might have to be with people whose behavior I find unpleasant Male Female Figure 24. Females report greater concern about crime and lack of privacy.

Survey Results by Demographics, Region, and Market Segment 35 and less experienced in travel seems to be associated with higher levels of concern. To further explore the idea that experience with intercity travel is negatively related to worrying about travel, the research team correlated the total number of reported intercity trips (e.g., experience with intercity travel) and reported worrying. However, the relationship was not significant. The research team also cross-tabbed the city of destination of the reported trip and found a slightly higher rate of worry for trips to New York City and the lowest rate for trips to Vancouver, but the pattern was not strong. In a similar vein, being female is generally associated with moderately higher levels of safety concern for all modes—except for the private car, where there is no signifi- cant difference by gender (Figure 26). Thus, for all modes except auto, there is a clear pattern whereby females express the greatest level of concern for safety and or disturbing behavior. 3.2 Results by Coastal Region 3.2.1 Background The research team surveyed 513 participants on the West Coast and 5,112 participants on the East Coast. West Coast participants from the larger metropolitan areas of Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and Vancouver, British Columbia were eligible to participate in the study Concern for Personal Safety by Age and Mode "Worry about personal safety/disturbing behavior in..." 57% 39% 36% 26% 47% 28% 29% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Bus Train Air Car Millennials Older Group Figure 25. Millennials worry more about safety for all modes. Concern for Personal Safety by Gender and Mode "Worry about personal safety/disturbing behavior in..." 51% 33% 32% 16% 47% 27% 28% 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Bus Train Air Car Female Male Figure 26. Females report greater safety concerns for all three public modes.

36 Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets as part of the West Coast sample. NEC participants had to live in the larger metropolitan area of either Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, or Washington, DC. All cities on the East and West Coasts were chosen because rail, bus, plane, and car options are all viable for travel among the cities of either coast. Further, all cities are served by Amtrak and several airlines offer nonstop flights between each city. To qualify as a participant, respondents had to have made an eligible intercity trip within the last 5 years. The home location of eligible respondents was broadly defined in that it included the larger metropolitan areas of the respective cities. However, the destination cities were more nar- rowly defined such that West Coast respondents had to have made a trip to either Seattle (which included Bellevue), Portland (which included Beaverton, Gresham, and Hillsboro), or Vancouver (which included West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Burnaby, and Richmond). East Coast respondents had to have made a trip to at least one of the eligible East Coast cities, which included Boston (including Allston, Arlington, Auburndale, Cambridge, Charlestown, Belmont, Brookline, Newton, Somerville, and Watertown), New York City (including the boroughs of Brooklyn, the Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens, and Hoboken and Jersey City, New Jersey), the City of Philadelphia, or Washington, DC (including Alexandria, Arlington, and Reston, Virginia, and Bethesda, Frederick, Gaithersburg, Rockville, and Silver Spring, Maryland). 3.2.2 Sample Characteristics by Coast The East and West Coast samples were very similar with regard to the gender breakdown. Females comprised 52% of West Coast respondents and 54% of East Coast respondents. West and East Coast respondents also differed little by age. There were slightly fewer millennials and slightly more 55 to 64 year olds represented among West Coast respondents compared to East Coast respondents, but these differences were small (3% and 4%, respectively). 3.2.3 Trip Characteristics and Attitudinal Differences by Coast As can be seen in Figure 27, West and East Coast respondents had different reasons for making their last intercity trip. Compared to West Coast respondents, East Coast respondents Trip Purpose by Coast Figure 27. Vacation trips were more common and visiting friends or relatives less common among the West Coast sample.

Survey Results by Demographics, Region, and Market Segment 37 were more likely to visit friends and relatives (40% versus 50%, respectively), whereas West Coast respondents were much more likely to be on vacation than East Coast respondents (51% versus 36%, respectively). There were also substantial differences between West and East Coast respondents concerning the mode they took during their last intercity trip. As can be seen in Figure 28, many more West Coast than East Coast participants traveled by car (83% versus 65%, respectively) and, compared to East Coast participants, West Coast participants were less likely to take any of the remaining modes, such as rail, bus, plane, or a rental car. Apart from the differences in demographic and trip characteristics mentioned in the previ- ous paragraph, attitudinal differences emerged. Pronounced differences occurred between West and East Coast participants with regard to social norms about taking the train, with West Coast respondents being much less likely to say that their friends and coworkers usually take the train for similar trips. They were also much less likely to think that the most important people in their lives would take the train. West Coast participants were generally more likely to state that they are uncomfortable about the idea of being on a train or bus with people they do not know (Figure 29). However, follow-up questions about each mode revealed that these privacy and safety concerns are mode specific. West Coast participants are more concerned than East Coast participants about safety and disturbing behavior when traveling by bus, but less concerned when traveling by train or plane. This sug- gests that the general concern that West Coast participants voice about traveling with others is primarily driven by particular modes (specifically bus) but does not extend to others such rail or the plane. As can be seen in Figure 30, when explicitly asked which mode other than rail they would pre- fer to take, West Coast participants were more likely than East Coast participants to select the car as the preferred mode, but less likely to select the plane or the bus. The reluctance to consider the bus might be driven by the greater concern that West Coast participants proclaim about safety and disturbing behavior when traveling by bus (Figure 29). In general, West Coast participants voice greater concerns about the lack of flexibility when traveling by train (Figure 31) and are more likely to be concerned about the lack of flexibility Mode of Most Recent Trip by Coast Figure 28. Greater dominance of auto on the West Coast.

38 Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets Concern for Privacy and Safety by Coast Figure 29. Slightly greater concern for privacy and safety on buses among West Coast sample. and schedule constraints when traveling by train. They are also much more likely to state that they need the flexibility of a personal car at their destination. Taken together, it is possible that these attitudinal differences simply reflect objective differences in the availability and frequency of train service on the West versus East Coast. 3.3 Latent Class Cluster Segmentation 3.3.1 Methodological Overview and Benefits of Latent Class Analysis The behaviors, needs, and wants of the American population are hugely variable. For the pur- poses of discussion and analysis, it is often useful to group a population into discrete categories that can be characterized and compared to one another. While many commonly used cluster Mode Choice Preferences, Excluding Train, by Coast Figure 30. Modes preferred over train, by coast.

Survey Results by Demographics, Region, and Market Segment 39 analysis methods achieve this by using an a priori segmentation approach based on demographic variables such as income, gender, or age, the goal of latent class cluster (LCC) analysis is to identify groups based on latent variables such as attitudes, preferences, values, or personality differences (Magidson and Vermunt 2005). For example, differences among individuals in their preference for using transit might be due in part to the traveler’s household income, or perhaps the differ- ences are not driven by income at all but more strongly by a particular set of attitudes toward, for instance, privacy, the environment, or convenience when traveling. LCC has routinely been used in private sector market research where it is used to better understand customer segments and to target products/ads to various customer groups. However, only recently has LCC been applied in the transportation domain, and one of the first applications came from the research team to better understand attitudinal factors leading to risky driving behavior and how these attitudinal differences might be related to demographic and geographic variables (Coogan et al. 2011). To identify unique groups, LCC uses a “finite mixture model,” which assumes that a popu- lation can be segmented into a finite number of groups, or classes, by “unmixing” the data to identify the number and characteristics of the populations, or latent classes (Vermunt and Magidson 2005b). The result of this method is that, for each individual, probabilities for mem- bership in each class are assigned and individuals are grouped who share similar characteristics but whose characteristics are dissimilar from those in other groups. To find the most appro- priate number of clusters, which variables to include in the model, and model fit, standard statistical tests are applied. For instance, the coefficient of determination (R2) is used as a guide to determine which variables should be retained in the latent class model; chi-square (c2) and bootstrapping are used to assess the model fit and are used as measures of parsimony (Vermunt and Magidson 2005b). Once classes are defined, members of the classes can then be profiled by other variables. For example, once a class is defined, its income distribution can be examined. If that distribution is mostly high income, then high income is known to be one of the indicators of that segment. Each of these classes represent “building blocks” of attitudes, values, and preferences, which might influence the propensity to choose a more environmentally sustainable long-distance trip, such as rail or intercity bus. LCC is ideally suited to address some of NCRRP’s goals—as Perceived Ability to Deal with Train Schedules by Coast Figure 31. West Coast participants report greater need for flexibility.

40 Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets a data-driven analysis method based on latent variables, it allows researchers to identify sub- groups that are based on distinct psychological profiles that go beyond simple concerns for travel time and costs. 3.3.2 Results Predictive Variables The modeling effort started with a large number of variables (“indicators”) used in the specification of the model. From there, the research team narrowed down the set of vari- ables to only include those variables that have significant effects on cluster classification, or had strong theoretical relevance to the project goal. As described in Table 7, the indicator variables used in the final model developed for this analysis were all based on the predictive power of these variables for group membership (R2 above 10%) or based on theoretical con- siderations (e.g., age). It should be emphasized that the variables listed in Table 7 were used to determine the model and the number of segments, but that once clusters are determined, they can be profiled by demographics and other variables that were not originally part of the model specification. Overview of Results A five-cluster solution provided the best model fit and made the most intuitive sense. The five segments that were identified and named—Open to Rail, Cars for Convenience, Curious but Cautious, Rail Rejecters, and Young Urbanities—are shown in Figure 32. As described in more depth in Section 3.3.3, three of the five clusters (Open to Rail, Curious but Cautious, and Younger Urbanites) stand out in that their cluster members either already use rail or are open to the idea of using rail for their intercity travel needs. The following sections provide an overview of the different segments and how their attitudes differ. They are summarized in Section 3.4. 3.3.3 Description of Clusters, Ranked from Most Receptive to Least Receptive to Rail Young Urbanites (11%) Transit-loving Young Urbanities are the most enthusiastic about rail. This group is younger, least likely to have children in the household, more likely to be female, and more ethnically and racially diverse than all other segments. Young Urbanites overwhelmingly prefer living in an urban environment where they can be out and about, observe and interact with people from different backgrounds. They have a deeper affinity for their smartphone than for cars, are less likely to have a driver’s license, and are less likely to equate having a car with freedom than other segments. As a group that describes itself as less dependent on the car than their parents’ genera- tion, they are open to the idea of using car-sharing programs as an alternative to owning a car. Their preferred mode of choice for intercity travel is bus, but rail also enjoys a relatively high popularity. Consistent with these travel mode choices, this group exhibits little concern about traveling with other people, potential crime on the train, or inflexibility of the schedule. There are two primary challenges with keeping this group on rail in the future. First, as mentioned, they are more likely to be found on intercity buses than trains and efforts should be undertaken to not lose further market share to intercity buses. Second, while they are enthusiastic about bus and rail service now, as the group least likely to currently have children in the household, the challenge may be to keep them riding transit as they go through different life stages (e.g., have children, secure higher paying jobs).

Survey Results by Demographics, Region, and Market Segment 41 Indicator Variables R2 Worry about personal safety/disturbing behavior—train 52% Vehicle available 45% I would definitely consider taking the train for this trip 43% How efficient would it be to take the train for this trip 41% How likely would it be for you to take the train for this trip 40% How pleasant would it be to take the train for this trip 38% If made trip by train—I would worry about crime or unruly behavior at the train sta­on and on the train 36% Worry about personal safety/disturbing behavior—air 30% I love the freedom and independence I get from owning one or more cars 28% Worry about personal safety/disturbing behavior—bus 28% If made trip by train, I might have to be with people whose behavior I find unpleasant 27% If made trip by train, I would feel uncomfortable being on the train with strangers 26% My spouse/partner/family would approve of my taking the train to go to Boston 26% It might be unsafe to make this trip by train 25% Most people whose opinion I value would approve of my taking the train to Boston 24% I need to drive a car to get where I need to go 24% If I wanted to, I could easily take the train for this trip 23% The idea of being on a train or a bus with people I do not know is uncomfortable 22% If made trip by train—It would be difficult to get from the des­na­on sta­on to where I need to go 21% If they had to make this trip, most people who are important in my life would take the train 20% I could deal with the schedules offered by the train for this trip from my home to my des­na­on 19% I would need the flexibility of a car once I arrive at my des­na­on 18% My friends and coworkers usually take the train when they travel to Boston 18% Rather than owning a car, I would prefer to borrow, share, or rent a car just for when I need it 17% Compared to car, I would be less ­red and stressed if I took the trip by train 16% Concerned about flexibility of schedules—train 16% If prefer not to go by train for this trip, I strongly prefer to go by car 14% Rate how possible it would be for you to make this trip via train 14% Concerned about flexibility of schedules—bus 14% I feel I am less dependent on cars than my parents are/were 14% If prefer not to go by train for this trip, I strongly prefer to go by bus 13% Ge’ng from my home to the train sta­on is inconvenient 12% License 12% Age 2% Table 7. Indicator variables and variance explained.

42 Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets Open to Rail (30%) The largest potentially positive segment identified in the sample is the Open to Rail segment. People in this group may or may not have children but are highly educated and slightly older and have a high household income. Generally speaking, these individuals are interested in exploring new things and enjoy being around people from different backgrounds. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority owns and has access to a private car, they are less likely to have used a per- sonal car on their last intercity trip than several other segments. In fact, more than one-fifth of this group (22%) took the train on their most recent intercity trip, making it a viable and competitive option. This willingness to consider rail stems from a variety of positive attitudes they have toward trains: They do not associate train schedules with inflexibility, do not think that they necessarily need a car at their destination, and do not have strong privacy or security concerns regarding rail or bus travel. In fact, people in this group perceive the train to have several advantages over the car, such as that train travel makes for a less tiresome and stressful travel experience. Further add- ing to their propensity to consider rail are normative and social influences, as friends and family members of this segment use the train and approve of them doing the same. Curious but Cautious (15%) The Curious but Cautious group is slightly more likely to be female, younger, and dabbling in an urban lifestyle. As the group that is most likely to both have children and to be full-time employed, they are grappling with the competing demands of balancing family and work. Perhaps as a result, for these individuals being productive and able to work while traveling is especially important. Even though rail might arguably be the mode that is most conducive to working while traveling, this group’s attitudes toward rail are at best ambivalent. In theory, they are open to taking the train, they think that they would have no problem doing so, and even feel some subtle pressure from friends and family to take the train. At the same time, several major hurdles keep them from actually switching to rail. For instance, this group worries more when it comes to train travel, as they are very concerned about the perceived lack of safety, privacy, and flexibility. Given that perceived lack of safety can serve as a strong deterrent to behavior, it is unlikely that this group will adopt rail until they perceive that their safety concerns were adequately addressed. Cars for Convenience (29%) The Cars for Convenience cluster is another cautious group. These stalwarts of automobile travel are nearing retirement age and are satisfied with their car-centric, suburban lifestyle. As a Open to Rail 30% Cars for Convenience 29% Curious but Cautious 15% Rail Rejecters 15% Young Urbanites 11% Figure 32. Latent class clusters for this project

Survey Results by Demographics, Region, and Market Segment 43 group, they are mostly White and male, are well-educated, have a high household income, and have, relatively, many vehicles in their household. They are not ideologically opposed to train travel and their unwillingness to use the train or bus is not driven by privacy or safety concerns as they do not worry about crime or being around other people when traveling. Rather, they might be described as “set in their ways,” simply perceiving the car to be the more convenient and flexible choice that provides them greater independence—even when taking the car might entail driving in a congested city for a long time. Rail Rejecters (15%) The least promising group identified are Rail Rejecters. On average, they are less educated, less likely to be full-time employed, and slightly more likely to be female. As a group, they are highly protective of their personal space and show less interest in exploring new places or having contact with people from different backgrounds. According to their own responses, there is little that can be done to get this group out of the car and onto the train: They are convinced that they need to drive a car once at their destination, name their car as the technology they could least live without, and perceive themselves to be more dependent on their car than their parents’ gen- eration. Coupled with this positive attitude toward the car are strong negative attitudes toward alternative modes of traveling. For instance rail, to their mind, is inflexible, inconvenient, dan- gerous, and lacks privacy. In fact, this segment does not acknowledge any redeeming features of trains and, unlike all other groups, does not even perceive train travel to make for a less stressful or tiresome travel experience than taking the car. Difference in Segment Composition, by Coast Some latent class segments were more prevalent among West Coast respondents compared to East Coast participants. As can be seen in Figure 33, the starkest difference occurred for Cars for Convenience, which describes 40% of the West Coast, but only 28% of the East Coast sample. Open to Rail, on the other hand, was much more prevalent among East Coast respondents (31%) Figure 33. LCC sizes by coast.

44 Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets compared to West Coast respondents (23%). Relative differences for other segments between West and East Coast respondents were smaller. 3.4 Summary of the Market Segmentation Through this analysis, the research team identified three clusters, or segments, that are willing to use rail: an Open to Rail segment consisting of individuals who are slightly older and have the option of driving but see several advantages to taking rail, nevertheless; a Curious but Cautious segment with individuals who, in theory, acknowledge several benefits of taking rail but are also deeply concerned about lack of flexibility, privacy, and crime and are therefore much less likely to act on their generally positive attitudes toward rail; and the segment least likely to own a car, Young Urbanites, who currently depend on bus and rail service for their intercity travel needs. The research team also found two segments that are highly dependent on cars and unlikely to try rail or bus for their intercity travel needs. Individuals in the Cars for Convenience segment use the car because it provides the flexibility and convenience they demand from their mode choice. Rail Rejecters are similar in this regard to the Cars for Convenience segment. However, unlike the Cars for Convenience segment, Rail Rejecters are strongly worried about crime, safety, and lack of privacy and are therefore unlikely to try travel modes that place them in proximity to other people. In general, these results also indicated that those segments that take the bus (Open to Rail, Curious but Cautious, Young Urbanites) are also more likely to take rail. A summary of all characteristics of the segments is presented as Table 8.

Top ranked in row 2nd ranked in row 3rd ranked in row 4th ranked in row 5th ranked in row Cluster Characteristics Open to Rail Cars for Convenience Curious but Cautious Rail Rejecters Young Urbanites Cluster Size 30% 29% 15% 15% 11% Demo- graphics % under 35 16% 12% 34% 23% 39% % Female 51% 47% 59% 60% 60% % Hispanic 4% 3% 9% 6% 10% % White 84% 86% 71% 80% 68% % Full-Time Employed 55% 50% 56% 47% 47% % $75k or more Household Income/Year 73% 71% 55% 60% 36% % College Graduates or higher 78% 73% 62% 59% 67% % With Kids at Home 26% 25% 39% 33% 20% Average Number of Vehicles in Household 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 0.7 % Owns Car 98% 98% 86% 90% 24% Recent Trip Average Party Size 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.2 Average Trip Length (days) 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.7 % Personal Car 57% 84% 67% 85% 23% Mode Choice % Rental Car 4% 3% 10% 5% 10% % Bus 8% 3% 8% 3% 33% % Rail 22% 1% 9% 0% 22% % Airplane 6% 8% 4% 5% 8% Purpose % Business 17% 13% 20% 14% 14% % Vacation 38% 34% 42% 40% 34% % Visit Friends or Relatives 49% 49% 49% 45% 56% Car Ownership Average Number of Vehicles in Household 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 0.7 % Owns Car 98% 98% 86% 90% 24% Key Attitudes I feel I am less dependent on cars than my parents are/were 30% 16% 37% 14% 70% Rather than owning a car, I would prefer to borrow, share, or rent a car just for when I need it 11% 7% 25% 8% 58% The idea of being on a train or a bus with people I do not know is uncomfortable 7% 13% 45% 57% 9% Worry about personal safety/disturbing behavior on train 6% 7% 84% 81% 17% Worry about personal safety/disturbing behavior on bus 33% 29% 91% 89% 33% I like to live in a neighborhood where I can walk to a commercial or village center 79% 69% 81% 66% 84% In choosing my next home I would value having a private home location with adequate separation from others 63% 66% 75% 76% 47% In choosing my next home I would value living in a community with a mix of people from different backgrounds 70% 54% 69% 48% 74% Prefer living in urban environment 32% 16% 29% 18% 61% I enjoy being out and about and observing people 88% 80% 84% 75% 78% Compared to car, I would be less tired and stressed if I took the trip by train 90% 54% 82% 39% 73% I could deal with the schedules offered by the train for this trip from my home to my destination 91% 49% 80% 36% 75% I would need the flexibility of a car once I arrive at my destination 30% 68% 63% 77% 17% Most people whose opinion I value would approve of my taking the train to my destination 91% 47% 83% 26% 69% If I wanted to, I could easily take the train for this trip 97% 56% 92% 43% 85% Table 8. Summary of cluster characteristics.