Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Studies in Texas – Current Riders & Potential Future Corridors Curtis Morgan Texas Transportation Institute Southwestern Rail Conference January 28, 2011

2 OUTLINE Focus on two recent corridor evaluation projects: –TxDOT –SWUTC Heartland Flyer Tools to assess projected rail and express bus corridor needs Survey of current HF Riders Questions

Overview Documented current intercity passenger travel services by: –Highway (auto and intercity bus) –Air –Train Corridor selection and analysis Corridor evaluation/ranking/prioritization Conceptual statewide rail/bus transit system 3

CA Rail and Express Bus System and PA Corridor Planning Study Identified in TxDOT Study Combine aspects of both into study of interregional transit needs in TX PennsylvaniaCalifornia

Texas Megaregions By 2050 about 35 million people, or 70 percent of the population of Texas, will live in the metropolitan areas that compose the Texas Triangle. Three of the nation’s 10 largest cities are in the Triangle. Source:

6 Corridor Selection and Analysis  Used identified major intercity corridors from previous TTI study (1977)  Added corridors recommended by study team and TxDOT and other outside advisors

7 Corridors 1-10 Corridor Reference Number NameCorridor Description Major Roadway(s) in Corridor Length (mi) 1AMALBBAmarillo to Midland-Odessa via LubbockI-27, US 87, TX DFWABIDallas-Fort Worth to El Paso via AbileneI-20, I DFWAMADallas-Fort Worth to Amarillo via Wichita FallsUS DFWHOUDallas-Fort Worth to HoustonI DFWLBBDallas-Fort Worth to Lubbock via AbileneI-20, US DFWLOUDallas-Fort Worth to Louisiana BorderI DFWSATDallas-Fort Worth to San AntonioI DFWSATbDallas-Fort Worth to San Antonio via US-281 US-281, US DFWSNADallas-Fort Worth to El Paso via San AngeloUS 377, US 67, I DFWTXKDallas-Fort Worth to TexarkanaI-30190

8 Corridors HOUAUSHouston to AustinUS HOUBMTHouston to BeaumontI HOUBVNHouston to Brownsville via Corpus ChristiUS 59, US HOUSATHouston to San AntonioI HOUTXKHouston to TexarkanaUS 59 (I-69)307 16HOUWACHouston to Waco via Bryan-College StationUS 290, TX SATBVNSan Antonio to Brownsville via Corpus ChristiI-37, US SATELPSan Antonio to El PasoI SATLRDSan Antonio to Brownsville via LaredoI-35, US 83349

9 Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) Describe both Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Micropolitan Statistical Areas (µSAs) Shape of Counties- data availability 2040 forecasts fit

10 Highway Corridor Analysis Map

11 The Past…AADT Growth

12 The Future…from 2002…

13 The Future…to 2035…

14 Airport/City-Pairs Analysis 27 Commercial Service Airports 65 Unique Intercity Pairs System in flux due to fuel price increases Reduced flight availability/times

FAA Capacity Report Findings Airports and Metropolitan Areas Needing Capacity in 2025 if Planned Improvements Do Not Occur Source: FAA FACT 2 Report

Aviation System Analysis Forecasts of Domestic and International Passenger Enplanements at Texas Commercial Service Airports to 2017 FAA Airspace Capacity Projections to 2025 TX Intercity Pairs/Intrastate Service Levels Airline operational factors Impact of Increased Use of Regional Jets and Very Light Jets (VLJs) Few infrastructure capacity limits—mostly economic/industry limitations for immediate future

Current Intercity Rail Map Current Amtrak Routes Texas Eagle –Daily to/from San Antonio Sunset Limited –3 days/wk Heartland Flyer –Daily 17

18 Freight Rail Congestion on Rail Study Corridors 2007 Cambridge Systematics study provided rail congestion forecasts along study corridors Almost all Texas routes LOS E or F if not improved by 2035 No single identified funding source-need public and private $$$

19 Intercity Bus Routes Existing Intercity Bus Services Statewide Coverage Reduction in service routes over prior years

Intercity Bus System Capacity Future growth of intercity bus is limited by highway capacity and urban congestion More infrastructure for intermodal connections is needed/desirable Trends –Corridor Service –Low Cost –New Marketing Express service needs vs. operational/ridership costs 20

21 Corridor Evaluation Criteria CategoryMeasure Population/Demographics Number of CBSAs along corridor, 2003 (most current) update. Total population of CBSA-designated counties along corridor, Growth in population of CBSA-designated counties along corridor, Total population per mile of the corridor, Percent of total corridor population age 65+, Total employees in CBSA-designated counties along corridor, Total enrollment at public or private universities along corridor, Fall Intercity Travel Demand Weighted average corridor AADT, Percent annual growth in weighted average corridor AADT, Air passenger travel between corridor airports, Percent annual growth in air passenger travel, Intercity Travel Capacity Average volume-capacity ratio on subject highways in corridor, Weighted average percent trucks on subject highways in corridor, Average load factor on corridor flights, Percent annual growth in available air passenger seats,

22 Corridor Rankings/Conceptual Statewide Transit System Based on corridor analysis and corridor evaluation criteria Looked at population growth/demographic patterns as well as existing transportation systems Criteria were equally weighted at PMC direction using an indexed scale for each criteria Corridor ranking chart and map created as output

23 Corridor Rankings Chart

24 Corridor Rankings Map Must be interpreted properly Reflects statewide intercity travel needs rather than local travel needs

Forecast AADT Growth 2002 to

26 Recommended TxDOT Roles and Responsibilities Recommendations from and State should focus on intercity/interregional Local/regional entities develop local rail and bus transit systems State can assist in several roles: –Pass-through funding agency –Contracting assistance/expertise –Central negotiation agent for local agencies with RRs –Interface with FHWA/FRA/FTA –Etc.

27 Connections to Urban Transit Systems Identification of urban and rural transit systems throughout the state—multiple examples: Existing urban rail systems: –Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Galveston, (Austin) Planned or in-progress express bus systems: –Fort Worth/Arlington, El Paso BRT, San Antonio BRT Planned or in-progress rail systems: –Austin-San Antonio Commuter Rail, East Texas Connections to Amtrak –Heartland Flyer, Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited

Existing Corridor Transit Interface Maps (18) 28

Example: DFWSAT 29

Corridor Length Travel Time 60 mph 80 mph 100 mph 275 miles 4 hrs, 35 min 3 hrs, 26 min 2 hrs, 45 min Corridor Length Travel Time 60 mph 80 mph 100 mph 240 miles 4 hrs, 0 min 3 hrs, 0 min 2 hrs, 24 min Example: DFWSAT and DFWHOU Corridor Diagrams

Corridor Length Travel Time 60 mph 80 mph 100 mph 650 miles 10 hrs, 50 min 8 hrs, 7 min 6 hrs, 30 min Example: DFWABI (DFW to EP)

Texas Air Passenger System Changes Some air service markets continue to be at risk of diminished service –Fewer airlines –Fewer flights/less frequency –Airport directors of smaller communities continue to be concerned about level of air service and how to improve it None currently appear to be at risk of losing all service –Communities served by one airline Victoria Beaumont Gregg County/Northeast Regional (Longview) Del Rio San Angelo San Angelo recently lost service to Houston Air service continues to be sensitive to fuel prices and economic conditions

Air Passenger Trends in 2008/2009 Passenger Demand and Cargo Traffic are down (US Airlines) –Passenger demand dropped 21% (June 2009 from June 2008) –Passenger revenue dropped 26% (June 2009 from June 2008) –Eight consecutive month of revenue drops –Cargo RTM dropped 20% (May 2009 from May 2008) Financial Situation of Airlines Continues to be precarious –Airlines continue cutting capacity (seats) –No Small Community Air Service funds currently in the FAA Reauthorization bill Some efforts afoot to improve intrastate air service via a small aircraft hub service based in Austin –Cape Air Approached to offer service to/from Austin to/from smaller communities Requires revenue guarantees from the communities

Lessons Learned Cities/population areas outside Texas need to be included in future analyses Vary weights of factors in future analyses as public goals become more clear Can use similar evaluation to compare alternatives for same corridor Impact of PRIIA and ARRA regarding HSR vs. improved, “higher-speed”, or “practical” rail development 34

2009 TTI Heartland Flyer Study Objective: Measure Mobility Impacts of Rail Service –Short or Medium Distance State-Supported Corridors –Emphasis on Southwest U.S. Corridors Case Study Route: Heartland Flyer –Oklahoma City, Oklahoma to Fort Worth, Texas –Single Daily Round-Trip, Low-Density Corridor Service –State Financial Support from Oklahoma and Texas On-Board Survey of Heartland Flyer Passengers –Measure Diverted and Induced Trips –Measure Economic Impacts-Added 35

Project Background “Measuring the Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail: Case Study of the Heartland Flyer Corridor” Initial Project Objectives: –Measure Impact of Passenger Rail on Intercity Corridor Travel –Emphasis on Southwestern United States –Estimate Diverted and Induced Trips “New” Project Objectives: –Data Support for future ARRA Funding Applications? –Develop Evaluation Methodology –Economic Impacts 36

Project Partners January 24, Researchers Sponsor

Case Study Corridor: Heartland Flyer 38 Daily Round-Trip Service Route Parallel to I-35 Service Initiated June 1999 Station Stops in Oklahoma: Oklahoma City Norman Purcell Pauls Valley Ardmore Station Stops in Texas: Gainesville Fort Worth TxDOT Support: ~$2 Million Annually Since FY 2006

Survey Details On-Board Passenger Survey in Two Waves –“Average” Season: April 2009 (n=435) –“Peak” Season: July 2009 (n=588) –Two-Page Survey, 21 Items, Hand-Out/Hand-Back Format –Participation Rate 76 Percent Passenger Spending Question: 39 How much did you spend (or plan to spend) on lodging, meals, shopping, or entertainment during the entire duration of your trip?

Mobility Impacts – Patterns Trip Purpose –Diversion to Automobile High for Leisure Trips –Business Trips Divert to Auto, Company/Rental, or Air –High % of Induced Among Leisure/Vacation Demographics –Younger Travelers: Divert to Bus –Increasing Auto Diversion with HH VEH, Income –No Apparent Induced Travel Pattern

Passenger Demographics 41 DemographicApril 2009July 2009 Male/Female Split (%)40/6035/65 Median Age (Years) Median Income ($)64,82057,080 % Full-Time Employed5255 % Retired2524 % Texas Residents2017 % Oklahoma Residents7377

Passenger Trip Purpose 42 Trip PurposeApril 2009July 2009 Visiting Family or Friends34%41% Going To/From University/College21 Going To/From Business Trip42 Leisure/Recreation4833 Personal Business56 Shopping12 Vacation515

Passenger Alternate Travel Mode 43 Alternate Travel ModeApril 2009July 2009 Drive A Private Vehicle48%56% Passenger In Private Vehicle107 Rental Car/Company Vehicle22 Commercial Airline65 Intercity Bus (Greyhound)33 Would Not Make Trip3127

Total Passenger Spending Spending Range Average Season (%) Peak Season (%) Less than $ $25 to $ $50 to $ $100 to $24928 $250 or More Median Spending: Average Season: $ Peak Season: $166.67

Median Spending by Trip Purpose Trip Purpose Average Season ($) Peak Season ($) Visiting Family or Friends$74.29$91.84 Personal/Business/ Education $86.59$91.58 Leisure/Recreation/ Shopping $195.62$ Vacation$204.59$

Median Spending by Trip Duration Trip Duration Average Season ($) Peak Season ($) Round-Trip Today$71.00$94.74 One Night$182.86$ Two Nights$188.14$ Three to Five Nights$118.60$ Six or More Nights$125.00$

Estimated Spending Impacts by Station Station Passenger Spending ($) Sales Tax Revenue ($) Oklahoma City, OK$5,876,150$454,097 Norman, OK$1,493,464$113,821 Pauls Valley, OK$268,193$22,161 Ardmore, OK$797,612$64,176 Gainesville, TX$810,560$61,775 Fort Worth, TX$8,786,451$669,637 TOTAL$18,032,628$1,385, Notes: Based on FFY 2009 data. During our survey, no passengers reported Purcell as a destination.

Estimated Losses Due to Discontinuance Station Passenger Spending ($) Sales Tax Revenue ($) Percent Of Total Oklahoma City, OK $1,979,506$152,97234% Norman, OK$258,240$19,68117% Pauls Valley, OK$63,031$5,20424% Ardmore, OK$39,766$3,2005% Gainesville, TX$391,615$29,84648% Fort Worth, TX$2,309,163$175,98726% TOTAL$5,041,321$386,89028% 48 Note: FFY 2009 data. No passengers reported Purcell as a destination.

Passenger Zip Code Distribution

Conclusions Direct Measurement of Economic Impacts –Focus on Low-Density State-Supported Corridor –2009 Heartland Flyer Passenger Survey Estimated Impacts to Communities Served –$18 Million in Passenger Spending –$1.39 Million in Local Sales Tax Revenue –Loss of Service Would Result in Approx. 30 Percent Reduction in Economic Impacts Potential Applications –Policy Formation –Planning and Service Development 50

Questions 51