[PDF] ACRP REPORT 4. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM


Download ACRP REPORT 4. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM…

ACRP

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

REPORT 4

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE*

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2008 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

CHAIR

OFFICERS

James Wilding Independent Consultant

CHAIR: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka VICE CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board

VICE CHAIR Jeff Hamiel Minneapolis–St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission

MEMBERS James Crites Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport Richard de Neufville Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kevin C. Dolliole UCG Associates John K. Duval Beverly Municipal Airport Angela Gittens HNTB Corporation Steve Grossman Oakland International Airport Tom Jensen National Safe Skies Alliance Catherine M. Lang Federal Aviation Administration Gina Marie Lindsey Los Angeles World Airports Carolyn Motz Hagerstown Regional Airport Richard Tucker Huntsville International Airport

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Sabrina Johnson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Richard Marchi Airports Council International—North America Laura McKee Air Transport Association of America Henry Ogrodzinski National Association of State Aviation Officials Melissa Sabatine American Association of Airport Executives Robert E. Skinner, Jr. Transportation Research Board

SECRETARY Christopher W. Jenks Transportation Research Board

*Membership as of January 2008.

MEMBERS J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg John D. Bowe, President, Americas Region, APL Limited, Oakland, CA Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Will Kempton, Director, California DOT, Sacramento Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR Rosa Clausell Rountree, Executive Director, Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority, Atlanta Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNX–Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR

EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC Joseph H. Boardman, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA Paul R. Brubaker, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT George Bugliarello, Chancellor, Polytechnic University of New York, Brooklyn, and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC Sean T. Connaughton, Maritime Administrator, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC John H. Hill, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC Carl T. Johnson, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT J. Edward Johnson, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John C. Stennis Space Center, MS William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Nicole R. Nason, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT James Ray, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S.DOT James S. Simpson, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S.DOT Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC

*Membership as of May 2008.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP REPORT 4 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation Matthew A. Coogan White River Junction, VT IN ASSOCIATION WITH

MarketSense Consulting LLC Boston, MA

Jacobs Consultancy Burlingame, CA

Subject Areas

Aviation

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2008 www.TRB.org

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP REPORT 4

Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transportation of people and goods and in regional, national, and international commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. It is modeled after the successful National Cooperative Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Program. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subject areas, including design, construction, maintenance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, and administration. The ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can cooperatively address common operational problems. The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and the Air Transport Association (ATA) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organizations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners.

Project 11-02/Task 2 ISSN 1935-0902 ISBN 978-0-309-09941-7 Library of Congress Control Number 2008929051 © 2008 Transportation Research Board

COPYRIGHT PERMISSION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.

NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Cooperative Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the Federal Aviation Administration (sponsor of the Airport Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting.

Published reports of the

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP REPORT 4 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Dianne S. Schwager, Senior Program Officer Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Editor

ACRP PROJECT 11-02/TASK 2 PANEL Field of Special Projects Gene Hauck, SuperShuttle International, Scottsdale, AZ Joseph H. Hills, Tampa, FL Simone C. Johnson, Maryland Aviation Administration, BWI Airport, MD Alfred LaGasse, International Taxicab and Livery Association, Kensington, MD Ray A. Mundy, University of Missouri–St. Louis, St. Louis, MO Michael Welch, JetBlue Airways, Hanover, MA Patrick Sullivan, FAA Liaison

FOREWORD

By Dianne S. Schwager Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

ACRP Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation provides tools and information to assist airport managers in improving ground access to large airports. The dramatic increases in air travel, congestion near airports, and interest in improving access to airports make this research report very timely. This research project builds upon and updates the results of two previous research projects undertaken within the Transit Cooperative Research Program, which produced TCRP Report 62: Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports (2000) and TCRP Report 83: Strategies for Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports (2002). ACRP Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation provides a wealth of information about the current status of public transportation services and their use at large airports in the United States and around the world. Chapter 1 summarizes for airport managers the key elements in the creation of a six-step market-based strategy for improving the quality of public mode services at U.S. airports. This strategy focuses on the needs of the air traveler who uses airport ground access services. This traveler makes decisions that are affected by the amount of baggage being carried, the sense of apprehension about the reliability of the trip and arriving on time, the total trip costs, and a lack of knowledge about the non-home end of the trip. The market-based strategy was designed to support the development of public transportation services unique to the needs of the airport and to the users of the airport. The balance of the report addresses the context for public transportation to major airports; explores the attributes of successful airport ground access systems; presents an airport-by-airport summary of air traveler ground access mode share by public transportation services (i.e., rail, bus, and shared-ride vans) for major U.S., European, and Asian airports (modes excluded from this review include hotel and rental car vans, limousines, and charter buses); discusses integrated baggage and airline ticketing strategies; applies market research to planning public transportation services to airports; reviews strategies for improving airport landside ground transportation services, including addressing institutional challenges for implementing these strategies and identifying potential funding sources; describes ways to improve the public transportation mode share for airport employees; examines new and evolving information technology to bring airport ground access information and ticketing options to the traveler; and identifies opportunities for further research that tie back to the six-step process described in Chapter 1.

CONTENTS

1

Summary

15

Chapter 1 Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

16 16 16 18 18 18 20 21 21 21 22 24 24

Step 1: Establish the Public Policy Goals for Airport Ground Access Define the Stakeholders and Get Them to the Table Coordinate with the Regional Planning Process Best Practices in the United States: Establishing the Process Step 2: Undertake the Program of Data Gathering and System Monitoring Data Collection for the Airport Ground Access Survey Data Collection to Monitor the Performance of the System Best Practices in the United States: Continuing Survey Programs Step 3: Interpret the Markets and Their Relationship to Candidate Modes Geographic Scale of the Airport Ground Access Markets Density and Market Support Associated with Specific Modes The Need for a Composite Approach Best Practices in the United States: Examples of Market Types at U.S. Airports Step 4: Design a Program of Services and Strategies for Airport Ground Access Lessons Learned from Successful Systems Summary: Designing to Deal with Revealed Attributes Best Practices in the United States: Service Based on Markets Step 5: Manage the Airport to Encourage Higher Occupancy Vehicle Use Encouraging the Use of High-Occupancy Service Learning from Recent U.S. Airport Designs Considering Regulations to Encourage Higher Occupancy Mode Strategies Best Practices in the United States: Management and Amenity Step 6: Present Information about Ground Access Services to the Traveler Building a Ground Transportation Information Strategy Best Practices: Traveler Information Conclusion

25 25 27 28 29 29 30 31 31 31 32 32 32

34 34 35 35 36 39 41

Chapter 2 The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports Understanding the Scale of Airport Ground Access U.S. Airports and Their Public Mode Share The Scale of the Public Mode Volumes at These Airports What Has Happened over the Last Decade? How Have the Transit-Oriented Airports “Bounced Back” from the Decrease in Air Traffic? Will the Pattern of Air Travel Continue to Grow?

41 41 44 45 46 46 46 48 48 50 51

Understanding the Trips That Use Airports Trip Purpose: Why Do Airline Passengers Travel? National Patterns of Access to Airports and Terminals Daily Public Mode Volumes to Airports “Typical” Public Mode Volumes for Large U.S. Airports Public Mode Volumes for 27 U.S. Airports Implications for Choice of Ground Access Mode Why Are Airports Concerned with Ground Access by Public Modes? Ground Access Issues and the Regional Planning Process Environmental Approvals in Europe What’s Next?

52

Chapter 3 Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems

52 53 54 54 55 58 61 62 62 63 63 64 64 65 65 67

Understanding Successful Airport Ground Access Systems Does Airport Size Explain Ridership? Does Distance from Downtown Explain Ridership? Does the Quality of the Airport Connection Explain Ridership? Does Line-Haul Speed Explain High Ridership? Is Higher Speed or Directness of Service More Important? The Implications of Dedicated Premium Service Service Attributes of Proposed Projects Berlin Brandenburg Airport Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport Chicago Midway and O’Hare Airports New York JFK Airport Summing It Up Desired Attributes of Rail Service to U.S. Airports Desired Attributes of Van and Bus Service to U.S. Airports What’s Next?

68

Chapter 4 Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

68 69 70 71 71 73 73 74 75 75 76 77 78 79 80 80 81 81 82

Part 1: Best Practices at U.S. Airports Tier 1 San Francisco (23% Market Share) New York JFK (19% Market Share) Boston (18% Market Share) Reagan Washington National (17% Market Share) Oakland (15% Market Share) New Orleans (15% Market Share) Newark (14% Market Share) Atlanta (14% Market Share) Denver (14% Market Share) Los Angeles (13% Market Share) Baltimore/Washington (12% Market Share) Chicago O’Hare (12% Market Share) Las Vegas (12% Market Share) Tier 2 Orlando (11% Market Share) Seattle (11% Market Share) Portland (10% Market Share)

82 83 83 84 84 85 86 87 87 88 88 89 89 91 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 98 99 99 100 101 102 103 103 104 105 105

107 107 108 109 112 117 119 119 119 120 122 125 126 127 128 131 132

Chicago Midway (9% Market Share) Phoenix (9% Market Share) San Diego (9% Market Share) Indianapolis (9% Market Share) Washington Dulles (8% Market Share) New York LaGuardia (8% Market Share) Philadelphia (7% Market Share) Tampa (7% Market Share) Dallas/Fort Worth (6% Market Share) St. Louis (6% Market Share) Cleveland (6% Market Share) Other Airports of Interest Part 2: Best Practices at European and Asian Airports Oslo (64% Market Share) Hong Kong (63% Market Share) Narita (59% Market Share) Shanghai (51% Market Share) Zurich (47% Market Share) Vienna (41% Market Share) London Stansted (40% Market Share) Paris Charles de Gaulle (40% Market Share) Amsterdam (37% Market Share) Copenhagen (37% Market Share) Munich (36% Market Share) London Heathrow (36% Market Share) Stockholm (34% Market Share) Frankfurt (33% Market Share) London Gatwick (31% Market Share) Geneva (28% Market Share) Brussels (26% Market Share) Paris Orly (26% Market Share) Düsseldorf (22% Market Share)

Chapter 5 Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies Part 1: Baggage Strategies for Local Originating Passengers The Importance of Baggage-Handling Strategies A Case Study in Baggage Check-in at a Downtown Terminal Status of Other Downtown Check-in Terminals Near-Airport Check-in Locations Lessons Learned: Off-Site Airport Check-in Centers Summary Part 2: Integration of Ticketing and Baggage with Longer Distance Systems Integration with National Systems: The GAO Study Why Integrate an Airport with Longer Distance Ground Services? Part 3: Evolving Strategies for Integrated Ticketing and Baggage Las Vegas Strategies for Integration of Modal Services Los Angeles International Airport to Union Station Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station: A Case Study Lessons Learned: Integration with National Systems Documentation of Examples of Integrated Services

135 135 135 136 136 138 138 139 141 142 142 143 143 145 145 147 148 148 149 151 152

153 153 154 154 154 156 157 157 158 158 159 159 159 160 161 161 161 162 163 163 164 167

Chapter 6 Applying Market Research to Airport Ground Access The Role of Market Research Characteristics of the Airport Ground Access Market Geographic Distribution of Ground Access Trips Demographic Characteristics of Air Travelers Airport Ground Access Market Research Step 1: Decide What Information to Collect Step 2: Select a Data Collection Method Step 3: Determine the Sampling Frame and Sampling Method Step 4: Develop the Questionnaire Step 5: Summarize and Analyze the Results Use of Market Research Information Air Traveler Trip-End Densities Associated with Ground Transportation Markets The Importance of Primary Ground Transportation Markets The Geography of Public Ground Transportation to Airports A Hierarchy of Markets for Public Ground Transportation Services Influence of Geography and Demographics on Ground Transportation Markets Variation by Demographic Segment: Total Airport Markets Variation by Demographic Segment: Washington, D.C. Applying the Four Market Segments: Looking for the Factor of Familiarity Conclusion

Chapter 7 Managing the Airport Landside System The Need to Manage Services Airport Ground Transportation Management Strategies Airport Fees Measures to Encourage Use of Public Transportation Automated Traffic Monitoring and Management Programs Business Arrangements at Airports to Improve Service to the Traveling Public Open Access Exclusive and Semi-Exclusive Concessions Agreements Balancing Supply and Demand Third-Party Management Contracts Regulatory Considerations for the Introduction of New Services Challenges of Introducing New Services Competition and Enforcement Factors Governing Airport Financial Operations Authorizing Legislation Bond Indenture Airline Agreement Concession Agreements Sources of Funding Federal Funding and Financial Oversight of Airports and Airport Access Projects Environmental Implications of Federal Funding for Airport Access Projects

168 168 168 169 171 173 173 173 174 174 174 175 176 176 176 176

177 177 178 178 181 182 183 185 186 186 188 190 191 192 193 193 195

196 196 196 197 197 197 198

Chapter 8 Improving Public Transportation Mode Share for Employees The Objective and the Challenge Factors that Influence Employee Use of Public Transportation Transit Service Characteristics Employee Characteristics Key Considerations for Improving Employee Public Transportation Mode Share Comparative Travel Time of Transit and Automobile Comparative Comfort of Transit and Automobile Extent and Adequacy of the Transit Service Area Proximity and Accessibility of Transit Service at Both Trip Ends Availability, Cost, and Convenience of Parking at the Work Site Extent and Adequacy of Transit Service Hours Perceived Safety of Transit, Particularly at Night Airport Employee Market Segments Flight Crew Non-Flight Crew

Chapter 9 Getting Ground Access Information to the Traveler Getting Information about Ground Access How U.S. Airport Websites Cover Ground Access Ground Access Information on the San Francisco Airport Website Ground Access Information on the Portland (Oregon) Airport Website Ground Access Information on the Boston Airport Website Ground Access Information on the New York JFK Airport Website Ground Access Information on the Atlanta Airport Website How European and Asian Airport Websites Cover Ground Access Ground Access Information on the Amsterdam Airport Website Ground Access Planning on the Narita Airport Website Ground Access Information on the London Heathrow Airport Website Ground Access Information on the Zurich Airport Website The Baltimore/Washington International Airport Prototype Ground Access Module Passenger Information Provided by the Airport Passenger Information Provided by Other Agencies Conclusions

Chapter 10 Further Research Step 1: Establish the Public Policy Goals for Airport Ground Access Step 2: Undertake the Program for Data Gathering and System Monitoring Step 3: Understand the Markets Revealed and Their Relationship to Candidate Solutions Step 4: Design a Program of Services and Strategies for Airport Ground Access Step 5: Manage the Airport to Encourage Higher Occupancy Step 6: Present the Ground Access Services to the Traveler

199

References

201

Appendix Abbreviations and Acronyms

SUMMARY

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation The objective of this ACRP project was to build upon previous research undertaken within the Transit Cooperative Research Program to provide an updated summary of the role of public transportation services in providing improved ground access services to America’s airports. The ACRP project was designed to build upon and update the results of TCRP Report 62: Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports (2000) and TCRP Report 83: Strategies for Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports (2002).

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access Chapter 1 presents a shortened summary of the key elements in the creation of a marketbased strategy for improving the quality of public mode services at U.S. airports. The airport manager faces a wide variety of challenges in the creation of a successful ground transportation strategy, which almost certainly will comprise several separate services to respond to the needs of several separate market segments. This introductory chapter reviews the key steps for improving public transportation access to airports and presents some information that is further developed in later chapters. The chapter is intended to point the reader to best U.S. practices that can be explored for additional information contained in later chapters. There are six steps in the process outlined in Chapter 1: 1. Establish the public policy goals for airport ground access (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 2). • Form the collaborative effort that will be needed for implementation. • Understand the travel behavior of the longer distance traveler. 2. Undertake the program for data gathering and system monitoring (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 6). • Design the survey to reveal key market characteristics. • Emphasize accurate geography and market segmentation for both air passengers and airport employees. 3. Understand the markets revealed and their relationship to candidate solutions (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 6). • Understand the composition of the overall airport market. • Establish the target markets at several levels of trip-end density. • Understand the precedents for market support of various modes and services. 4. Design a program of services and strategies for airport ground access (a theme that is further developed in Chapters 3 and 4). • Understand the quality attributes achieved by successful services. 1

2

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

• •

Match modes with markets. Acknowledge the role for dedicated, higher cost services. 5. Manage the airport to encourage rather than discourage higher occupancy use (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 7). • Examine priorities and implications of curbside allocation and pricing. • Evaluate the level of amenity experienced by the public mode user. 6. Present the ground access services to the traveler (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 9). • Provide basic service description to the users. • Develop programs for integrated passenger information and ticketing. Chapter 1 proposes a planning process based on the needs of the consumer of ground access services. The chapter notes that it is important to apply the tools of analysis to understand the particular travel demand behavior of the individual taking a longer distance, multimodal, multisegment trip. The long-distance traveler makes logical and rational economic decisions, and those decisions are different from those made in daily commuting. The longer distance traveler is making a different set of decisions from those of the metropolitan-scale traveler. These decisions are different in terms of uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the non-home end of the trip. The decisions are different because of the amount of baggage being carried by the traveler, the traveler’s sense of apprehension about the reliability of the trip and arriving on time, and the total trip costs. The six-step planning process is designed to support planning and implementation decisions based on the needs of the traveler. From the outset, the analysts need to see the problem in terms of the full trip of the traveler. The choice of a mode to or from an airport is part of a larger set of decisions made in the process of going from the door of origin to the door of destination of the full trip. It is critically important to establish early in the process that the needs of the long-distance traveler most probably will require solutions that are not simply extensions and elaborations on service concepts already provided for the metropolitan context. The operation of traditional, low-fare, multistop street bus service to major airports may be a critically important element of a program to get workers to jobs, but such services only rarely have the ability to attract air travelers. The process has been designed to support the development of services unique to the needs of the airport and to the users of the airport.

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports Chapter 2 presents the context within which the airport manager must form policies toward airport ground access and summarizes the reasons for a policy interest in the subject in the United States. It reviews the present state of the airline system, including a review of variations in air traffic over the period before and after the events of September 11, 2001. It presents a brief update of the major recommendations presented in the previous TCRP reports, which called for a planning process based on the revealed characteristics of the several submarkets within each large airport’s overall ground access market. As it has evolved, this approach to airport ground access planning focuses more on the understanding of market segments than on the inherent characteristic of any particular mode or technology. The chapter reviews the extent to which concern about the quality of airport ground access has become an integral part of the process of environmental and political approval of airport expansion and efficient utilization of key national assets.

Summary

Understanding the Scale of Airport Ground Access The scale of public transportation markets varies by the size of the airport and by the propensity of the airport region to support public transportation. This ACRP project has ranked 27 U.S. airports in order of their use of public transportation—defined as rail, bus, and sharedride vans, but excluding single-party limousines, courtesy shuttles, and charter operations. These 27 airports have public mode shares of 6% or more. Table S-1 reveals the scale of each airport in terms of the absolute number of passengers who are transported to the airport by a public mode. Importantly, these calculations are based on the number of originating passengers rather than on total enplanements, i.e., passengers who are changing from plane to plane are excluded. What Has Happened over the Last Decade? Much of the data presented in the original TCRP report were based on 1998 statistics from the FAA, and from Airports Council International–North America. There has been a 21% Table S-1.

Volume of transit use at 27 U.S. airports.

Rank by transit volume

Airport

Public transport users to airport (in millions)

Market share to public modes

Originating enplanements

1

New York JFK

2.2

19%

11,602,440

2

Los Angeles

2.1

13%

16,441,180

3

San Francisco

2.1

23%

8,938,170

4

Las Vegas

2.0

12%

16,339,950

5

Atlanta

1.9

14%

13,696,770

6

Boston

1.9

18%

10,428,620

7

Chicago O’Hare

1.8

12%

14,923,320

8

Orlando

1.5

11%

13,792,840

9

Newark

1.5

14%

10,375,220

10

Denver

1.4

14%

9,817,970

11

Reagan National

1.2

17%

7,003,410

12

Seattle

1.1

11%

9,898,290

13

Phoenix

1.0

9%

11,491,890

14

Oakland

0.9

15%

6,273,490

15

Baltimore/Washington

0.9

12%

7,637,130

16

New York LaGuardia

0.9

8%

11,291,970

17

San Diego

0.7

9%

7,833,280

18

Dallas/Fort Worth

0.6

6%

10,683,750

19

Philadelphia

0.6

7%

9,123,560

20

Tampa

0.6

7%

8,116,390

21

Portland (Oregon)

0.5

10%

5,373,750

22

Chicago Midway

0.5

9%

5,933,190

23

New Orleans

0.5

15%

3,472,780

24

Washington Dulles

0.5

8%

6,505,480

25

Indianapolis

0.3

9%

3,628,540

26

St. Louis

0.3

6%

4,845,770

27

Cleveland

0.2

6%

3,789,610

3

4

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

growth in enplanements at all U.S. airports in the time period from 1998 to 2005. Most of the gains of the first 3 years were lost by 2002; however, the growth in volume in the airline system from the nadir of 2002 to the present has been strong, with a 21% increase in the most recent 4-year period. Over the past decade, changes in the management of the airline industry have had profound effects on the ground transportation patterns to major airports. These changes fall into two general categories. First, the non-legacy airlines have not sought to mimic the huband-spoke system that often results in the potential connection of all airports of origin with all airports of destination in a time-sensitive manner. In other words, lower cost airlines go to those airports they choose to serve, and only those airports they choose to serve. The result of this initial pattern by the low-priced carriers was a significant increase in the length of ground access travel that airline passengers would be willing to undertake to travel on the lower cost airline. Second, a new wave of low-priced carriers has incorporated a business strategy that does indeed serve existing major airports, such as New York’s JFK airport. How Have the Transit-Oriented Airports “Bounced Back” from the Decrease in Air Traffic? For the nation as a whole, enplanements grew by about 20% between 1998 and 2005; but, at the 27 most transit-oriented airports, total enplanements increased by only 13%. Logically, this statistic suggests that the growth in total enplanements has been considerably stronger in the airports outside of the sample; these other airports tend, with few exceptions, to be smaller and more difficult to serve with public transportation. Turning our attention to the number of origin–destination trips being made through the 27 airports, only an 8% increase has occurred overall, with 10 of the major airports having fewer originating passengers than in 1998. Clearly, part of the 13% increase in total enplanements in the sample is associated with an increase in the number of transferring passengers. The airportby-airport changes in originating passengers for the 27 airports are presented in Figure S-1. Chapter 2 presents a set of calculations from which peak-hour volumes of public mode users can be estimated. Virtually all of the transit-oriented airports have total peak-hour volumes for all public modes combined (rail plus bus plus van) of less than 1,000 passengers per hour. Clearly, the transit infrastructure must be able to accommodate volumes in the range of 500 to 1,000 passengers per hour to an airport. However, it is important to note that capacity alone should never be the sole justification for rail investment; in many corridors in the United States, buses regularly carry more people than they would need to carry to serve all airline passengers at an entire airport. For example, through the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City, buses carry more than 40,000 passengers per hour in the peak direction. There are many powerful reasons to select rail services to airports, based mainly on the existence of a grade-separated right-of-way not subject to the daily congestion plaguing such airports as New York’s JFK and Chicago’s O’Hare; but, in theory, the capacity constraints of rubbertired services should not be used as a justification for such a selection.

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems Chapter 3 explores the question of what makes a public transportation access system to a major airport successful. The breadth of travel patterns detailed in Chapter 4 will document the wide variety of experience around the world in the design and implementation of public transportation strategies to major airports. Those patterns range from the remarkable

Summary

-40% -20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

JFK Oakland Las Vegas Dulles Midway Tampa Philadelphia Orlando BWI San Diego Phoenix LaGuardia Denver National Indianapolis Seattle Boston Portland Atlanta DFW Newark O’Hare Cleveland Los Angeles St. Louis New Orleans SFO

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration, Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic, Domestic.

Figure S-1. Change in originating passengers for the 27 U.S. airports, 1998 to 2005.

public transportation share in Europe to the more specialized role played by public transportation to most U.S. airports. Chapter 3 interprets best practices and attempts to draw out lessons learned from this wide variety of experience. Chapter 3 examines the implications of certain attributes of successful services, whether those services are in operation in the United States, Europe, or Asia. One lesson is clear at the outset—there is no particular modal solution that is optimal everywhere: a simple focus on line-haul speed of the vehicle does not produce a high mode share to public transportation, as revealed in Shanghai; the adoption of high-cost, high-quality rail design does not convince more Hong Kong travelers to ride the train than the bus; direct on-airport rail connections to an advanced regional rail system do not attract a higher share of travelers to choose the rail transit to San Francisco airport than the less direct connections in operation at nearby Oakland Airport attract. This chapter looks at service attributes of successful systems, without regard to the dominant mode that resulted in those high mode shares to public transportation. As discussed in the final section of this chapter, capital investment decisions about new rail systems are being made in

5

6

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Chicago, New York, Paris, and Berlin. But, other than these, planning for new capital-intensive rail systems is slowing, with a growing emphasis on management of existing rights-of-way. Chapter 3 reaches the following conclusions: •

In general, while airports need a certain size to support public transportation services, size alone does not explain high ridership. Distance traveled to the airport is worthy of more attention. • In general, the longer the ground access trip, the less competitive is the taxi, and the less attractive is the casual kiss-ride drop-off trip. • In general, directness of the connections on the airport cannot explain the wide variation in mode shares reported in Chapter 2, although there is strong anecdotal data to support the idea that fewer transfers are better than more transfers. • In general, the speed of the public transportation service alone cannot explain the variation in mode share. Chapter 3 makes it clear that no single attribute—such as the speed of the vehicle, the directness of the on-airport connections, or the connectivity to the rest of the public transportation system—can by itself explain the propensity for high market shares. Rather, it becomes evident that a successful ground access system will need to combine various attributes from separate services designed to meet the needs of the separate market segments. Most U.S. airports have at least three market areas: a dense downtown/inner market area; a distant set of dispersed origins, for which dedicated express buses can carry travelers collected by other modes; and a mid-suburban area, where door-to-door shuttle services can be supported.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport Chapter 4 presents an airport-by-airport summary of airline passenger ground access mode share by public transportation services. Part 1: Best Practices at U.S. Airports In Part 1 of the chapter, the public transportation mode share data for 27 U.S. airports are presented, along with a discussion of trends and patterns for each of the modes. Five categories are used to summarize each U.S. airport: •

• •

The airport: Each U.S. airport is summarized in terms of its location, its traffic in terms of annual enplanements in 2005, and the number of those enplanements representing originating passengers. Automobile travel times to downtown are presented, along with a reasonable approximation of the taxi fares, which will vary by the actual destination of the trip. Connections at the airport: The discussion of this category examines the nature of the airport configuration and design, which influence the ability of both bus and rail services to serve the airport efficiently. Rail: Rail services to the U.S. airports are described when they exist. Bus: Bus services that are specific to the airport market (i.e., “airporters”) and more traditional public transportation services by bus are summarized. In the case of Boston, bus rapid transit is discussed as a separate mode. Shared-ride vans: Shared-ride vans are included in the analysis, but services such as limousines and “black cars” designed to transport single parties are excluded whenever the original data will allow.

The rail and bus/van market shares of the 13 U.S. airports with a public mode market share of 12% or more are shown in Figure S-2. The rail and bus/van market shares of the 14 U.S. airports with a public mode market share from 6% to 11% are shown in Figure S-3.

Summary

Rail

Bus/Van

25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

I ‘H ar e s Ve ga s O

BW

La

Sa n

Fr an ci sc o JF K Bo st on R ea g O an ak N ew lan O d rle an s N ew ar k At la nt D a e Lo nv e s An r ge le s

0%

Figure S-2. Market shares to rail and bus in the 13 most transit-oriented U.S. airports.

Part 2: Best Practices at European and Asian Airports The second part of Chapter 4 briefly summarizes the salient characteristics of 19 of the most successful airport access systems in the world. For each of these systems, the combination of rail and bus services attracts more than 20% of airline passenger market share (Figure S-4). Certain information is provided for the European/Asian airports, such as their baggagehandling strategies and the relationship of ground access services to national transportation services, which is not provided for the U.S. airports because of a lack of relevance. Six categories are used to summarize each European/Asian airport: •

The airport: Data are presented that describe each European or Asian airport’s size and location, and give a general estimate of taxi fares to the downtown area. Uniform data on originating passengers are presented. • Connections at the airport: The discussion of this category examines the quality of the connection between the rail services and the airport check-in or baggage claim areas. Physical and architectural details are reviewed as relevant, and the physical quality of the transfer from the airline passenger terminal to the rail system is described. Also noted is the nature of the configuration of the airport itself. The difference between centralized and decentralized airport layouts is examined.

Rail

Bus/Van

20% 15% 10% 5%

Se at tl Po e rtl an d M id w ay Ph oe ni Sa x n D i eg In o di an ap ol is D ul le La s G ua r Ph di a ila de lp hi a Ta m pa D FW St .L ou is C le ve la nd

O

rla

nd o

0%

Figure S-3. Rail and bus shares for the 14th through 27th most transit-oriented U.S. airports.

7

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Rail

Bus/Van

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% O H on slo g Ko ng N ar Sh it an a gh ai Zu ric Vi h en St na an Pa ste ris d Am CD st G e C op rda en m ha ge M n un i H ea ch th r o St oc w kh o Fr lm an kf u G rt at w ic k G en ev a Br us Pa sel ris s O D rl üs se y ld or f

8

Figure S-4. Public transportation mode shares at European and Asian airports.

Rail: Most European airports rely on some form of rail service for ground access. This category includes a brief description of the nature of the rail service provided and whether the service is dedicated or shared. Fares are presented. When service is provided beyond the traditional downtown, the nature of the regional services is noted. • Baggage-handling strategy: In the discussion for this category, each airport access system is reviewed in terms of the strategies employed to deal with the baggage of the air traveler. Specific examples are presented for off-site check-in strategies, ranging from full-service downtown terminals to integration with other mechanisms for off-site check-in. When relevant, the status of such systems is summarized. • Bus: Although their relative importance in Europe and Asia is less important than in the United States, key services are provided by bus. Small buses (i.e., vans) are included in the overall mode shares for bus. • Relevant market characteristics: This descriptive information is reviewed in the context of any known market data for each of the systems. Market characteristics include the extent to which the market is oriented to the downtown or to other areas well served by the regional rail system.

Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies The goal of the airport ground access planner is to make full journey as “seamless” as possible, often with separate services appealing to separate market segments. Chapter 5 deals with the integration of baggage and ticketing strategies. Around the world, a wide variety of strategies have been developed to create seamless trip experiences: providing airport-type baggage check-in at local off-airport locations and providing integrated ticketing between ground and airline services. In theory, a fully integrated national transportation system would have through ticketing and through baggage-handling services between ground and air. In practice however, these goals have proven elusive in major projects all over the world and are being re-assessed. In fact, the empirical data assembled for this report suggest that airline passengers are increasingly reticent to separate themselves from their bags, consistent with what seems to be an evolution in the nature of what the passenger hopes for, and expects from, the travel experience. Part 1 of Chapter 5 reviews recent developments, both successful and unsuccessful, in off-site baggage check-in services for passengers within the metropolitan area. Part 2 reviews the concept of integrating baggage and ticketing for passengers traveling longer

Summary

distances on the ground access system, noting the results of a recent national study on the subject by the Government Accountability Office. Part 3 examines present trends in the application of various levels of integrated ticketing, and integrated baggage, noting the lessons learned from the first two parts; this examination includes a case study of the ambitious programs in operation at the Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station. A tabular summary is presented of major programs to unify air and rail through various baggage and ticketing strategies. Four categories of projects are presented: • • • •

Service from a downtown terminal to the local airport, with baggage Service from a downtown terminal to an airport in another city, with baggage Service to the local airport, no baggage Baggage check-in at points adjacent to the airport

Chapter 5 includes an analysis of the ridership impact that resulted from the abandonment of the elaborate downtown check-in facility at London’s Paddington rail station, serving the Heathrow Express. The market data show that there has been no visible negative impact on rail ridership on the Heathrow Express attributable to the abandonment of the check-in services at Paddington. In fact, between 2001, when the first airlines began to abandon the check-in services, and 2004, when the process was over, mode share increased by about one-tenth. After the events of September 11, the airline industry went through major reorganization and major shifts occurred in travel patterns worldwide. These changes (more reliance on discount airlines, for example) may be expected to cause changes in ground access patterns in some parallel way. The market data in Chapter 5 show that, in the case of the high-priced premium Heathrow Express, such parallel change simply did not happen.

Applying Market Research to Airport Ground Access Chapter 6 focuses on the role of market research in planning public transportation services to airports. After an overview of market research techniques, a two-step approach is presented, using geographic and demographic information to better understand potential ground access markets. The previous airport studies (TCRP Report 62 and TCRP Report 83) concluded that there is no one market for airport ground transportation services: there are a series of clearly definable submarkets, or market segments, each of which requires specific services based on the analysis of need. This report advocates the creation of a planning process based on the needs of the traveler without regard to initial assumptions about the desirability of any given mode. In such a process, the needs of each market segment (a concept that includes both geographic location and demographic composition) have to be analyzed separately, with an appropriate service created for each segment. The attributes of good airport connections, good line-haul connections to downtown, good coverage beyond the downtown, and the need to accommodate baggage are all characteristics of services that could be supplied with bus or rail. It is a central theme of this report that a new planning process should be encouraged—one that does not focus on the applicability of any one mode, or even debates the relative characteristics of modes, but a process wherein the service attributes would be developed from an understanding of the separate needs of the separate submarkets existing at all airports. Developing a Market Research Study Before undertaking a market research study, the airport manager should develop a clear and unambiguous problem statement. The problem statement defines the purpose of the

9

10

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

market research effort. For example, the following statement describes the basic information needed to begin a study of alternative modes of access: “What is the geographical distribution of this airport’s ground access market and the current modes of access used by the various market segments?” The principles of a market research–based planning process are examined in detail in Chapter 6, which documents five steps: • • • • •

Step 1: Decide What Information to Collect Step 2: Select the Data Collection Method Step 3: Determine the Sampling Frame and Sampling Method Step 4: Develop the Questionnaire Step 5: Summarize and Analyze the Results

This project advocates the application of a two-phase market research process based on first geographical segmentation, followed by demographic segmentation. Observing Geographic Market Characteristics First This report examines the nature of airport market segments and documents the characteristics of markets that support various forms of successful airport ground access transportation. This documentation is largely, but not totally, based on the careful examination of geographic trip-end density. The analyst is encouraged to create definitions of submarkets that are meaningful for the markets revealed by the initial exploration of the data. In the United States, the analyst is likely to find: •

A densely clustered market of airport trip origins, potentially supportive of fixed-route and -schedule services, possibly ranging from simple hotel loops to regional rapid transit; this area is the downtown market, but there may be several “downtowns” in a given airport market area. • An exurban market of highly dispersed trip origins that can be intercepted in regional points of collection where the operation of high-density shared-ride door-to-door service is extremely challenging; these points of collection can include large parking lots or small hotel lobbies. • A “middle market,” where clustering of trip origins is not dense enough to support the classic forms of fixed-route and -schedule service, where shorter trip lengths are not conducive to long-headway park-and-ride solutions, and where shared-ride door-to-door services can succeed in attaining high levels of vehicle occupancy. Along the way the analyst, supported by the market research data, will often find other markets—perhaps dominated by a center of education or a center of medical activity—and examine strategies to deal with each of the submarkets identified in the analysis. Adding Demographic Market Characteristics Categories of Trip Purpose

The survey must be designed to support geographic segmentation and demographic segmentation. The point of origin must be defined with enough clarity that it can be integrated with geographic information systems. The origin of the ground access trip can be determined by either the zip code of origin or an address specific enough to support geocoding in the data entry process. The designer of the survey must deal with a basic trade-off between the amount of data desired and the need to keep the survey short. Specific trip purposes such as medical, personal business, school, or vacation, are not needed

Summary

for airport access analyses. For the survey, the most important trip purpose differentiation is simply “business” versus “non-business.” Categories of Residential Status

The second element of the demographic segmentation concerns the residential status of the traveler. As documented in Chapter 2, the mode choice decision of the traveler at the non-home end of the full trip is fundamentally different than the mode choice decision in the geographic area in which the traveler resides. The level of automobile availability (whether for the drop-off mode or the drive–park mode) is substantially higher at the home end than at the non-home end of the trip. In addition, the level of familiarity with the details of the public transportation system is usually much lower at the non-home end of the trip. For these reasons, the survey must be designed to properly differentiate between the traveler commencing the ground access trip in his/her own residential area and the traveler commencing the trip in the non-home end of the journey. Market segmentation by geographic area, and then by demographic characteristics, is a powerful tool that allows the analyst to understand market conditions on a more disaggregate basis. It allows the comparison of “apples to apples,” which in turn can reveal pronounced differences in market behavior by parallel market groups in different cities, and on different continents. It allows many variables to be held constant, while highlighting legitimate differences between target groups. Most important, the application of the two levels of market segmentation allows the transportation manager to carefully design services that will attract more people into efficient, higher occupancy modes for airport ground access. The Role of Market Research Market research is used in all sectors of today’s economy to identify and target selected markets, to gain a competitive edge, to classify and retain customers, and even to determine the lifetime value of selected customer groups. With an ever-increasing number of products and services, the consumer market has become highly fragmented. Increasingly, identifying and targeting selected groups of customers has become important rather than trying to serve the entire market. In the same way, classifying air travelers according to factors known to affect ground access decisions can help airport managers understand how different types of public transportation service will appeal to targeted travel groups. By providing a detailed understanding about the access needs of air travelers, market research can help airport managers plan successful public transportation services. Chapter 6 outlines a method for identifying, classifying, and understanding the air traveler on the basis of his or her ground access trip to and from the airport.

Managing the Airport Landside System Chapter 7 reviews strategies for managing ground transportation services, including measures to enhance public transportation services. The chapter further examines the operational and institutional challenges for implementing these strategies and identifies potential funding sources. Airport Ground Transportation Management Strategies Most airport managers require all operators of commercial ground transportation services doing business at the airport to enter into a formal business relationship with the airport

11

12

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

authority or operating agency. (In most communities, any vehicle is allowed to drop off passengers at the airport, but only authorized or permitted vehicles are allowed to pick up customers.) Typically, commercial vehicle operators are required to obtain an airport permit in order to do business at the airport. By obtaining and signing the airport permit, the commercial vehicle operator indicates its willingness to abide by the rules and regulations established by airport management and to pay certain specified fees. Airport rules typically regulate (1) the use of airport roadways and other facilities; (2) the age, condition, and minimum insurance coverage for the vehicles used to transport customers; and (3) the behavior and appearance of the drivers or representatives of the commercial vehicle operators. Sources of Funding FAA grant assurances require major airports in the United States to be financially selfsustaining. Accordingly, rentals, fees, and charges must cover all operating and capital costs, including retirement of debt. The capital requirements of airports are significant today and are expected to increase in the future. The main sources of funds to build airport-oriented projects are reviewed in Chapter 7.

Improving Public Transportation Mode Share for Employees Airport employees represent a large potential market for public transportation. The average number of daily employees at major U.S. airports can exceed 40,000. There are a number of challenges, however, to implementing successful public transportation services for airport employees. First, airports are usually located in suburban locations that can be difficult to serve with traditional transit services. Second, airports are in operation 24 hours a day, and many work shifts do not coincide with typical transit schedules. Third, airports have multiple employers each of whom has a variety of constraints and regulations regarding shift timing, parking reimbursement, overtime, etc. Taken together, these challenges can affect employee mode choice. Chapter 8 discusses factors that influence employee use of public transportation, summarizes the results of a survey of the employee commuting patterns at representative airports, and presents key considerations for improving employee public transportation mode share at airports.

Getting Ground Access Information to the Traveler Over the past 5 years, there has been a revolution in the way that airports can present ground transportation options to their passengers. Tools and media that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago are now readily available to the airport manager interested in creating better public mode ground transportation strategies to the airport. Chapter 9 examines those tools and those media in the context of the central theme of the report: that planning and implementation of ground access services must be undertaken to meet the needs of the user as defined and refined in a program of market research and segmentation. Chapter 9 examines the development of new and evolving information technology to bring airport ground access information and ticketing options to the traveler. The presentation of service options to the traveler is the last phase of an integrated program of market-based improvements to airport ground access public modes, as summarized in Chapter 1.

Summary

Information about Ground Access at the Time of Trip Planning To an increasing extent, airline trip planning is either (1) accomplished by the traveler using the Internet or (2) accomplished by a travel advisor to the traveler using the Internet. Thus, Chapter 9 focuses on the manner in which airport websites are or are not providing high-quality information to the traveler (or advisor) about ground access services to/from the specific airport. Ultimately, information about local airport services will be interconnected with other media and tools used in the trip planning process. If each airport website can accurately describe the ground transportation services available at that airport, integration of that information with other media used by the traveler (such as airline websites, Expedia, Travelocity, Google, etc.) will logically occur over time. Airport managers will need to provide to the traveler several different kinds of ground transportation information, not only information about airport-managed, -regulated, and -monitored ground services that are operated specifically for the airport market— taxis, airport limousines, airport vans, and airport coach bus services (sometimes called “airporters”)—but also information about the regional public transportation system in general, including service details that are far beyond the responsibility of airport management. Thus, one of the challenges in the design of the airport-based website on the subject of ground access services is the need to provide direct, quick access both to those services that are well documented by airport management and to those services that are best organized and described by others in the region. Ground Access Information on Airport Websites Amsterdam

At Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, a new ground access information program now provides for a seamless integration of trip planning for ground access services managed by the airport with those services not managed by the airport. In concept, the new website is remarkably similar to the experimental airport ground access module being developed for the Baltimore/Washington International Airport. When the website user specifies a destination and a date, a sketch-level summary of all the travel options to that destination is presented. The user selects a mode for more information and then can proceed linearly to the process of buying/reserving the service. The Schiphol Airport trip planner is integrated in terms of all modal options and in terms of supporting reservations and sales. Narita

At about the same time that Amsterdam Schiphol Airport was taking the lead in integrating all ground access information, a new approach was launched by the ambitious e-airport program described in TCRP Report 83. Under the e-airport program, Narita Airport has developed the first ground access trip planning system that is tied to specific airline flights. Through a series of queries, the Narita Airport website user is offered a long list of hotels and rail stations in the area. With the ground access departure time established by the scheduled arrival/departure time of the plane (via an Official Airline Guide static schedule), the user informs the system of his/her willingness to use bus, rail, or premium rail, and a set of recommended ground access trips are offered timed to the specific airplane flight.

13

14

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

London Heathrow

The ground transportation section of the Heathrow Airport website offers a link to the United Kingdom’s national program of traveler information called “Transport Direct.” The program provides both public transportation and automobile trip planning from every point in the UK to every point in the UK through a remarkable assembly and integration of national and local trip planning systems and databases. The program reviews all possible combinations of modal segments. The British program has the ability to include air as well as ground segments, although this is not relevant to the discussion of trip planning from the airport. Importantly, the program also includes travel times for automobile trips, which serves as a surrogate for taxi travel times in this context. Transport Direct can offer ground transportation advice between all airports in the UK and any point in the UK. Baltimore/Washington

The Baltimore/Washington International Airport passenger information project seeks to use map-based interactions to simplify the airport ground access trip itinerary planning process, while at the same allowing for text-based data entry for those who prefer it. The project, which has been under development for several years, provides the traveler with immediate access to readily accessible information, followed by additional screens and hyperlinks to external sources only when needed and selected by the user. Thus, the airportbased website provides the user with an immediate summary of all modal options from the airport to the specified destination—including airport-based vans, as well as rail service provided by Amtrak, MARC, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority MetroRail. In many cases, the potential users of public mode services simply do not know that highquality alternatives to the automobile and taxi exist. The U.S. transit industry is now in the process of adopting highly effective origin–destination trip itinerary planning systems that show how any given trip, such as one to or from the airport, can be accomplished by public transportation. In Europe, these programs have been applied on a nationwide and even international scale. As yet, the full integration of ground transportation information with aviation-based passenger information has yet to be implemented anywhere. Planners implementing information systems should consider the needs of later systems that truly integrate information for all modes and provide for immediate ticket sales for all segments of the longer distance trip.

Further Research The recommendations for further research presented in Chapter 10 are categorized by the six-step process described in Chapter 1.

CHAPTER 1

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access The airport manager faces a wide variety of challenges in the creation of a successful ground transportation strategy, which almost certainly will comprise several separate services to respond to the needs of several separate market segments. This chapter reviews the key steps for improving public transportation access to U.S. airports and presents some information that is further developed in later chapters. Six steps are in the process outlined in this chapter: 1. Establish the public policy goals for airport ground access (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 2). • Form the collaborative effort that will be needed for implementation. • Understand the travel behavior of the longer distance traveler. 2. Undertake the program for data gathering and system monitoring (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 6). • Design the survey to reveal key market characteristics. • Emphasize accurate geography and market segmentation for both air passengers and airport employees. 3. Understand the markets revealed and their relationship to candidate solutions (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 6). • Understand the composition of the overall airport market. • Establish the target markets at several levels of trip-end density. • Understand the precedents for market support of various modes and services. 4. Design a program of services and strategies for airport ground access (a theme that is further developed in Chapters 3 and 4). • Understand the quality attributes achieved by successful services. • Match modes with markets. • Acknowledge the role for dedicated, higher cost services. 5. Manage the airport to encourage rather than discourage higher occupancy use (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 7). • Examine priorities and implications of curbside allocation and pricing. • Evaluate the level of amenity experienced by the public mode user. 6. Present the ground access services to the traveler (a theme that is further developed in Chapter 9). • Provide basic service description to the users. • Develop programs for integrated passenger information and ticketing.

15

16

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Key Challenges in Step 1 • Identify the key stakeholders and get them to the table • Determine the extent to which the problem requires a regional solution • Directly involve the managers of the regional transportation planning process • Undertake early planning activities to allow for later incorporation into environmental documentation • Understand the travel demand behavior of the longer distance traveler

Step 1: Establish the Public Policy Goals for Airport Ground Access Define the Stakeholders and Get Them to the Table In the first step of this six-step process, it is essential to establish a collaborative initiative to implement improved public transportation services for airport access. Such establishment will require locating the key players, bringing them to the table, gaining agreement on the public policy goals of the proposed policies, and establishing a basic understanding of the nature of the problem being faced. This step establishes a regional context for decision making. Preparing to address airport ground access involves many stakeholders including managers of airports, operators of public transportation, operators of private transportation, managers of the roadway system, and managers of the regional transportation planning process. In addition to the transportation agencies, other organizations are critical to the improvement of public transportation access to airports. These agencies—including those with environmental approval powers, the power to change taxi regulations, and the ability to subsidize transit services designed to link workers with jobs—all have a role to play in a coordinated strategy to improve airport ground access. The early involvement of the agencies with environmental review power cannot be overstated, as results from the planning process are often integrated into key environmental documents. One transportation leader recently told Congress: “. . . we have begun to realize that no institution ‘owns’ the congestion or safety problem at the local level or state level, and no institution has the right players around the table such that they could be accountable for the daily performance of the system.” This observation is particularly true for the subject of improved airport ground access; yet, someone has to get the right players around the table, and someone has to be accountable for the performance of the system. In some cases, leadership can be provided by a strong regional planning agency, such as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area or the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) in Washington, D.C., both of which have strong roles in airport planning. In most cases, leadership must come from the managers of the airports themselves.

Coordinate with the Regional Planning Process The parties need to define the extent to which the ground access issues are regional in nature, as this will affect the number of stakeholders needed at the table. Many on-airport improvements can be managed at a very local level, but others will require a broader based coalition to deal with the issues that are clearly regional in nature. For those issues that require a multiagency response, it is critical to involve the managers of the regional planning process, usually the regional metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Failure to do this will result in serious problems in obtaining funding and needed environmental clearances. The Role of the Congestion Management System Within the established metropolitan transportation planning process, there are several procedures that are critical for the successful integration between the project-specific activities and the regional requirements. Many metropolitan areas, particularly those with air pollution issues of non-attainment, require the creation of a Congestion Management System (CMS) by the region’s MPO. The role of the CMS is to document significant sources of congestion and low system performance and to examine a wide variety of strategic solutions to the problem, only the

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

last of which is the addition of roadway capacity. Indeed, in areas of non-attainment, federal funding can only be used for roadway capacity increases that result from the completion of the CMS. At the very least, the managers of the airport access improvement strategy should be working closely with regional managers of the CMS. At this point, the regional planning must focus on the unique demands that will be placed on the data collection and analysis process for improving public transportation access to an airport. Usually, the travel demand forecasting process used in the metropolitan planning organization is focused on the needs of the peak-hour commuting period. The existing databases may or may not be structured to deal with the needs of the longer distance traveler. Traditional forms of U.S. Census journey-to-work data will be of only limited value to the analysis of airport access. MPOs may or may not be prepared to analyze the transportation behavior patterns of the longer distance traveler, in this case the air traveler. Preparation for Major Investments In the event that the planning process may result in a major capital investment, the early planning should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the requirements of the later creation of either an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact. In either case, the rules for formal scoping and for the public participatory process must be established in the earliest phase of the planning process. In particular, the early examination and narrowing of alternatives must be undertaken consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, as part of a publicly visible process; lack of attention to the legal requirements of process at this point risks the invalidation of later results from court challenges. For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, clearly any major attempt at applying regional resources to improving public mode services to airports must be either initiated by the regional planning body or closely coordinated with others in the region having the statutory authority for transportation planning. The planning effort to improve public transportation services to the airport should be included in the Unified Planning Work Program approved by the MPO, regardless of whether federal funds are proposed in the planning or implementation efforts. Indeed, recent funding legislation requires that the operators of airports be members of the MPO. Design Analysis Tools for the Longer Distance Trip The tools of analysis must be applied to understand the particular travel demand behavior of the traveler taking a longer distance, multimodal, multisegment trip. From the outset, the analysts need to see the problem in terms of the full trip of the traveler. The choice of a mode to or from an airport is part of a larger set of decisions made in the process of going from the door of origin to the door of destination of the full trip. It is critically important to establish early in the process that the needs of the long-distance traveler most probably will require solutions that are not simply extensions and elaborations on service concepts already provided for the metropolitan context. The operation of traditional, low-fare, multistop street bus service to major airports may be a critically important element of a program to get workers to jobs, but such services only rarely have the ability to attract air travelers. The long-distance traveler makes logical and rational economic decisions, and those decisions are different from those made in daily commuting. The longer distance traveler is making a different set of decisions from those of the metropolitan-scale traveler. These decisions are different in terms of uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the non-home end of the trip. The decisions are different because of the amount of baggage being carried by the traveler, the traveler’s sense of apprehension about the reliability of the trip and arriving on time, and the total trip costs.

17

18

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

To the extent possible, those crafting new strategies to divert air travelers away from lowoccupancy vehicle strategies should familiarize themselves with the experience of others around the world who have created successful airport ground access services. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 were created to help transfer the lessons learned from major airport ground access systems around the world for application by the U.S. airport manager.

Best Practices in the United States: Establishing the Process The following practices are some of the many good examples of coordination with the regional transportation planning organizations that exist in the United States: • The role of the San Francisco Bay MTC in the planning of airport access improvements in the

Bay Area and in continued management of the ground access surveying process. • The role of the Denver Regional Council of Governments in undertaking a comprehensive

Key Challenges in Step 2 • Develop the data-gathering instrument • Document the geographic segmentation for the ground access trips • Document the demographic segmentation for the ground access trips • Commit to an ongoing program to monitor the performance of the system • Develop measures of performance for the airport ground access system

examination of ground access issues for Denver’s new airport. • The role of the MWCOG in the analysis of the implications of continued and expected airport

growth, expressed in terms of projected ground access flows. • The role of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in the formulation

of aviation policy in the Los Angeles region.

Step 2: Undertake the Program of Data Gathering and System Monitoring In Step 2, the airport manager must create a database upon which to plan and monitor the services and facilities for improved airport access. This step is critical because the improvements to airport access must be based on a clear understanding of the market behavior of the several submarkets for airport ground access services. The airport ground access survey is the primary tool used to gain the information needed for a market-driven, traveler-oriented process. Decisions can then be made on a modally unbiased basis stemming from the analysis of the needs of the traveler. This process cannot be commenced without high-quality data describing just who those travelers are and where they are coming from. The evaluation of a given service should be examined in terms of its performance in its own logical catchment area, not in terms of mode share for an entire airport. As described in Chapter 6, it is important to establish a market description of that subset of travelers for whom the proposed service is relevant. Targeted market segments should be defined and services designed for their particular needs; success or failure of those services should be established in terms of the capture rate within the targeted market group. A specialized van service from a hospital complex to an airport, for example, should be evaluated on the basis of how well it attracts riders from its specified market area, not on its performance in the entire airport ground access market. For any given service under evaluation, there will be a geographic area where that service makes sense as a logical choice and a geographic area where that service makes no sense at all. The airport ground access survey is the essential backbone of the market-driven planning process. Such a survey can be expected to cost between $100,000 and $300,000. Without this information, the process of matching services to market needs cannot be undertaken.

Data Collection for the Airport Ground Access Survey The application of market research methods to airport ground access, including survey procedures, is presented in detail in Chapter 6. Key issues for data collection include the exact

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

geographic origin of the ground access trip, time of day, the trip purpose, and the residency status of the traveler. TCRP Report 62 (16) describes the use of additional market research techniques, including focus groups. A comprehensive process of market research can include both survey methods that rely on “stated preference” and methods that rely on “revealed preference.” Demographic Elements Categories of Trip Purpose. The survey must be designed to support geographic segmentation and demographic segmentation. The point of origin must be defined with enough clarity that it can be integrated with geographic information systems. The origin of the ground access trip can be determined by either the zip code of origin or an address specific enough to support geocoding in the data entry process. The designer of the survey must deal with a basic trade-off between the amount of data desired and the need to keep the survey short. Specific trip purposes such as medical, personal business, school, or vacation are not needed for analyses of airport access. For the airport access survey, the most important trip purpose differentiation is simply “business” versus “non-business.” Categories of Residential Status. The second element of the demographic segmentation concerns the residential status of the traveler. As documented in Chapter 2, the mode choice decision of the traveler at the non-home end of the full trip is fundamentally different than the mode choice decision in the geographic area in which the traveler resides. The level of automobile availability (whether for the drop-off mode or the drive–park mode) is substantially higher at the home end than at the non-home end of the trip. In addition, the level of familiarity with the details of the public transportation system is usually much lower at the non-home end of the trip. For these reasons, the survey must be designed to properly differentiate between the traveler commencing the ground access trip in his/her own residential area and the traveler commencing the trip in the non-home end of the journey. With these two elements of information, all travelers can be easily categorized into four clearly defined market segments, sometimes referred to as “the four-cell matrix.” The market research process recommended in this project requires the creation of these demographic market segments: • • • •

Resident business Resident non-business Non-resident business Non-resident non-business

Why Look at Separate Market Segments? These four separate market segments can be applied to a wide cross section of U.S. and European/ Asian airport ground access markets. Importantly, none of these categories can be applied as a “cookie cutter” approach to predicting behavior. The four market segments allow several subsets of the market to be observed separately. Successful strategies offer a variety of public mode services, at a variety of prices. At a given airport, a multistop bus service at less than $2 will appeal to a different market than a door-to-door shared-ride service for $15. At Baltimore/Washington International Airport during peak hours, travelers are offered multistop MARC commuter rail services to Union Station for $5 or Amtrak Acela service for more than $30. Some travelers will choose the first train out (at the higher cost), while others will wait for the lower priced rail service. Their choice is influenced by their demographic market segment. Danger Areas in Data Collection The designers of the survey should be aware of the particular data collection pitfalls that exist for airport access. For the analysis of traffic flow, a category called “bus/limousine/van” may be

19

20

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

a reasonable definition. However, for the analysis of public transportation patterns, it is critical to separate publicly available buses and vans from limousine service not available for shared-ride purposes. Similarly, the question “What mode do you usually take to the airport?” gets a different response from that of the preferred formation, “On your last trip to the airport—and only that trip—what mode did you take?” A survey bias towards socially desired behavior patterns occurs on the first question.

Data Collection to Monitor the Performance of the System The measurement of performance of the system is a very important output from the data collection process. A classic example of a commitment to measurement exists in the contractual relationship between the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) and the Conservation Law Foundation, a non-profit environmental organization. The simplest, and most basic, commitment is to the continual monitoring and measurement of mode share to the airport and to the volume of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with airport access. For such a program, it is critical to monitor the actual vehicle volumes throughout the airport roadway system; the accurate calculation of VMT will require both traffic counts by vehicle classification and the kind of origin-destination information only made available by the Ground Access Survey. A very basic example of a system of performance measurement was developed by Massport in the mid-1980s. Table 1-1 shows the number of vehicle trips on the roadway created by one air traveler gaining access to the Boston airport on the ground system by various modes. Each of the values was calculated empirically from observed occupancy and load factors for each of the modes. In the evaluation of the performance of the system, a given strategy was considered to be beneficial if it moved the traveler to a more efficient mode (i.e., down the rows of the table) rather than to a less efficient mode (i.e., up the rows of the table). The implications of some changes in travel behavior are intuitively obvious; a new express bus service that diverts a traveler away from his/her former drive–park mode is a more efficient mode and is evaluated positively. But not all implications of mode changes are intuitively obvious. If, for example, on-airport parking rates are set extremely high to discourage the use of drive–park, the implications of the resulting mode change are not so clear. If that trip is diverted to pick-up/drop-off mode, the implications for vehicle miles traveled are highly negative, and the candidate practice is evaluated negatively. The program of monitoring performance must be designed to record such subtle changes in travel behavior.

Table 1-1. Measures of effectiveness in Massport program: ground access vehicle trips per air traveler trip. Mode Pick-up/Drop-off

Vehicle trips per air traveler trips 1.29

Taxi

1.09

Drive–park

0.74

Rental car

0.69

Door-to-door van

0.33

Scheduled bus

0.10

Rapid transit

0.00

SOURCE: Massachusetts Port Authority, “Logan International Airport, Ground Access Non-Pricing Study, Second Report to the Conservation Law Foundation,” 1991.

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

21

Best Practices in the United States: Continuing Survey Programs Some of the most comprehensive survey programs in operation at the world’s airports are located in the United States. The following programs are good examples of commitments to monitoring the performance of the system through surveys: • The Air Passenger Survey Program of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which

operates the largest and most comprehensive data-gathering program for airport ground access in the country. • The historic role of Massport, the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, and the Conservation Law Foundation to establish a commitment to continuous monitoring of the performance of the ground access system to the Boston airport. • The airport passenger survey program of the MWCOG, which integrates air survey data into the regional transportation planning process in Washington, D.C., and parts of Maryland and Virginia.

Step 3: Interpret the Markets and their Relationship to Candidate Modes The most basic question in market research for airport ground access is “Where are they coming from?”. Different airports have different fingerprints that identify their ground characteristics. Some have highly dispersed origins. Some have highly dense ground access origins. Forming an understanding of those patterns is a critical step in the development of solutions for airport ground access. Geographic information systems now allow analysts to interact with the data and create locally derived categories of trip-end density. With these tools, each analyst can develop methods of revealing natural market patterns appropriate to the needs of the analysis. Logically, analysts examining distribution patterns in Manhattan would select different breaking points for data categorization than analysts examining Denver.

Geographic Scale of the Airport Ground Access Markets Some airports attract most of their patrons from a relatively compact geographic area, while others draw their patrons from vast geographic areas. The geographic scale of the airport’s catchment area provides an early indication of the nature of the density patterns to be dealt with in the development of successful ground access services. This report defines the primary market area for the airport as a whole as that area composed of zones with more than 5 airport trips per square mile, by all modes. This definition has proven to be an effective way of focusing attention on those areas where empirically some 70% of the airport’s ground transportation customers originate. In the densely developed area served by Reagan Washington National Airport, the geographic area composed of zones with at least 5 trip ends per square mile covers only 484 square miles. In the highly suburbanized geography of Los Angeles International Airport, the area composed of zones with at least 5 trip ends per square mile spreads over 1,500 square miles. These highly aggregated observations about the overall nature of the ground transportation market can be made early in the process and reveal much about the nature of the challenge of pairing airport access services to market segments. However, to understand the ability of markets to support specific services, the total airport market must be disaggregated into at least three categories of trip-end density.

Key Challenges in Step 3 • Determine the density characteristics of the overall ground access market • Define a geographic area with more than 50 trip ends per square mile and understand the nature of the market within this area • Define a geographic area with less than 5 trip ends per square mile and understand the nature of the market within this area • Define a geographic area with between 5 and 50 trip ends and understand the nature of the market within this area • Analyze how each of the three market areas may require different kinds of services

22

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Three Categories of Trip-End Density For the purpose of this research project, three basic categories of trip-end density have been created: • Less than 5 airport trip ends per square mile • Between 5 and 50 airport trip ends per square mile • More than 50 airport trip ends per square mile

Each of the three categories has its own challenges. As will be discussed in Step 4, the empirical data suggest that providing services from door to door at trip-end densities of less than 5 trip ends per square mile is extremely difficult and may result in shared-ride services producing basically low-occupancy taxi services under a different name. The examination of geographic areas composed of zones with at least 50 airport trip ends per square mile provides a point of departure for further analysis concerning possible markets for traditional fixed-route and -schedule service. The existence of geographic areas with more than 50 trip ends per square mile is necessary but not sufficient to support these services. Having defined the geographic area of more than 50 trip ends per square mile, the analyst can further explore the characteristics of density within this geographic area, which vary considerably among U.S. airports. Table 1-2 ranks 10 of the 27 most transit-oriented U.S. airports in order of the portion of their ground transportation markets originating in zones with densities greater than 50 trip ends per square mile. Airports Ranked by Orientation to Areas of High Trip-End Density Fixed-route and -schedule service requires a certain density of trip ends to operate at reasonable headways. Table 1-2 shows that, of U.S. airports, only San Francisco International Airport and Reagan Washington National Airport have a majority of trip origins coming from the densest category, those areas with more than 50 trip ends per square mile. The use of the category “more than 50 trip ends per square mile” is a surrogate to describe the market areas most susceptible to higher occupancy public mode solutions. It is a first step in the process of identifying specific service proposals, ranging from scheduled hotel loop service (appropriate to most large airports) to full-scale regional rail transit coverage (applicable to a small number of airports), such as Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). Whereas the first data column of Table 1-2 summarizes the extent to which an airport is oriented to the highest category of trip density, the second column provides more information about the trip-end density within that geographic area. This information is needed to assess the ability of the market to support fixed-route and -schedule services and can be used as an indicator of the potential for high-capacity service to be successful. By far the airports with the greatest concentration of trip ends are in New York with more than 400 trip ends per square mile for this analysis area. At the other extreme, the low trip-end densities for analysis areas in Los Angeles are particularly cautionary in the context of markets to support fixed-route and -schedule services throughout the defined area.

Density and Market Support Associated with Specific Modes Next, the analyst should review the existing data concerning the trip-end densities that are supportive of various forms of airport ground access services. Looking at the existing services and market support conditions, what do we know about the correlation between trip-end density and specific modal service? What mode shares can be expected within specifically targeted geographic areas? While many factors contribute, clearly volume (and density) of trip ends are critical elements in understanding the ability of specific markets to support specific modal services.

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

Table 1-2.

U.S. airports ranked by orientation to dense urban market.

Airport

Percentage of airport ground origins from zones with more than 50 trip ends per square mile

Trip-end density from these zones, as trip ends per square mile

Daily air travelers from these zones

San Francisco

57%

225

18,000

Reagan National

52%

216

9,840

New York LaGuardia

49%

409

11,700

New York JFK

44%

310

10,450

Boston

35%

210

9,300

Los Angeles

33%

77

12,970

Washington Dulles

30%

110

4,280

Denver

29%

100

8,600

Seattle

28%

126

4,700

Tampa

25%

126

3,025

SOURCE: TCRP Report 83, MarketSense.

A key conclusion of TCRP Report 62 (16) and TCRP Report 83 (47) is that the overall mode share for an entire airport does not reveal the extent to which a given strategy may or may not be working; it does not provide the basis on which to analyze the performance of specific services. Rather, each candidate service needs to be examined in terms of a catchment area in which the service is a logical choice for the traveler. Using this market research technique, Chapter 6 reviews a set of specific services in the Washington, D.C., area in the context of their logical catchment area. Air Traveler Markets Supportive of Rail Services TCRP Report 83 calculated that the primary geographic market for rail services for air travelers to Boston’s airport is characterized by a density of 150 total airport trip ends per square mile. Within this logical catchment area, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) rail services attain a mode share of 16% of the air travelers to Boston’s airport. The same analysis process has determined that the prime geographic market for rail services to Reagan Washington National Airport is characterized by a density of 125 total airport trip ends per square mile. Within this logical catchment area, WMATA rail services attain a mode share of 13% of air travelers to Reagan Washington National Airport. Air Traveler Markets Supportive of Regional Collection Points Primary geographic markets were calculated for airport express bus services from regional collection points serving airports in Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Support for these dedicated airport bus services was found in geographic market areas with less than 5 trip ends per square mile. The Van Nuys FlyAway bus service to Los Angeles International Airport was supported by a market area with 8 trip ends per square mile. Express bus services from regional collection points to Boston’s airport attained more than 20% mode share in their markets, while the Marin Airporter (San Francisco) captured more than 30% of its primary market area. Similar strong markets are reported from other data sources for longer distance bus and van services serving New York John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Boston airports. Air Traveler Markets Supportive of Door-to-Door Services In both Seattle and Oakland, the logical catchment areas for door-to-door van services were characterized by airport trip-end densities averaging about 15 trip ends per square mile. A market area

23

24

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

south of the San Francisco International Airport supported door-to-door van service with a trip-end density of 24 trips per square mile, while the Los Angeles primary market supported door-to-door services with an average of 27 trips ends per square mile. Door-to-door vans capture a variety of mode shares from their respective logical catchment areas. Mode shares of less than 10% are attained in Los Angeles, Boston, Seattle, and the market area south of San Francisco International Airport. Mode shares of about 20% are attained in the City of San Francisco, and in the Oakland market. While there are clearly densities below which door-to-door van services cannot be supported, they are able to serve in areas of high density. Van services operate with strong market performance in the City of San Francisco in a market area with more than 300 trip ends per square mile. Markets Supporting Exclusive Airport Buses to Downtown Examples of airport-oriented bus services from downtown hotel and major activity centers have existed in most major U.S. airports, serving a wide variety of downtown trip-end densities. While these buses serve central business district (CBD) densities as high as 500 trip ends per square mile in Boston or New York, they also serve the smallest of downtowns. As buses have considerable flexibility in their operating patterns, this research effort has not established a lower level support threshold under which services cannot operate. Advanced downtown bus services, such as the Airport Express in New Orleans, have shown exceptionally strong market capture rates.

The Need for a Composite Approach The market analysis process examines the strength of specific markets to support airport ground access services and provides hints as to the modes best matched to those markets. While the details of effective market segmentation will vary from airport to airport, it is fair to say that a comprehensive strategy to deal with U.S. airport ground access must deal with at least three geographic submarkets. • A Dense Urban Market. Clearly, there is a geographic area of highest trip-end density, some

portions of which may support fixed-route and -schedule services. There is no empirical evidence that zones with less than 50 trip ends per square mile can support such services on their own. Successful rail services have been observed in market areas of far more than 100 trip ends per square mile. Hotel loop buses serve small geographic areas, with highly compact markets: Seattle’s Gray Line Express serves a hotel-oriented concentration of more than 400 trip ends per square mile. Boston’s CBD generates more than 500 trip ends per square mile, supporting both rail and hotel loop services. • An Exurban Market. Clearly, significant portions of the overall airport market come from large geographic areas where collection services need to be provided by means other than the vehicle providing line-haul services to the airport. Express services dedicated to the needs of the air traveler are supported by immediate market areas with trip-end densities less than 10 trip ends per square mile and provide park-and-ride availability to those coming from areas of very low trip-end density. • A Middle Market. Finally, there is a category for which upper and lower boundaries are less clear. It is the largest of the three categories for U.S. airport ground access: zones of origin generally more than 5 and less than 50 trip ends per square mile. As discussed in Step 4, this market may be the most difficult to serve.

Best Practices in the United States: Examples of Market Types at U.S. Airports The wide variety of market types in the United States serves to illustrate the importance of designing a cross section of services. In the United States, airport markets cannot be characterized

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

as either all exurban in nature or all urban in nature. The following airports are good illustrative examples of three types of markets: • An Airport Oriented to a Dense Urban Market. To San Francisco International Airport, the

majority of trips come from areas in which airport trip ends are densely concentrated: about 18,000 air travelers come from zones with more than 50 trip ends per square mile; this area has an overall average of about 225 trip ends per square mile. San Francisco has the nation’s single largest market for airport trips from the kind of highly concentrated trip ends that can be served by a variety of fixed-route and -schedule modes, including rail. • An Airport Oriented to an Exurban Market. To Denver International Airport, more than 9,000 air travelers come from zones that have trip densities of less than 5 trips per square mile. Of the 27 most transit-oriented U.S. airports, Denver’s airport had the highest volume of “exurban” trip ends, which come from highly dispersed zones of origin. • An Airport Oriented to a Middle Market. To Los Angeles International Airport, the majority of airport trips come from market areas that are neither dense nor exurban in nature: about 21,000 air travelers originate in areas with less than 50 trip ends per square mile but more than 5 trip ends per square mile; this area has an overall average of about 15 trip ends per square mile. This area represents the United States’ largest market for medium-density modes, such as door-to-door vans.

Step 4: Design a Program of Services and Strategies for Airport Ground Access Having established an understanding of the nature of the markets for airport access services, a ground access strategy can be developed to include a set of services appropriate to the submarkets revealed. During this step, a set of candidate modal services must be selected, determined by the needs of the travelers and by the ability of the markets to support specific services. At this point, decisions must be made between investment in rail versus bus systems. The decision about whether to build a rail system to a U.S. airport may be driven more by the overall public transportation strategy of the region rather than by airport access needs in isolation. When a region, such as San Francisco, has invested heavily in downtown rail distribution services and other regional connections through the system, extension of that system to cover the airport can be seen as part of a regional transportation strategy. By contrast, when the rail services do not currently serve a major role in a bigger network of collection and distribution, the investment in a stand-alone rail system to the airport may not make sense. In this phase of the process of improving public modes to major airports, services must be designed to achieve certain service quality attributes revealed in the analysis of successful systems around the world. Chapter 3 summarizes a set of attributes that are important for services. Those attributes are not specifically tied to the choice of bus versus rail but rather describe the needs of the traveler without regard to mode or technology.

Lessons Learned from Successful Systems The key lessons from the analysis of international systems presented in Chapter 3 do not form an argument for or against rail solutions in the United States. The key issue is to understand the attributes of service from the European experience and to design services that deal with those attributes. Each of the four attribute areas defined in that chapter can be reviewed for the implications for a choice of mode in the United States.

25

Key Challenges in Step 4 • Design a set of services for – a dense urban market – an exurban market – a middle market • Incorporate the attributes of the successful systems, including quality of – Line-haul service to CBD – connection at the airport – service beyond the CBD – appropriate baggage strategy • Design a set of services to appeal to four market segments: – Resident business – Resident non-business – Non-resident business – Non-resident non-business

26

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Quality of the Line-Haul Connection to the CBD Finding an available right-of-way is a problem for the designer of a bus access system and for the designer of a rail system. Finding an available express track has been determined to be a problem throughout Europe. Multistop rail transit service in London was perceived to be so slow that new, non-stop rail was created. Planners at Munich’s airport are looking at magnetic levitation (maglev) alternatives to deal with the historically slow rail travel times there. Universally, buses stalled in general-purpose traffic cannot provide a competitive advantage over the automobile. By contrast, volumes on the Braintree Logan Express bus service (Boston) increased by 50% when a bus lane was added to the system. If the metropolitan system can provide free-flowing bus lanes, total travel times may well be lower by bus. Simply extending multistop local service to include the airport is a formula doomed to failure. Quality of Connection at the Airport The selection of the rail mode does not ensure a good quality connection from the baggage pickup location, nor does the selection of bus preclude a good connection. In Europe, some rail stations are located immediately adjacent to a common baggage pick-up location, while other rail stations require clumsy, uncomfortable connections by bus shuttle vehicles. In the United States, connecting charter buses leave from the Las Vegas airport from within a unified terminal complex adjacent to a common baggage pick-up area, while many U.S. rail services operate from locations far from major baggage pick-up areas. This issue of the high-quality connection between airline operations and the ground access vehicle needs to be solved for whatever ground mode is selected. On the other hand, the new data from Oakland challenges the assumption that directness of connection is more important than underlying market conditions. Certain market segments, such as resident non-business, may be willing to put up with lower levels of service amenity in a trade-off with more important trip-making objectives. Quality of the Connecting Service Beyond the Terminal Providing high-quality services to areas beyond the traditional downtown is a problem for both rail and bus systems. Connections between the major rail terminals in downtown London are difficult, and the mode share for Heathrow air travelers to connecting national rail service is low. By contrast, trains from Zurich Airport rail station are totally integrated into the national rail system, and mode share to national destinations is extremely high. The Newark Liberty International Airport rail station provides a case study of the appeal of longer distance rail services as a mode of airport ground access; at the present time, the market patterns are not showing the expected growth in ridership there. The Existence of a Strategy for Baggage While the designers of airport ground access systems must deal with the impediment of baggage and its negative impact on the choice of public modes, this report has created a comprehensive discussion of the failure—through much of the world—of downtown airport check-in terminals operated by airline personnel. Chapter 5 documents problems at downtown terminals serving London Heathrow, London Gatwick, Munich, Newark, and Madrid airports, while reporting more positive market experiences in Hong Kong, Vienna, Moscow, and Kuala Lumpur. Systems operating national, longer distance rail equipment, such as that in use in Copenhagen, can allow for the use of existing baggage storage areas. For rail systems operating standard commuter and rapid transit equipment, the problem is only rarely solved in a manner satisfactory to the traveler with large baggage. Generically, the accommodation of baggage is not an issue between bus and rail, but rather is an attribute to be sought by the service designer. Dealing with the baggage issue tends to argue for

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

the adoption of dedicated services (by whatever mode) rather than shared service of traditional multistop transit (by whatever mode). Whether a dedicated train or a dedicated airport bus service is being considered, baggage handling can be designed in from the outset.

Summary: Designing to Deal with Revealed Attributes For each of the four design areas specified previously in “Lessons Learned from Successful Systems,” U.S. designers can strive to attain the attributes revealed in the successful international systems not by mimicking the choice of mode but rather through careful regional systems design that finds solutions for the issues defined by the four attribute areas. Design Airport Ground Access Services for the Three Geographic Areas At this point in the planning process, candidate markets for services can be defined. Within the contour for the market area of more than 50 trip ends per square mile, submarkets can be sought at significantly higher market concentration. With knowledge of the location of these strong market segments, rail and other services can be considered. The market research method in this report advocates defining a targeted geographic area for a given candidate service and understanding the airport trip-end density (all modes) from that geographic area to better understand the contribution that service can play. At least three geographic areas should be examined for the service most likely to meet the needs of the customer: • Services for the Dense Urban Market. High-quality line-haul service to the highest trip-end

density should be developed, whether by rail or by dedicated airport bus. Examples of highquality rail services include Washington, D.C.’s Metrorail system and Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) service to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Examples of high-quality bus service to the CBD include the specialized airport bus service from New Orleans International Airport, as well as those in Denver and downtown Seattle. • Services for the Exurban Market. Dedicated airport bus service from specially designed regional parking facilities should be examined to offer services to those areas where airport trip-end densities cannot justify or make feasible collection services. Both the Los Angeles International Airport FlyAway program and the (Boston) Logan Express programs are adding additional lines and services. • Services for the Middle Market. A variety of strategies should be explored for the majority of U.S. airport travelers who come from outside of the densest downtown areas, but within the principal market area of the airport, defined here as the area with more than 5 airport trip ends per square mile. Within this area, a wide variety of combinations of door-to-door, fixed-route, and, most importantly, combinations thereof, can be considered. Understanding Demographic Segments Within Each Geographic Market In the design of candidate services for each of the geographic areas, the market research–based planning process requires information beyond the density of trip ends. This report strongly recommends that each geographic area be examined in terms of the four demographic segments: resident business, resident non-business, non-resident business, and non-resident non-business. In many cases, the support of a high-fare, high-quality premium service (such as the Heathrow Express) is dependent upon the strength of the business market. In other cases, the support of multistop transit service (such as the Blue Line in Boston) is dependent on a strong nonbusiness market, including students and vacationers. In many cases, airport buses from regional collection points are very attractive to the resident market (who find lower parking charges) and

27

28

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

not at all attractive to the non-resident market (who find it more convenient to get rental cars on the airport than in outlying areas). The knowledge of demographic characteristics gained from the ground access survey will also become critical at the time of marketing and pricing the services. For example, to increase ridership on days of low business travel, a marketing strategy might offer low fares for families via local newspapers only. The incoming businessperson would not be aware of the existence of these fares and would continue to pay the higher basic fares. Such a marketing strategy would be designed to lower fares for that portion of the market that is elastic to fare change and not to lower fares for that portion of the market that is inelastic in relation to price.

Best Practices in the United States: Service Based on Markets Examples of best practices can be found for all three of the submarkets, ranging from dense urban conditions to areas of dispersed origins. Best Practices for the Dense Urban Market • A good example of best case practices for service to areas with a high density of airport trip

ends is the Airport Express bus service in New Orleans, which captured about 15% of the entire airport market before Hurricane Katrina. Its mode share rate for its primary market area (downtown) may be the highest of any U.S. airport. • The high-frequency AirBART bus operated by Oakland International Airport to the BART rail station captures about 9% mode share. It can be argued that this service is well matched with the needs of this airport dominated by a low-cost carrier. • To Reagan Washington National Airport, the Metrorail service covers the geographic area where most airport trips originate. This match between the origins of the riders and the location of the rail service in that area results in an airport-wide mode share of more than 12%. • An unusual best practice is the extension of the FlyAway express bus service concept to a new terminal within the Los Angeles Union Station, providing an exceptional level of urban intermodal connections. Best Practices for the Exurban Market • The Logan Express system serving Boston airport continues to grow as more services are

added. These services capture an estimated 20% of their catchment areas. At the time of data collection, airport buses from three parking lots attracted more airport riders than the entire fixed-route and -schedule public transportation system. • The Marin Airporter is a privately owned service noted for its understanding of the market needs of its customers. The Marin Airporter has captured 30% of the travelers in its market area of San Francisco. • The Van Nuys FlyAway is a mature dedicated airport bus operation, capturing an estimated 17% of the travelers from its catchment area. Best Practices for the Middle Market While the dedicated express bus and the longer distance specialized van service are characterized by line-haul trips of more than 10 miles, the middle market is marked by shorter trip lengths. Service operated in middle markets experiences competition from the pick-up/drop-off mode and the taxi mode. • In Oakland, door-to-door vans capture nearly 20% of their logical catchment area in a mid-

dle market of less than 20 airport trip ends per square mile. Door-to-door services in an area immediately south of San Francisco International Airport, with much shorter trip distances, attract about 7% of their logical catchment area.

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

29

• Chapter 4 documents similar markets in Las Vegas and Orlando, in which door-to-door vans

capture more than 10% of the airport-wide ground access market. • In Seattle and Los Angeles, door-to-door vans capture more than 5% of their respective

market areas in areas of middle market density. The middle market, described in this analysis as the zones of more than 5 and less than 50 airport trip ends per square mile, is the largest of the three and the most difficult to serve. With low reported market capture rates and with occupancy levels approaching those of single-party taxis, this market segment needs the most research.

Step 5: Manage the Airport to Encourage Higher Occupancy Vehicle Use Several elements of a comprehensive strategy to improve public mode airport ground access can be implemented within the boundaries of the airport itself. The manner in which the airport is managed can have a significant effect on the quality of the experience for those travelers who have chosen to access the airport by more efficient, higher occupancy modes. The various strategies for improving public transportation access to airports are set against the context that most U.S. airports are not managed to encourage the use of higher occupancy modes; in many cases, the opposite is the case. Airports are primarily seen as transfer facilities between various forms of automobile use and the air services operated at the airport. In many cases, the motivation for the creation of new strategies for managing ground transportation vehicles (such as peripherally located Ground Transportation Centers) is to remove the larger vehicles from the primary roadway, which is freed up to devote more capacity to private automobile pick-up and drop-off.

Encouraging the Use of High-Occupancy Service In the United States, currently only one airport has rail transportation that carries more air travelers for ground access than do the bus and van options: Reagan Washington National Airport. Even at airports with new rail services, such as Portland, Oregon, more passengers depend upon bus and van services than upon the rail option to the downtown. And yet, in sharp contrast to the recent advances in design for the airport/rail interface, there has been very little coordinated attempt to determine the potential of improving the connection between the bus and the airport activities. Ironically, the modes most successful at most U.S. airports—buses and vans—have received the least amount of attention in terms of functional priority at key airport transfer points. In the allocation of curb space, the lanes closest to the terminals (those with the shortest walking distance) can be allocated to the most efficient modes, rather than a traditional pattern of allocating these lanes to private vehicles. All too frequently, the traveler who chooses more efficient, higher occupancy modes from the airport is sent to an outer curb, unprotected from weather, with little in the way of accurate information or services. In many airports, the task of choosing a van operator, for example, occurs outside with no protection from rain or snow, or heat. In many cases, critical connections with long-headway regional services are made from an isolated curb, with no accurate real-time information informing the traveler that the bus is on time, is late, or has already departed. Often, travelers waiting at the curb for a shuttle bus to a regional rail system are not given information about the arrival time of the bus or the rail system it is serving.

Key Challenges in Step 5 • Manage the airport to encourage transit first • Allocate curb space to give priority to those arriving by higher occupancy mode • Improve the architectural standards experience of the public mode traveler • Build transfer facilities for bus and van modes to the design standards attained for rail projects • Modify regulations that make it difficult for the traveler to purchase public mode services at the airport curb • Modify regulations that make it difficult to use higher occupancy services to the airport without prior reservation

30

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Learning from Recent U.S. Airport Designs Recent U.S. design experience at key rail projects can point the way towards the adoption of higher standards for transfer facilities for bus and van. The traveler inside the Newark airport terminals is offered real-time information screens that show the next departures from Newark airport rail station for both Amtrak and New Jersey Transit. The departure schedules of the two rail operators are displayed in chronological order on one screen, consistent with the needs of the traveler. Armed with this connecting mode information, the rail user can proceed upstairs to the Newark AirTrain people mover. All connections to the people mover are made within the interior spaces of the airport terminal. Accessing the AirTrain platform is simpler and quicker than getting to the major parking facilities. At the Newark airport rail station, the pedestrian paths are clear and the information about connecting services is abundant. For major transit investments in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, high-quality architectural solutions have been designed for the transferring public mode traveler. At the reconstructed Reagan Washington National Airport, the MetroRail station is located closer to the terminal than is the major parking garage facility; travelers walk through the rail station lobby to get to the parking garage. The public transportation terminals built by WMATA in Washington and BART in San Francisco can be used as case studies in the improvement of the condition of the arriving passenger connecting on public modes. In Washington, D.C., the walkway bridges are heated and air conditioned and brightly lit. In San Francisco, the arriving traveler on ground transportation at the new International Terminal disembarks from the BART train at the same level as the airport check-in function: no bridges, no elevators, and no escalators will impede traveler flow from the three-track station. The operation of both a Delta Air Lines and an AirTran Airways check-in facility at the MARTA station within the Atlanta landside terminal is another example of high-quality architectural integration. That rail station is located immediately adjacent to the common baggage claim facility for the entire airport, allowing the seamless connection from baggage pick-up to the rail platform overhead. Standards for the Ground Transportation Transfer Experience The architectural treatment at recently constructed rail stations establishes that the transfer experience to public modes at an airport can be positive. The question is then raised about the quality of transfer to buses and vans. It is not a question that can be solved quickly, or with only one solution. In some airports, a shared Ground Transportation Center is the optimum solution, and in others it is not. Clearly, if there is a guiding public policy to encourage the use of higher occupancy modes, the level of amenity offered to the connecting public transportation traveler should be as good as or better than that offered to the traveler connecting onward by private mode. Some of the strategies required by a comprehensive public policy are best carried out by the public sector, and some of the strategies are best implemented by the private sector. In theory at least, it is immaterial whether the onward connecting service is operated by the public or private sector; the public mode traveler should experience the same level of architectural amenity in the transfer act as comparable portions of the airport. At several large airports, bus and van passengers often board their vehicles at parking lots, dead end locations, outer curbs and other facilities with no traveler support services. Designs to Integrate Bus Systems into Airports Baltimore/Washington International Airport has adopted a managed strategy for authorized van service, with specific companies authorized for specific geographic areas. In design terms, this strategy makes possible the creation of a single departure point for all door-to-door services, located inside the airport terminal at the center of the terminal complex. The multiparty groups are formed inside this area with all waiting occurring inside with access to information.

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

31

Similar advances in quality of terminal design have been incorporated into the centrally located Ground Transportation Center at Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, which is accessed by underground walkways from the main baggage claim areas. The act of finding, purchasing, and accessing public modes of transportation occurs in a heated/air-conditioned interior space integrated into the airport terminal complex. Similar high-quality pedestrian connections are offered in the underground connections to the departure area at Portland International Airport’s redesigned terminal complex, where ground transportation information and ticketing is provided within the underground walkway system. All taxi, bus, and van departures from the Atlanta airport occur from a compact departure area located at the western edge of the terminal immediately adjacent to the common baggage claim area for the airport. At Chicago O’Hare International Airport, a City Bus Center has been built to improve the quality of transfer to the bus modes, located within the central structure with enclosed walkways from the domestic terminals.

Considering Regulations to Encourage Higher Occupancy Mode Strategies Many local policies concerning the potential encouragement of higher occupancy patterns are determined by pre-existing regulations concerning the management of taxis. In some airports, a traveler standing at the curb seeking to purchase a shared-ride service is often not allowed to enter the vehicle unless he/she leaves the curb, goes back inside the terminal, calls a reservations line, and then comes back to the curb to wait for a subsequent dispatched vehicle. Going to the airport, similar inefficiencies exist in the system, especially for the traveler who would like to board a shared-ride vehicle to the airport but has not formally “pre-arranged” the trip. The public policy goal of getting greater levels of vehicle occupancy is often undercut by regulations designed for general-purpose management of taxis. Public policies should be explored that would serve to maximize the occupancy levels of public mode vehicles to the airport.

Best Practices in the United States: Management and Amenity U.S. best practices in this category tend to include examples of good architectural treatment of amenities for transferring travelers, rather than any airport-wide strategy to encourage higher occupancy. Examples of such details include: • The revised Ground Transportation Center in the center of Minneapolis–St. Paul Interna-

tional Airport is a rare example of improved amenity for the traveler on buses and vans. • The City Bus Center at Chicago O’Hare International Airport provides deplaning passen-

gers a comfortable waiting area with seating, where they can purchase food, beverages, and newspapers/magazines, which is linked directly via an underground walkway to each terminal. • The location of the MARTA station in the Atlanta terminal and the location of the Delta Air Lines and AirTran Airways check-in at the MARTA station.

Step 6: Present Information about Ground Access Services to the Traveler Assuming the markets have been analyzed and services have been established, the last step in the process requires the creation of a program to make the traveler aware of the public trans-

Key Challenges in Step 6 • Include ground transportation itinerary trip planning capability on airport websites • Include ground transportation timetables in printed documents describing airport services • Work in coordination with local efforts to develop the national 511 traveler information system • Integrate the ticketing reservation process between aviation and ground systems

32

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

portation services offered and to facilitate the purchase of these services. Fortunately, the technology to improve the quality of information sent to the traveler is being developed and implemented at a rapid pace.

Building a Ground Transportation Information Strategy The traveler needs to be aware that public transportation options exist. Airport websites should include some form of automated trip planning for ground trips to and from the airport. For each city and town of destination, an airport information system should describe the services available, based on the actual schedules of each component segment of the trip for that particular hour of that particular day. These systems can now tie directly into the reservations systems of the ground transportation operators. A website managed, or at least approved, by the local airport should include automated itinerary trip planning encompassing all public modes available to and from the airport, including public modes traditionally used in the public transportation system and public modes available only for airport services. Such a program would logically include estimated taxi fares and travel times, accurate by time of day. No currently available regional trip planning program includes a full description of all vans, limousines, and buses approved for airport use. Only the 2007 trip planning system in Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport integrates both airport-specific and regional services on one screen. The BWI Ground Access Information Module currently under beta testing will also provide these integrated information services. Until automated services are ubiquitously and easily available at airports, printed material from simple brochures to elaborate ground transportation guides will continue to be the backbone of traveler information strategies at airports. Good examples of such materials can be found at Baltimore/Washington International Airport and many other U.S. airports.

Best Practices: Traveler Information While the Amsterdam Schiphol Airport operates the only website that fully integrates airportspecific modes and general regional services, other more limited examples of best practice can be noted: • The Transport Direct website in the United Kingdom describes all public transportation ground

access options (and private automobile) from all airports in the UK to all destinations in the UK. • The 511.org website provides all general public transportation services by combinations of

carriers in the San Francisco Bay Area. • The Trips123 website provides all general public transportation services from all New York

City airports to all areas in the tri-state region. • The real-time Amtrak and New Jersey Transit train departure screens in key locations at

Newark airport are a good example of the kind of traveler information that has to be developed in the United States. Real-time airline departure information is presented within the train station mezzanine level.

Conclusion A major theme that emerges from Chapters 1 and 2 is the need for some party to take leadership, and very often that happens at the level of the airport management. The professional ground access staffs at leading airports such as San Francisco and Baltimore/Washington take a proactive role in examining the extent of coverage and providing incentives (such as the grant-

Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access

ing of exclusive rights to serve a given area). In each of these cases, it is understood that there are costs associated with the establishment of high-quality services; these costs are often associated with the continued subsidy of these services. In nearly all of the best practices, such as the terminal changes at Reagan Washington National Airport or the early development of the Logan Express, there have been financial costs to bear. There is no working assumption that the solution(s) to these problems will occur without significant costs.

33

CHAPTER 2

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports This chapter presents the context within which the airport manager must form policies towards airport ground access and summarizes the reasons for a policy interest in the subject in the United States. It reviews the present state of the airline system including a review of variations in air traffic over the period before and after the events of September 11, 2001. The chapter reviews the extent to which concern about the quality of airport ground access has become an integral part of the process of environmental and political approval of airport expansion and efficient utilization of key national assets. Over the past decade, the way people use the aviation system has changed considerably. In the past, major airlines (now called “legacy carriers”) actively competed with one another in terms of amenities that were offered to attract the user. An almost unstated assumption was that each major national carrier would provide service from any point to any point using some combination of large trunk routes between hubs and smaller commuter airplanes to get to those hubs. Since the publication of TCRP Report 62 (2000) and TCRP Report 83 (2002), much of that has changed. Some major airlines have taken the approach that they will fly between airports that are cost effective at each end of the trip. The net result is that the airport ground access trip length is becoming longer and the difficulty of capturing those trips in high-occupancy vehicles such as trains, buses, and vans is getting greater. This chapter reviews what is known about the changes that have occurred in the field over the past decade. Increasingly, transportation managers in the United States are dealing with close interrelationships between modal services that have historically been seen, and managed, as separate entities. The scale of trip generation at major airports is of concern to the regional transportation and environmental manager; the airport manager finds that strategies for higher occupancy ground access solutions have become an accepted pre-condition to the expansion and better utilization of the airport assets. Across the country, MPOs are becoming involved in problem solving for the difficult issue of public mode airport ground access. To begin this review of the policy interest behind improving airport ground access, it is important to establish a sense of scale for the amount of travel to airports and to other points of intermodal transfer in the United States.

Understanding the Scale of Airport Ground Access TCRP Report 62 presented an analysis of the U.S. airports and their orientation to public transportation ground access modes, based largely on data collected by the FAA and the Airports Council International (ACI)–North America in the year 1998. In addition, a survey undertaken for TCRP Report 62 drew responses from 33 airports, each of which provided a summary of the 34

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

latest ground access market share. This chapter now presents a summary of how aviation patterns have changed between the analysis years 1998 and 2005. This report includes all U.S. airports with public mode share of 6% or more, which creates a sample of 27 of the most public mode–oriented airports in the United States. For Minneapolis– St. Paul International Airport, the research team was informed that no new survey information had been collected since the opening of the Hiawatha Light Rail. If this information had been available, the research team estimates that a rail mode share of somewhere less than 5% would be augmented by bus/van shares, making a combined public mode share of more than 6%. For the sake of brevity, the sample will be referred to as the 27 most transit-oriented airports in the United States—technically the sample should be called 27 out of 28 of the most transit-oriented airports.

U.S. Airports and Their Public Mode Share In the study of airport ground access, focus on the originating passengers, i.e., those who are not changing from one airplane to another, is critical. However, the scale of the total operations for the 27 airports is also important and is introduced in Table 2-1, which shows the variation in total enplanement: this category includes all aircraft boardings for revenue purposes. The largest airport in the sample, Atlanta, has more than 10 times the total volume of the smallest airport in the sample, New Orleans. And yet volume alone cannot explain the market share gained by public modes of ground transportation, as New Orleans’s well-managed downtown shuttle bus system gains about the same market share (15%) as the combination of rail and bus/van services in Atlanta. The relationship between public mode share and a wide range of geographic factors is discussed in Chapter 3. The wide variation in the growth or shrinkage of total airline passengers for each airport will be discussed in the following section. For clarification, the number in the first row in the sixth column means that the total enplanements at San Francisco International Airport have decreased and are now 83.4% of those in 1998. The number in the second row of the sixth column means that the total enplanements at JFK Airport have increased, and are now 134.5% of those in 1998.

The Scale of the Public Mode Volumes at These Airports The scale of public transportation markets varies by the size of the airport and by the propensity of the airport region to support public transportation. Table 2-2 reviews the 27 airports ranked by the volumes of airline passengers actually using public transportation, here defined as rail, bus, and shared-ride vans, but excluding single-party limousines, courtesy shuttles, and charter operations. Table 2-2 focuses on the scale of an airport in terms of the absolute number of passengers who are transported to the airport by a public mode. Importantly, these calculations are applied to the number of originating passengers, i.e., excluding those who are changing from plane to plane. The 27 airports included in the sample generate about 60 million public mode trips when counting trips both to and from the airport. Table 2-2 shows that, at present, more travelers are using the public mode ground access services in New York’s JFK airport than at any other U.S. airport, with an estimated 2.2 million annual travelers going to the airport on JFK’s new combination of people mover to subway/commuter rail, express buses, and sharedride vans. After JFK airport, the next highest public mode volume occurs at an airport that does not rely on fixed-guideway investment, whether by rail or people mover. (A rail station near Los Angeles International Airport does not attract any significant number of airline passengers.) Table 2-2

35

36

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Table 2-1. Rank by mode share 1

U.S. airports ranked by market share to public modes.

Airport

Market share to public modes

Annual airport traffic 2005 (a)

Annual airport traffic 1998 (b)

2005 enplanements as percentage of 1998

San Francisco

23%

32,802,363

39,317,252

83.4%

2

New York JFK

19%

41,885,104

31,109,286

134.6%

3

Boston

18%

27,087,905

26,501,508

102.2%

4

Reagan National

17%

17,843,772

15,790,288

113.0%

5

Oakland

15%

14,417,575

9,225,2228

156.3%

6

New Orleans

15%

7,800,000

8,953,224

87.1%

7

Newark

14%

33,999,990

32,659,606

104.1%

8

Atlanta

14%

85,907,423

73,513,332

116.9%

9

Denver

14%

43,387,513

36,889,080

117.6%

10

Los Angeles

13%

61,489,398

61,653,718

99.7%

11

Baltimore/Washington

12%

20,187,741

15,008,228

134.5%

12

Chicago O’Hare

12%

76,510,003

71,683,102

106.7%

13

Las Vegas

12%

43,989,982

30,264,440

145.4%

14

Orlando

11%

34,128,048

27,584,414

123.7%

15

Seattle

11%

29,289,026

25,735,660

113.8%

16

Portland

10%

13,879,701

12,974,452

107.0%

17

Chicago Midway

9%

17,650,462

10,837,660

162.9%

18

Phoenix

9%

41,213,754

31,969,240

128.9%

19

San Diego

9%

17,372,521

14,906,372

116.5%

20

Indianapolis

9%

8,524,442

7,303,054

116.7%

21

Washington Dulles

8%

26,842,922

15,607,924

172.0%

22

New York LaGuardia

8%

26,671,787

22,845,520

116.7%

23

Philadelphia

7%

31,495,385

24,152,358

130.4%

24

Tampa

7%

19,045,390

13,911,610

136.9%

25

Dallas/Fort Worth

6%

59,176,265

60,243,046

98.2%

26

St. Louis

6%

14,697,263

28,669,688

51.3%

27

Cleveland

6%

11,463,391

12,273,770

93.4%

SOURCES: (a) Airports Council International–North America, 2005 North America Final Traffic Report; (b) Airports Council International, The World’s Airports in 1998, “Airport Ranking by Total Passengers,” 1999.

shows that San Francisco has the third largest volume of public mode users, followed by Las Vegas, which relies on a wide variety of vans and buses, as documented in Chapter 4. Atlanta, Boston, and Chicago O’Hare airports each attract from 1.8 to 2.0 million public transportation travelers per year. More than 1 million travelers per year use public transportation to get to Orlando, Newark, Denver, Reagan Washington National, and Seattle airports.

What Has Happened over the Last Decade? Figure 2-1 reflects early growth rate in total enplanements at all U.S. airports between 1998 and the summer of 2001, followed by the sudden drop in airline traffic following the events of September 11. Figure 2-1 also shows the powerful recovery of the industry over the last 4 years of the graph. The figure shows a roughly 21% growth in enplanements at these U.S. airports in

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

Table 2-2.

Volume of transit use at 27 U.S. airports. Public transport users to airport (in millions)

Market share to public modes

Originating enplanements (a)

2.2

19%

11,602,440

Los Angeles

2.1

13%

16,441,180

3

San Francisco

2.1

23%

8,938,170

4

Las Vegas

2.0

12%

16,339,950

5

Atlanta

1.9

14%

13,696,770

6

Boston

1.9

18%

10,428,620

7

Chicago O’Hare

1.8

12%

14,923,320

8

Orlando

1.5

11%

13,792,840

9

Newark

1.5

14%

10,375,220

10

Denver

1.4

14%

9,817,970

11

Reagan National

1.2

17%

7,003,410

12

Seattle

1.1

11%

9,898,290

13

Phoenix

1.0

9%

11,491,890

14

Oakland

0.9

15%

6,273,490

15

Baltimore/Washington

0.9

12%

7,637,130

16

New York LaGuardia

0.9

8%

11,291,970

17

San Diego

0.7

9%

7,833,280

18

Dallas/Fort Worth

0.6

6%

10,683,750

19

Philadelphia

0.6

7%

9,123,560

20

Tampa

0.6

7%

8,116,390

21

Portland

0.5

10%

5,373,750

Rank by transit volume

Airport

1

New York JFK

2

22

Chicago Midway

0.5

9%

5,933,190

23

New Orleans

0.5

15%

3,472,780

24

Washington Dulles

0.5

8%

6,505,480

25

Indianapolis

0.3

9%

3,628,540

26

St. Louis

0.3

6%

4,845,770

27

Cleveland

0.2

6%

3,789,610

SOURCE: (a) U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration, Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic, Domestic 2005.

the time period from 1998 to 2005. Perhaps most relevant to this project is the growth between the nadir of 2002 to the present volumes in the airline system, which, again, shows a 21% growth in the most recent 4-year period. The question is raised as to whether there have been major changes in travel during this period and how such an environmental change might (or might not) affect the patterns of ground access. A key problem for the aviation market analyst is the coincidence of the timing of the depression in traffic after September 11 and the timing of the rapid growth of “non-legacy” low-cost carriers. Given the profound changes that were occurring, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish changes associated with more draconian security, for example, from changes in assumptions about free peanuts once on the plane. The net emotional result as experienced by the passenger is a more stressful total travel experience than existed 20 years before.

37

38

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

800,000 750,000 700,000 650,000 600,000 550,000 500,000 1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

SOURCE: Calculated from Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on “Origin and Destination Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic – Table 1,” a publication of the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board, based upon a 10% sample.

Figure 2-1. All U.S. airport enplanements between 1998 and 2006 (in 1000’s).

In interviews with airport managers affected by the sudden growth of the low-cost carriers, virtually all of them responded that the arrival of Southwest Airlines had made a major impact on demand on their parking supply and on the trip distance of those coming to the low-cost airline airport. In general, these longer distance automobile trips are more difficult to capture by higher occupancy modes (such as van or express bus) than are trips from areas closer to the airport. A series of surveys were undertaken for the New England Regional Aviation System Plan, a highly innovative study of the integrated air system operating in six states, which was completed in 2006. All the airports in New England were surveyed in 2004, before the upturn in air traffic had significantly begun in that region. When asked why the traveler chose his/her airport, a standard response was that it was simply the closest. However, for both Manchester, New Hampshire, and Providence, Rhode Island, a trade-off of longer ground access trips for lower airplane fares was apparent. The study managers wrote: “When passengers choose among alternative airports, airport proximity is the single largest decision factor. However, airports with an advantage over competing airports in terms of service levels and/or fares will attract a higher share of traffic than they would based on drive times alone.” (1, emphasis added)

At the time of that survey, Southwest Airlines served only Manchester, New Hampshire, and Providence, Rhode Island. The study created a natural catchment area based on minimum time path by automobile and noted the extent to which each airport attracted originating passengers from outside of that area; the highest rate of capture from a longer distance than necessary came from Manchester airport at 47%, with Providence showing that 40% of passengers came from a geographic area closest to a different airport. Thus, some evidence exists that ground access distances tended to increase as a result of the first wave of low-cost carriers. Over the past decade, changes in the management of the airline industry have had profound effects on the ground transportation patterns to major airports. These changes fall into two general categories. First, the non-legacy airlines have not sought to mimic the hub-and-spoke system that results (often) in the potential connection of all airports of origin with all airports of destination in a time-sensitive manner. In other words, lower cost airlines go to those airports they choose to serve, and only those airports they choose to serve. The result of this initial pattern by the low-priced carriers was a large increase in the length of ground access travel that airline passengers would be willing to undertake to travel on the lower cost airline. Second, a new wave

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

of low-priced carriers has incorporated a business strategy that does indeed serve existing major airports, such as Boston’s Logan International Airport. Turning to the question of the impacts of the events of September 11, survey research during the period of lowest levels of airline patronage during 2002 reported that fundamental attitudes toward air travel options had not changed significantly because of September 11. The study by Resource Systems Group (RSG) based on a 2002 survey concluded: “Comparing the results described in the previous sections to the results from previous years’ surveys, it is clear that the events of 9/11 and subsequent changes to the air security system have not dramatically changed the way that air travelers evaluate alternative air travel options. However, additional questions that were asked in this year’s survey make it clear that there have been some changes in how travelers evaluate air versus other travel options and in the way that they use the system. Almost one-quarter say that they make fewer air trips now than they did before 9/11 and, of those, almost two-thirds drive a car to substitute for air travel, 20% use a train and 40% forgo trips (multiple response were allowed so the total is greater than 100%). “More than 40% of all travelers say that they allow more time for air travel now than they did before 9/11; the median additional amount of time is over 50 minutes. Over 20% say that they feel less safe and secure when traveling; this is partially offset by the 4% who say that they feel more safe/secure now. Only small numbers (approximately 3% each) say that they use different airports or different airlines as a result of 9/11. And, over 37% say that 9/11 has not had any continuing effect on their air travel (2, emphasis added)

It seems clear that Americans now routinely allow more time at the air terminal than in previous decades, consistent with the RSG finding at the time. The study also noted that travelers place a different value of time on different modal segments of the full trip. While the business traveler places a value of time of $37 per hour on the scheduled in-air time of the trip, the same business traveler places a value of time of only $24 per hour on the ground access portion of the trip. This value assessment is consistent with the concept that the traveler will indeed spend more time in his/her automobile in order to gain whatever advantage is offered by the airport selected. The survey concluded that only 3% of travelers say they would use a different airport as a result of September 11, but this attitude still allows for a change in selected airport in reaction to lower fares or other service dimension. It is implicit from Figure 2-1 that many of those who, in 2002, had reported a mode change to train or car subsequently returned to the air system over the following 3 years.

How Have the Transit-Oriented Airports “Bounced Back” from the Decrease in Air Traffic? The focus of this project is on the U.S. airports with the highest use of public transportation services and specifically on the 27 airports in the sample. For the nation as a whole, the data behind Figure 2-1 shows enplanements grew by about 20% between 1998 and 2005; at the transitoriented airports, total enplanements increased by 13%. Logically, this statistic suggests that the growth in total enplanements has been considerably stronger in the airports outside of our sample; these other airports tend, with few exceptions, to be smaller and more difficult to serve with public transportation. The research team has focused on the changes in originating passengers (thereby avoiding the double counting of travelers who have to make several segments to accomplish one trip). The results are somewhat more complicated than the simple rebounding trend in total enplanements revealed in Figure 2-1. Turning to the number of origin–destination trips being made through the 27 airports, only an 8% increase has occurred overall, with 10 of the major airports having fewer originating travelers than in 1998. It is clear that part of the 13% increase in total enplanements in the sample is associated with an increase in the number of transferring passengers.

39

40

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

As shown in Figure 2-2, between 1998 and 2005, the use of JFK airport by originating passengers grew by a remarkable 80%, largely attributable to the additional services provided by JetBlue Airlines. The number of originating passengers in Oakland grew by about 50% over the same time period, associated with a growth in service by Southwest Airlines. In the middle of the spectrum, airports in Boston and Portland, Oregon, had not fully gained back their mid-period losses as of the 2005 data. Volumes of originations decreased by a factor of 10% in airports in Cleveland and Los Angeles. While the New Orleans decline was somewhat expected, the loss of more than 20% in San Francisco is a sharp change for an airport that has invested heavily in infrastructure to improve ground access services In some cases, the changes occur largely within a metropolitan area with decreases at San Francisco International Airport correlated with increases at Oakland and San Jose airports and decreases at Chicago O’Hare correlated with increases at Chicago Midway. The two New York City airports seem to have simply attracted more people (over longer distances) as increases during the time period at JFK airport are not associated with any decrease at LaGuardia airport.

-40% -20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

JFK Oakland Las Vegas Dulles Midway Tampa Philadelphia Orlando BWI San Diego Phoenix LaGuardia Denver National Indianapolis Seattle Boston Portland Atlanta DFW Newark O’Hare Cleveland Los Angeles St. Louis New Orleans SFO

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration, Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic, Domestic.

Figure 2-2. Change in originating passengers for the 27 U.S. airports, 1998 to 2005.

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

Will the Pattern of Air Travel Continue to Grow? While the extent of growth for major U.S. airports was clouded by the market reaction to the events of September 11 and while any precise forecasts are clearly beyond the scope of this project, there has been considerable consensus on the scale of growth expected over time. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) based in Geneva has used a growth rate of 3.9% for U.S. air traffic for its forecasting (3). In a worldwide forecast released in January of 2007, the ACI Global Traffic Forecast 2006-2025 predicts a “doubling of current passenger numbers within the next 20 years. Passenger volumes are predicted to grow by an average of 4% annually over the 20-year period, leading passenger volumes to top 9 billion passengers a year by 2025, up from 4.2 billion in 2005.” (4) Some U.S. airports concur in these aggressive forecasts. SCAG, the MPO for the Los Angeles area, forecasts a regional increase at an annual rate of 4%, dealing as it does with a growing market of services between Asia and the Americas. All of this growth is set in the context of a projected increase in the role of the other airports in the region from their original share of 12% of the region’s demand to 33% in the target year (5). The recent New England Regional Aviation System Plan undertook both high and low forecasts. With 49.6 million New England passengers in the base year of 2000, the Plan produced a highdemand 2020 forecast of 90 million air passengers and a low-demand forecast of 67.5 million air passengers (1). The high-demand forecast reflects a compounded growth rate of approximately 3%, while the low-demand forecast translates to about a 2% growth rate. The consensus forecast averages to about 2.3% growth per year, showing the difference in assumptions in the mature Northeast and the developing Southwest (e.g., 4% annual growth in Los Angeles). In the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, a 30-year forecast was adopted at a rate of approximately 2.8% per year compounded (6). As shown in Figure 2-3, this overall regional growth must be distributed over three airports, some of which are more physically constrained than others, as assumed in the transportation planning process now underway at the MWCOG. Figure 2-3 shows the expected growth in three airports expressed in terms of ground transportation impacts. In a 25-year planning horizon, between 2005 and 2030, originating enplanements at Baltimore/Washington International Airport are expected to double, with an overall growth factor of 2.1. Turning to Dulles International Airport (from the same study), originating enplanements are expected to triple, with an overall growth factor of 3.2. Close-in Reagan Washington National Airport is even more constrained than Baltimore/Washington International Airport, with originating enplanements expected to increase only by somewhat more than one-third, with an overall growth factor of 1.38. Importantly for the study of ground transportation, these MPO-predicted growths in air travel demand are expressed as flows by mode, which can be immediately integrated into the planning of the ground access system, as shown in Figure 2-3.

Understanding the Trips that Use Airports Trip Purpose: Why Do Airline Passengers Travel? Airline passengers are more likely to be traveling for business purposes than are long-distance travelers as a whole. On board the commercial airplane an average of 41% of passengers are traveling on business, compared with a national average of only 22% of overall travel for this purpose. Pleasure trips, such as vacations, have a high propensity to occur by car rather than by airplane, as shown in Figure 2-4. Phrased differently, 64% of our national long-distance trip making is for pleasure, while only 49% of airline passenger trips are for pleasure.

41

42

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

SOURCE: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington-Baltimore Regional Airport System Plan Ground Access Update, 2007

Figure 2-3. Airport growth forecasts and growth in ground access volumes for Washington metropolitan area.

How Trip Purpose Varies by Airport In TCRP Report 62, airline passenger trip purpose data were reviewed for 25 airports (not all of which are included in this report’s sample of the 27 most transit-oriented airports). The 25 airports are grouped in Table 2-3 according to the trip purpose of originating passengers (business versus leisure). The trip purpose will usually affect a passenger’s decision to use public transportation to the airport because of several factors, such as frequency of trips, duration of trips, and sensitivity of passengers to time. For example, airline passengers traveling on busi-

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

Trip Purpose: All Trips Personal business 14%

Trip Purpose: Air Passengers Personal business 10%

Business 22%

Business 41%

Pleasure 49% Pleasure 64% SOURCE: American Travel Survey, 1995.

Figure 2-4. 100 miles.

Trip purpose for air passengers vs. all trips over

ness may have more information available on access options at specific airports because they tend to make more trips by air than airline passengers traveling on leisure. Certain business travel arrangements may also require the use of particular airport access modes. Five airports appear to be dominated by business travelers. The two airports with the largest proportion of business travelers (Atlanta and Reagan Washington National) also attract significant rail ridership (as discussed in Chapter 4), in part because of the business travelers. At nine airports, between 45% and 55% of all airline passengers are making business-related trips. It is anticipated that the category of airports dominated by business travelers would include most U.S. airports if trip purpose data were available. At seven airports, 35% to 44% of all airline passengers are on business-related trips. Many of these airports (e.g., San Francisco, San Diego, Tampa, and Salt Lake City airports) serve a combination of business and resort/leisure markets. Airports with fewer than 35% business travelers primarily serve leisure markets (e.g., Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, and Orlando). Airports Serving Residents and Airports Serving Visitors Data describing airline passenger place of residence were available from 23 airports in TCRP Report 62. These data suggest four groupings of airports, shown in Table 2-4. Local residents represented in Table 2-4 are airline passengers who are considered part of the airport’s local market

Table 2-3.

Percentage of air travelers who are on business.

More than 55%

45% to 55%

35% to 44%

Less than 35%

Atlanta (66%)

Boston (54%)

San Francisco (41%)

Los Angeles (32%)

Reagan National (64%)

Baltimore/Washington (54%)

San Diego (40%)

Las Vegas (30%)

Dallas/Ft. Worth (57%)

Seattle (54%)

Tampa (37%)

Orlando (23%)

Kansas City (57%)

Washington Dulles (52%)

Chicago Midway (37%)

Ft. Lauderdale (23%)

New Orleans (56%)

Chicago O’Hare (50%)

Phoenix (36%)

Oakland (50%)

Portland (36%)

San Jose (48%)

Salt Lake City (36%)

Denver (47%) Sacramento (46%) SOURCE: TCRP Report 62, Jacobs Consultancy.

43

44

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Table 2-4.

Percentage of air travelers who are local residents.

More than 55% Sacramento (69%)

50% to 55% Dallas/Ft. Worth (54%)

40% to 49% San Jose (49%)

Less than 40% Phoenix (38%)

Boston (59%)

Chicago O’Hare (54%)

Baltimore/Washington (47%)

Tampa (38%)

Seattle (57%)

Oakland (52%)

Salt Lake City (45%)

Washington Dulles (33%)

Atlanta (50%)

San Francisco (43%)

New Orleans (28%)

Los Angeles (42%)

Reagan National (29%)

Fort Lauderdale (41%)

Orlando (27%)

Denver (41%)

Las Vegas (17%)

Portland (40%) San Diego (40%) SOURCE: TCRP Report 62, Jacobs Consultancy.

area and who live close enough to access the airport using ground transportation. Airline passengers who are not local residents are visitors who do not live within the market area of the airport they are using. Resident airline passengers are more likely to have (1) a private vehicle, (2) more information on airport access, and (3) more familiarity with regional traffic patterns and transportation options. More than 50% of the airline passengers at seven airports surveyed are local residents. These airports include those that serve as large airline connecting hubs (Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago O’Hare, and Atlanta), plus airports located on the East and West Coasts (Boston, Oakland, and Seattle). The proximity to leisure markets or vacation destinations influences the passenger profile at airports serving fewer than 50% residents (e.g., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Ft. Lauderdale, Tampa, Las Vegas, and Orlando).

National Patterns of Access to Airports and Terminals Most of the airport ground access data presented in this report were collected by the airports themselves (or regional planning agencies associated with those airports). However, a nationwide view of access patterns to terminals can be obtained from the American Travel Survey (ATS), which described about 365 million annual total ground access trips to and from U.S. airports in the survey year of 1995. In the ATS, these trips are categorized by whether they occur in the traveler’s area of residence or in the non-home portion of the longer distance trip. In this report, travelers in the first category are described as the “resident” market and those in the second category are described as the “non-resident” market for purchase of ground transportation services. Terminal Access at the Home End of the Trip Getting airline passengers to access the airport with public modes seems to be more difficult than getting passengers on intercity bus and intercity rail to access their terminals with public modes. Looking at the mode of ground access selected from a national aggregate perspective, ground access modes to all three kinds of terminals (i.e., bus, train, air) are dominated by the private automobile. In this resident market, those accessing a bus or a train have a significantly higher propensity to select a mode other than the private automobile to get to the bus or train terminal, with combined mode shares for taxi, limousine, and public mode at nearly 30% market share. Figure 2-5 reveals that bus, van, limousine, and rail capture about 20% of the market to longdistance bus and rail terminals, but capture only 8% of national travel to airports, excluding taxis.

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

Terminal Access – Home End of Trip 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Airport

Bus Station

Amtrak Station

Taxi share

6%

9%

10%

Public (Includes limo)

8%

20%

19%

SOURCE: American Travel Survey, 1995.

Figure 2-5. Ground access mode to terminals by the residential market.

Unfortunately, the ATS does not allow private limousines to be examined separately from higher occupancy vans in this national overview. The rest of this report will present airport-specific data that allows this important distinction to be made in the analysis. Terminal Access at the Non-Home End of the Trip From a nationwide data perspective, the long-distance traveler has a greater propensity to purchase a ground access service while in the non-home end of the long-distance trip than while in their home area. Figure 2-6 shows behavior of the non-resident market: in the non-home area, the public mode share to the airport is nearly twice as high as in the home area. Non-home area public mode shares to long-distance bus and rail terminals also are greater than those in the home area.

Daily Public Mode Volumes to Airports Most airports describe their scale in terms of total annual passenger movement, which includes both enplanements and deplanements. As shown in Table 2-1, airports in Chicago and Atlanta are generally described as airports with more than 70 million annual passengers (MAP). The scale of airport ground access markets is often easiest to interpret in terms of a daily volume from points origin to the airport and, if possible, an hourly volume number. This section refers to Terminal Access – Non Home End of Trip

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Airport

Bus Station

Amtrak Station

Taxi Share

13%

11%

23%

Public (Includes Limo)

15%

23%

25%

SOURCE: American Travel Survey, 1995.

Figure 2-6. Ground access mode to terminals by the non-resident market.

45

46

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

ground access flows to the major airports for the simple reason that the vast majority of airport ground access surveys are collected in the airline departure areas, for a variety of reasons of survey accuracy and reliability. The relationship between annual passenger activity figures and hourly flows of persons on public modes is illustrated in the following steps.

“Typical” Public Mode Volumes for Large U.S. Airports A “typical” public mode volume for a large U.S. airport can be estimated from the available data. The steps to calculate an average daily ground access public mode volume are straightforward. 1. From passengers to enplaning passengers. The scale of an airport is generally categorized in terms of total annual airport activity. For example, in 2005, Boston is usually described as an airport of roughly 26 MAP. For the analysis of ground access, it is more useful to examine movements in one direction: Boston could be just as well described as an airport of 13 million enplanements. 2. From total enplanements to originating passengers. The most important step in observing the overall scale of the ground access market is to subtract the airplane-to-airplane connecting movements from the total enplanements. When these movements are subtracted, Boston airport in 2005 can be observed to have 10.4 million originating passengers, making it the ninth largest ground access market in the United States. As such, it can be used as a “typical” larger airport in the top 20 U.S. airports. 3. From annual to daily originating passengers. By dividing Boston’s 10.4 million originating passengers per year by 365, somewhat less than 29,000 airline passengers arrive at the airport on an “average” day. 4. From daily to hourly volume. Approximately 10% to 15% of the 24-hour passenger volume have been observed to arrive in a single peak hour, creating a peak-hour volume of between 2,900 and 4,200 airline passengers arriving by all ground access modes. 5. Peak-hour public transit volumes. In Boston, about 18% of arriving airline passengers arrive by some form of public transportation; thus, between 500 and 750 airline passengers arrive in the peak hour by rail, bus, and van combined.

Public Mode Volumes for 27 U.S. Airports Table 2-5 presents the estimated scale of use of public mode ground transportation at selected U.S. airports. The steps taken to create the “typical” public mode volume into the airport can be applied to each U.S. airport for which the data are available. Thus, using the assumptions in this section, JFK airport is estimated to attract about 7,000 public mode ground access users per day. The airports in this group of transit-oriented airports vary widely: five U.S. airports attract 6,000 or more public mode users per day and eight airports attract less than 2,000 public mode users per day. Dealing with peaking characteristics at airports is difficult, because different airports have different distributions of traffic over the day. A range of 10% to 15% of daily volume in the peak hour can be used as a default. From this assumption, total hourly volumes to U.S. airports are estimated to be far less than 1,000 passengers per hour by all public modes combined (with JFK as the possible exception, from Table 2-5).

Implications for Choice of Ground Access Mode The scale of public transportation volumes to major airports must be examined with some caution. Clearly, the transit infrastructure must be able to accommodate volumes in the range

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

Table 2-5.

Daily ground access volumes.

Airport

Estimated daily inbound public mode volume (air travelers only)

Market share to public modes

Annual originating passengers (a)

New York JFK

7,000

19%

11,602,440

Los Angeles

6,900

13%

16,441,180

Las Vegas

6,300

12%

16,339,950

Atlanta

6,200

14%

13,696,770

Boston

6,000

18%

10,428,620

Chicago O’Hare

5,800

12%

14,923,320

San Francisco

5,600

23%

8,938,170

Orlando

4,900

11%

13,792,840

Newark

4,700

14%

10,375,220

Denver

4,400

14%

9,817,970

Reagan National

3,800

17%

7,003,410

Seattle

3,500

11%

9,898,290

Phoenix

3,300

9%

11,491,890

Baltimore/Washington

3,000

12%

7,637,130

New York LaGuardia

2,900

8%

11,291,970

Oakland

2,600

15%

6,273,490

San Diego

2,300

9%

7,833,280

Dallas/Fort Worth

2,100

6%

10,683,750

Philadelphia

2,100

7%

9,123,560

Tampa

1,800

7%

8,116,390

Portland

1,700

10%

5,373,750

Chicago Midway

1,700

9%

5,933,190

New Orleans

1,700

15%

3,472,780

Washington Dulles

1,700

8%

6,505,480

Indianapolis

1,000

9%

3,628,540

St. Louis

900

6%

4,845,770

Cleveland

700

6%

3,789,610

SOURCE: (a) U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration, Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic, Domestic 2005.

of 500 to 1,000 passengers per hour into an airport. However, capacity alone should never be the sole justification of rail investment; buses in many corridors in the United States regularly carry more people than they would need to carry to serve airline passengers at an entire airport. For example, through the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City, buses carry more than 40,000 persons per hour in the peak direction. There are many powerful reasons to select rail services to airports, based mainly on the existence of a grade separated right-of-way not subject to the daily congestion plaguing such airports as JFK and O’Hare; but, in theory, the capacity constraints of rubber-tired services should not be used as a justification for such a selection. For most metropolitan areas, a comprehensive program to improve public mode airport ground access services, and to raise the overall vehicle occupancy levels, will require a variety of

47

48

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

modes and a variety of operational strategies. Modal technologies from multiparty taxi sharing to regional rapid transit have all been found to be relevant to the U.S. experience. For each of these services, the transportation planner must match the characteristics of the supporting market with the characteristics of the candidate mode. In many cases, the capacity of a given mode, such as express bus service, has been described as a limiting factor in a long-term role of airport ground transportation. However, in virtually all cases under consideration, the capacity of bus, light rail, rapid transit, or commuter rail service is vastly higher than that required for airportrelated services. Finding an exclusive dependable right-of-way—such as the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane between the Braintree Logan Express terminal and Boston airport—is a key issue in providing high-quality public mode access. Thus, the choice of airport access mode has more to do with policy decisions made for the rest of the regional transportation system than with any capacity limitations inherent to any given mode. In the United States, the market for public transportation (rail, bus, and shared-ride vans) at airports appears to be finite. Chapter 4 presents descriptions of 27 airport ground access systems in the United States and 19 ground access systems in Europe and Asia. Simply summarized, all of the reported international systems attract a public mode share of more 20%, while none of the U.S. systems attract a public mode share of more than 20%. The question then turns to the most effective way to raise higher occupancy vehicle shares at U.S. airports.

Why are Airports Concerned with Ground Access by Public Modes? Seen from the vantage point of the airport manager, key decisions to utilize existing airport assets, and expand upon those assets, are often interrelated with approvals through the environmental and the local political processes. Airport managers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Boston, like managers in London, Zurich, or Amsterdam, understand that key environmental and political approval processes for more airport airside capacity require a planning process that specifically addresses the impacts of airport ground access. Seen from the vantage point of the regional transportation manager, travel demand management strategies are being implemented to deal with VMT from major activity centers. A large airport, of greater than 45 MAP, can be associated with the generation of 5 million vehicle miles of ground access travel per day, while a smaller airport of 5 MAP can be associated with 500,000 VMT per day. A public official charged with the creation of a CMS or an air quality control strategy cannot help but note the rate of traffic growth of major airports and their role in the regional growth of VMT.

Ground Access Issues and the Regional Planning Process The need to acknowledge, and deal with, the problems of ground access have become an accepted part of the process of gaining environmental approvals for major growth in airports. Environmental regulations deal with the air quality implications of transportation facilities, both on and off of the airport. Issues that at one point seemed separate are now seen in an integrated intermodal systems perspective. Throughout the United States, the provision of improved ground transportation strategies is seen as an integral component of plans to increase capacity and efficiency at major airports. Over the last few years, ground access strategies have been advanced at San Francisco; Los Angeles; Miami; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis–St. Paul; Newark; and New York JFK airports. New combinations of services are being explored in Chicago (both O’Hare and Midway), Dallas/Fort Worth, Baltimore/Washington, Seattle, and Dulles airports.

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments A good example of the coordination that should exist between airport managers and the metropolitan transportation planning process is the Continuous Airport System Planning program of the MWCOG. MWCOG notes: “The transportation linkage between airports and local activities is a critical and often overlooked component of the airport system. Choice of airport and even the decision to fly are clearly linked to the quality, cost and travel time associated with the ground journey to the airport. The goal of the Continuous Airport System Planning (CASP) program is to provide a process and products that support the planning, development and operation of airport and airport-serving facilities in a systematic framework for the Washington-Baltimore region.” (6)

Keeping the aviation system supported by the ground transportation system is a stated goal of the long-range plan of the metropolitan Washington region. “Goal 8 of the [Transportation Planning Board’s] Vision reads: The Washington metropolitan region will support options for international and inter-regional travel and commerce. Goal 8 has three objectives: (1) The Washington region will be among the most accessible in the nation for international and inter-regional passenger and goods movements. (2) Continued growth in passenger and goods movement between the Washington region and other nearby regions in the mid-Atlantic area. (3) Connectivity to and between Washington Dulles International, National, and Baltimore/ Washington International Airports.” (6)

The New England Regional Aviation System Plan The concept of a continuous regional planning process for three airports together, in the MWCOG program, has been taken one step further in an ambitious plan encouraged and sponsored by the FAA in New England, where the interaction between all commercial airports in six states was examined in the New England Regional Aviation System Plan (NERASP), which concluded in October 2006. According to its managers, the main objective of the study was to identify strategies for optimizing New England’s regional airport system: “The objectives of the forecast task are to assess how future air travel demand may be distributed across the region’s network of commercial service airports and how that distribution might vary depending on the level of regional demand or changes in key parameters such as airport access times or airline service development decision.” (1, emphasis added)

The technical forecasting process was unique in that forecasts were developed from a regional perspective first, “rather than from the perspective of an individual airport or a state system of airports. Thus the NERASP forecasts for individual airports in the regional system reflect the fact that many of the region’s passengers have multiple airport options and often choose from among several airports when making travel plans.” Applying the process described in this report, the NERASP study was widened to include a free-standing ground access report, which was unique in its simultaneous examination of many airports and their competition—in many cases—for a common and overlapping market. Los Angeles: Cooperation with the Regional Planning Organization In Los Angeles, work is continuing to ensure the coordination of aviation planning with the other components of the region’s transportation strategy. At SCAG, a professional staff dedicated to aviation issues works closely with other modal specialists in the development of the Regional Transportation Plan. According to SCAG:

49

50

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

“The adopted Regional Aviation Plan needs to be supported by complementary ground access programs and projects at existing and proposed regional commercial airports. The aviation plan is a component of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a federally mandated long-range transportation plan . . . .” (5)

To accommodate the projected air travel demand, the Los Angeles aviation planning process focused attention on two areas: (1) the possible use of high-speed ground transportation services in redistributing the demand away from Los Angeles International Airport toward other regional airports such as Ontario International, Palmdale Regional, Bob Hope, John Wayne/ Orange County, Long Beach, and San Bernardino International and (2) the actions that the airport agency itself can take to deal with ground access issues. The development of all alternatives in the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Master Plan took place within a heightened policy awareness of the importance of higher occupancy strategies, and connection with regional transit. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the airport oversight and operations department for Los Angeles, establishes the following three goals of the Master Plan: • “Maximizing access to and from regional transportation systems, • Providing opportunities for people to connect to mass transit systems, and • Protecting neighborhoods by minimizing or mitigating any impacts on local streets.” (7)

The plan states that “In order to relieve traffic impacts on area residents and ease congestion on surface streets and freeways around LAX, LAWA is committed to a Master Plan that improves access to and circulation around the airport and develops alternatives to the increased use of single occupancy vehicles.” (7, emphasis added) The development of the LAX Master Plan entered a new phase in early 2007 with a new mayor and Stipulated Settlement Agreement with petitioners that allowed certain elements of the plan to proceed, while other design elements were put on hold. An earlier terminal scheme, which moved most of the landside access facilities to an intermodal center at an adjacent transit station, has not gained the support of the present mayor. At this time, a planning process is under way to develop a revised design for various components of the LAX Master Plan including reconfiguration of the North Airfield and the Central Terminal Area.

Environmental Approvals in Europe The need for explicit action to deal with the environmental impacts of airport growth has been explicitly spelled out in environmental approvals recently issued in other areas, including London and Zurich. In London, the approval process for the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow was made contingent upon the airport agency bringing about a set of rail improvements in the region, including the Heathrow Express. In fact, the environmental and political approval of the massive terminal expansion project was, at least in part, the result of years of commitment by the airport management to deal with off-airport environmental impacts including the investment of more than $600 million in the Heathrow Express rail system. An airport access program, called “Free Flow Heathrow,” includes the design and subsidization of new local bus routes for employees working at the airport. In Switzerland, the approval for a new airport expansion project was made conditional upon the commitment of the airport authority to make a significant improvement in the overall public mode share, for both passengers and employees. Until March 2000, Zurich Airport was owned by the local government (called a “Canton”), where every expenditure had to be approved in a town meeting–like process. At the time of the referendum to approve the airport expansion project, the airport had an overall public mode share of 34%. As part of the political approval of the

The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

expansion project, the airport committed itself to raising that mode share to 42% by the end of the period covered by the capital investment. Since that time, the airport has undertaken programs aimed at both airline passengers and employees, including a decision to build a tramway through adjacent neighborhoods, which is expected to appeal to airport employees. In 2006, the responsible authorities approved the results of the mode share study and completed the approval process required by the terms of the capital expansion agreement.

What’s Next? The base of the proposed ground access planning process, as summarized in Chapter 1, is a combination of the characteristics of supply (public mode services) and the characteristics of demand, as disaggregated by market segment. Chapters 3 and 4 will present an updated description of major airport ground access systems in the United States, Europe, and Asia, with an emphasis on understanding the attributes of successful services.

51

CHAPTER 3

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems What makes a public transportation access system to a major airport successful? The breadth of travel patterns to specific airports (detailed in Chapter 4) shows the wide variety of experience around the world in the design and implementation of public transportation strategies to major airports. Those patterns range from the remarkable public transportation share in Oslo to the specialized role played by public transportation to most U.S. airports. This chapter interprets best practice and attempts to draw out lessons learned from this wide variety of experience. This chapter will examine the implications of certain attributes of successful services, whether those services are in operation in the United States, Europe, or Asia. One lesson is clear at the outset—no particular modal solution is optimal everywhere: a simple focus on line-haul speed of the vehicle does not produce a high mode share to public transportation, as revealed in Shanghai; the adoption of high-cost, high-quality rail design does not convince more Hong Kong travelers to ride the train rather than the bus; direct on-airport rail connections to an advanced regional rail system do not attract more travelers to choose the rail transit to the San Francisco International Airport than the less direct connections in operation at nearby Oakland International Airport. It is a central theme of this report that the services offered must be based on an analysis of the needs of the traveler, not the adoption of one particular mode (usually rail) as the “world class” standard. However, most of the highest mode shares to transit reported in this study do come from European and Asian systems that use rail services as a major and dominant strategic component. This chapter seeks to look at service attributes attained in successful systems without regard to the dominant mode that resulted in those high mode shares to public transportation. After this examination of service attributes, Chapter 5 will explore the question of the integration of ground access services into larger national systems, and the role of integration of baggage and ticketing systems. Then, Chapter 6 will present a discussion of the application of market research techniques to a planning process based on the needs of the traveler, including of the roles of geographic and demographic market segmentation.

Understanding Successful Airport Ground Access Systems This section will focus on the attributes associated with the success of the rail projects that form the principal mode of most of the successful systems to be detailed on an airport-by-airport basis in Chapter 4. It will quickly become clear that no single attribute—such as the speed of the vehicle, the directness of the on-airport connections, or the connectivity to the rest of the public transportation system—can by itself explain the propensity for high market shares. Rather, it 52

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems

is clear that a successful ground access system will need to combine various attributes from separate services designed to meet the needs of the separate market segments. As noted in previous chapters, most U.S. airports have at least three market areas: a dense downtown/inner market area; a distant set of dispersed origins, for which dedicated express buses can carry travelers collected by other modes; and a mid-suburban area, where door-to-door shuttle services can be supported. A quick summary of possible explanations of high mode share is presented in the following sections.

Does Airport Size Explain Ridership? Does an airport have to be extremely large to justify and support an exemplary ground access system? As shown in Tables 2-1 and 3-1, the ranking of public transportation use cannot be explained by the location or the size of the airport. MAP is not a good predictor of total public mode market share: the largest airports, Heathrow and Frankfurt, rank in the middle of the sample in terms of ground access market share; the smaller airports rank both higher and lower than the largest. The sheer size of an airport does not explain the mode share to public transportation services. Table 3-1 shows that London Stansted (smaller) has a higher mode share to public transportation than does London Heathrow (larger). Oslo and Zurich are relatively smaller airports but have high mode shares. Oakland (smaller) has a higher mode share than Dallas/Fort Worth (larger). On the other hand, Paris de Gaulle (larger) has a higher mode share than does Paris Orly (smaller) and New York JFK (larger) has a higher mode share than New York LaGuardia Table 3-1.

Rank

Market share by size and location.

Airport

Public transport market share

Size of airport

Distance to CBD

64%

16 MAP

30

1

Oslo

2

Hong Kong

63%

44 MAP

21

3

Narita

59%

31 MAP

40

4

Shanghai

51%

21 MAP

18

5

Zurich

47%

19 MAP

7

6

Vienna

41%

17 MAP

12

7

London Stansted

40%

21 MAP

35

8

Paris Charles de Gaulle

40%

56 MAP

15

9

Amsterdam

37%

44 MAP

12

Copenhagen

37%

20 MAP

7

11

Munich

36%

31 MAP

17

12

London Heathrow

36%

67 MAP

15

13

Stockholm

34%

15 MAP

25

14

Frankfurt

33%

52 MAP

6

15

London Gatwick

31%

34 MAP

30

16

Geneva

28%

9 MAP

3

17

Brussels

26%

16 MAP

7

18

Paris Orly

26%

25 MAP

9

19

Düsseldorf

22%

15 MAP

5

10

SOURCE: M. A. Coogan, based on airport information.

53

54

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

(smaller). In general, while airports need a certain size to support public transportation services, size alone does not explain high ridership. Distance traveled to the airport is worthy of more attention.

Does Distance from Downtown Explain Ridership? Most airports serve one dominant downtown (e.g., Boston), or at least a set of dominant downtowns (San Francisco and Oakland/Berkeley). What is the influence of line-haul distance to the downtown mode share? Some trades-offs are clear: with close-in service, the taxi provides a cost-effective alternative to the public transportation trip, whereas with a distant airport it does not. For example, the sheer distance involved in a trip to Narita airport (located approximately 37 miles from downtown Tokyo) or Oslo airport (located approximately 30 miles outside Oslo) makes the taxi a weak competitor. Thus, airports that are relatively close to downtown, such as Reagan Washington National, tend to have a high taxi share to the airport. At the same time, the close-in airport can offer many destinations by public transportation with only a moderate amount of transferring (e.g., in Washington, D.C.). However there are some complexities to consider. High rail mode shares exist when the distance is long, the taxi fare is high, and travel time can be gained on the line-haul segment to compensate for the non-directness of access at the non-airport end of the trip. At first glance, the high rail mode shares for Zurich and Copenhagen may seem to be an exception to this rule, as they are relatively close to the downtown. In fact, each of these airports is tied into an unusual nationwide (and sometimes multi-country) feeder system. For example, the mode share to distant Swiss regions is very high, while that to the center of Zurich is low, because the taxi is a feasible alternative. But such programs as that in Copenhagen, with its new tunnel/bridge directly from Copenhagen airport to Sweden, are a part of a longer distance national feeder system, not just a local one. As a general rule, the longer the ground access trip, the less competitive is the taxi, and the less attractive is the casual kiss-ride drop-off trip.

Does the Quality of the Airport Connection Explain Ridership? Looking at the connections on the airport, most of the public transportation services included in the sample of European/Asian airports have direct rail service to the airline terminals on the airport grounds. A major exception to this is Paris Orly airport, which operates a people mover over a 3-mile guideway to transfer travelers to the regional rail line that also serves Paris de Gaulle airport to the north. Thus, with both the quality of the line-haul service and the connectivity with the rest of the system constant, the Paris airport with the direct connection can be seen to have a higher market share to rail than the airport without the direct connection. At face value, a service with no change of vehicle at the airport should be expected to capture a higher market share than a service with a transfer at/near the airport, all other things being equal. For example, a traveler using rail from either downtown Dallas or Fort Worth would have to transfer once at the rail station, and a second time at a remote parking lot before getting a bus to any one of the five airline terminals. A low market share would be expected when compared with a bus or van that goes directly from major hotels in those two downtowns to the airports. However, in the United States, airports with direct rail service to the terminal area do not necessarily attain a higher share to public modes than those that do not. Of the ten U.S. airports with the highest mode shares to public transportation shown in Table 2-1, only two airports (Atlanta and Reagan Washington National) have rail service direct to the terminal complex; seven airports do not have rail service direct to the terminal; and San Francisco has direct rail service only to one terminal. In the latter category, the exceptionally high mode share attained by the 3-mile bus connection at Oakland International Airport needs some explanation other than minimization of

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems

transfer! The Bay Area case study is similar to the Paris case study in that both airports connect to the same regional rail system. With the quality of the rail system held constant, the 9% mode share in Oakland, compared with 7% from San Francisco, cannot be explained simply in terms of the ease of airport transfer. In the same vein, the 8% mode share to rail at New York JFK airport (no direct rail) compares favorably with direct on-airport rail connections in Chicago (Midway and O’Hare); Portland, Oregon; St. Louis; Minneapolis–St. Paul (determined from interviews with airport personnel); Philadelphia; Cleveland; and Baltimore. Düsseldorf airport provides another case study: it offers both a direct on-airport rail connection and an indirect connection via people mover to a nearby station; travelers choose the indirect connection over the direct connection by two to one. In short, directness of the connections on the airport cannot explain the wide variation in mode shares reported, although there is strong anecdotal data to support the idea that fewer transfers are better than more transfers.

Does Line-Haul Speed Explain High Ridership? Without question, the speed of the line-haul vehicle between the airport and the downtown area is important. Table 3-2 shows the relationship between overall speed of the train and the mode share attained. Average speeds of more than 40 mph are attained in Zurich, Oslo, Narita,

Table 3-2.

Market share by time and speed.

Airport

Market share by rail

Zurich

42%

Rail travel time (min)

Distance from CBD (miles)

Implied rail speed to CBD (mph)

10

7

42

Oslo

39%

19

30

95

Narita

36%

55

40

44

Amsterdam

35%

17

12

42

Copenhagen

33%

13

7

32

Munich

31%

40

17

26

Vienna

30%

16

12

45

London Stansted

29%

40

35

53

Paris Charles de Gaulle

28%

35

15

26

Hong Kong

28%

23

21

55

Frankfurt

27%

12

6

30

9%

15

15

60

14%

45

15

20

London Heathrow (23%)

Express Tube

Geneva

21%

10

3

18

London Gatwick

20%

30

30

60

Stockholm

18%

20

25

75

Düsseldorf

18%

12

5

25

Brussels

16%

14

7

30

Paris Orly via People Mover

14%

35

9

15

6%

8

18

135

Shanghai Maglev SOURCE: M. A. Coogan.

55

56

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

and Hong Kong and contribute to strong rail mode shares in those cities. But, Table 3-2 shows that line-haul speed alone does not explain the propensity to attain high market share. High-Speed Service and High Market Share: Oslo Airport Express The Oslo Airport Express train (Figure 3-1), which has the second highest mode share to rail in the sample, is an example of a strategy based on a determination to attain high running speeds and low terminal-to-terminal travel times. From the beginning, the running time of the train to the new airport was to be no longer than the running time of the bus from the existing airport— 19 minutes. For this investment, the government set the following policy goal: the airport rail system would attract 50% of the market, a mode share considerably higher than any system had attained to date. Of this desired share, 42% was set as the goal for the Oslo Airport Express service, with an 8% goal established for the traditional national train service. In Oslo, the strategy to provide high-speed service to the downtown and additional direct service beyond has resulted in a 39% market share for the dedicated Airport Express train and another 13% mode share to the slower, lower priced Norwegian Railway. High-Speed Service and Low Market Share: Shanghai Maglev A dramatic example of a strategy to build a market based on the speed of the line-haul vehicle comes from the Shanghai maglev project (8). On first look, the service characteristics of the maglev are impressive. While the bus takes about 60 minutes and the taxi takes 50 minutes, the maglev makes the line-haul segment of the trip in just 8 minutes. The headway of the super high-speed train is 15 minutes. A good connection is available at the airport: the maglev station is connected by a pedestrian bridge (see Figure 3-2); no people mover or shuttle bus is needed to access the service. However, it was not possible to get a maglev directly into the center of the city, so a terminal was built on the edge of the downtown next to an existing metro stop.

PHOTO: M. A. Coogan.

Figure 3-1. The Oslo Airport Express train was specifically designed for high speeds on this service.

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems

PHOTO: http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20030809_pudong_airport_maglev_in_depth.htm.

Figure 3-2. The Shanghai Airport maglev station (left) is directly connected to the air terminal (right) by this pedestrian bridge.

From Shanghai Airport, the exclusive airport bus follows a strategy of serving several areas directly. Seven separate airport bus lines are operated to such destinations as the main train station and the City Air Terminal. Headways for the separate bus services range from 15 to 30 minutes. At a cost of around $7, the maglev service is roughly twice the cost of the airport bus, while still somewhat cheaper than a taxi for one. However, with a party of two, the taxi becomes cheaper than the maglev and directly competitive with the airport bus. The faster maglev attracts only about 6% of the market, compared to 43% for the more direct (and cheaper) airport buses. Market research undertaken in Shanghai shows that people traveling on business had a lower than average use of the maglev, while their use of taxi (25%) was the highest of any market segment. Indeed, the business travelers also had the highest use of the airport bus of any market segment, at 48% mode share. Retired persons had no recorded use of the maglev, presumably because of the price differential. Highest use of the maglev came from “tours” and “visiting friends.” About half of the trips by arriving air travelers involved only one mode; about an equal number involved two modes, the most popular being airport bus and taxi (about 15% of all trips). Without question the low market share gained by the high-speed maglev is surprising. The analysts noted that the higher income markets, like those traveling on business, chose the taxi in spite of the obviously longer travel time to the city edge, at 60 minutes versus 8 minutes. Clearly, the lower income travelers selected the cheaper buses, while the business travelers went for the no-transfer service offered by the taxi. The lack of selection of the maglev-plus-taxi option is puzzling. The implications are clear: the analyst and service designer must be concerned with the door-todoor travel times and the directness of public mode services rather than with the highest speed of the vehicle (reported at 450 km [~280 mph] per hour for the Shanghai maglev). These conclusions are consistent with the Hong Kong experience of the market response to one high-speed rail line compared to a wide variety of more direct bus lines, as discussed below. In both cases, the resident (who is aware of the local options) has a greater propensity to choose the directly routed bus than does the visitor (who is less aware of local options).

57

58

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Is Higher Speed or Directness of Service More Important? In the case studies of successful rail services to downtown, two strategies for service design emerge: (1) focus on the line speed to the terminal or on the quality of distribution services, and (2) minimize the headway that comes from joint operation with regularly scheduled services. Both strategies seek to produce a door-to-door travel time that is competitive with the taxi and the private vehicle. In the comparison of the two strategies, the Oslo Airport Express can be used as a prototype of the high-speed dedicated-service strategy (in which services are designed specifically for air travelers) and Munich’s standard S-Bahn can be a prototype of the lower speed shared-service strategy (in which air travelers share public transportation services designed for commuters and others). In the evolutions of these systems, service was improved in Oslo by decreasing the line time, while service in Munich was improved by doubling the number of trains, thus lowering the waiting time by 50%. An Example of Low-Speed, Shared Service: Munich Although several cities have chosen to create dedicated express airport services, most of the airports in the sample are served by rail lines that are also used by daily commuters. Munich can be used as an example of a local strategy, because, as shown in Figure 3-3, the airport station is served by only conventional metropolitan railway equipment, with no direct national service. In the 1990s, the Munich S-Bahn system made a major improvement to airport service with the addition of a second local rail line, making no change in the basic strategy to serve the airport with the existing metropolitan rail system. In 1998, the Munich system doubled the amount of service to the airport with standard local equipment providing service that is shared with the other users of the system. A new line was extended for 4 miles from an existing route, the S-1 (shown at the left end of the dotted line on Figure 3-3), at a cost of DM 220 million (US $121 million). In the first months of the new service, ridership from the airport station increased by 7%, with air traveler mode share rising from 28% to 31%. This increase in ridership is notable because the actual travel time by either of the two lines to downtown remains about 40 minutes. This travel time is similar to that of the London Underground from Heathrow airport but worse than that of most other local airport services.

SOURCE: Copyright Münchner Verkehrs- und Tarifverbund GmBH (MVV) Munich.

Figure 3-3. Munich Airport (upper right) is served by two local train lines, with good network coverage.

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems

The Role of Distribution and Connectivity With shared services, the line-haul travel speeds from the airport to the CBD are slow, but the service is well integrated with local distribution systems. At both London Heathrow and Munich airports, the local rail service, with its shared services, captures more of the market than does any other service. An example can be observed in London: dedicated service on the Heathrow Express takes about 17 minutes to Paddington Station (central London), leaving every 15 minutes. The Underground’s Piccadilly Line to central London takes about 40 minutes, leaving every 4 minutes. The Express traveler waits an average of 7.5 minutes and travels 17 minutes, for a total travel time to Paddington Station of about 25 minutes. The walk from the express rail platform, through the Paddington Station complex to the specific underground platform takes about 7 minutes. The headway of the connecting service may add another 5 minutes of waiting time. Examination of total trip times shows that there are only a small number of Underground stations (the immediately adjacent stations on lines connecting from Paddington) at which the total travel times for the Heathrow Express plus Underground are superior to the Underground plus other Underground travel times. Shared services make the traveler endure whatever level of overcrowding exists on the rail vehicle during rush hour, which, in London, can be a serious problem. Dedicated services provide guaranteed quality of service on the line-haul segment, leaving the traveler with the need to find adequate distribution from the rail terminal. Case Study: Fast Service versus Slower, More Direct Service Planners at the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) have been examining the competitive market position of the fast rail and the slower bus services available to the air traveler. High-quality air-conditioned buses, often double-decked, provide direct service to many urban destinations. Looking only at travel from the airport to downtown (Central Station), the fast train provides service in 23 minutes, at a fare of more than $10 US; the Airbus A route takes 48 minutes and charges about half as much; while the standard city bus takes 53 minutes and charges much less. At the time of the analysis reported here (1998), the rail gained 21% of the market; the Airbus, 16%; and the city bus, 20%. The factors that result in this high mode share to bus seem to include more than price minimization, because MTRC also provides good lower priced rail service to the airport complex. From the beginning, planners designed the rail system to operate with two price points. While the Airport Express Line train to downtown operates directly from the airport terminal, a second standard train, reached by shuttle bus, operates from a nearby station. The entire trip (shuttle plus train) on the standard train is about one third the cost of the express, making the shuttle plus train option directly comparable with the cost of the city buses. In fact, the air traveler who uses this lower priced rail connection can get to Central Station in only 39 minutes, compared with 53 minutes on the city bus. But for this price-sensitive market, the shuttle bus–to–rail connection is capturing only 3% of air travelers; the direct city bus captures 20%. The bus system serves many area destinations directly, with no change of mode required for the trip. For the air traveler, directness of service may be more important than price minimization or line-haul speed to the terminal point. To understand the motivation for mode choice—and to explore the attribute of directness of service—MTRC managers conducted market research. Of those travelers on the direct bus routes, an expected 55% said that the lower fare was a reason for choosing the bus; importantly, 51% stated that directness of service (i.e., no need to transfer) was a reason for their choice of mode. Directness of service was considered a factor by only 18% of rail travelers, presumably those with destinations convenient to the terminals.

59

60

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Of all travelers on the Airport Express, an expected 63% stated that speed was the reason for choosing the rail. Some 13% mentioned the fare as the reason, which is lower than the fare for either taxi or airport door-to-door bus service. In an important conclusion, one of the original architects of the Hong Kong Airport Express writes: “It is apparent that even with a good design and well-integrated railway service, the Airport Express does not have inherent advantages over more direct single-mode bus travel. In other words, the speed advantage of rail versus single-mode road competitors when traveling over distances of only up to 34 km [21 mi] do not result in significant enough time savings to compensate for the necessary transfer.” (9, emphasis added)

Lessons Learned: The Importance of Line-Haul Speed and Directness of Service The examination of relative line-haul speeds in the database of successful European/Asian airport rail operations has several key implications for the U.S. practitioner. The first implication, and by far the most important, is the difference that exists in the basic travel-time conditions, largely associated with the existence of fast highway connections in the United States. Four of the airports in the sample offer service to downtown that is twice as fast as automobile service. Table 3-3 shows that automobile travel times in Oslo are more than twice as long as the rail linehaul time. Table 3-3 shows many examples in which the automobile travel times are significantly

Table 3-3.

Market share by comparative times.

Airport

Market share by rail

Auto travel time (min)

Rail travel time (min)

Ratio of auto time to rail time

Distance from CBD (miles)

Dedicated service?

Zurich

42%

20

10

2.0

7

No

Oslo

39%

50

19

2.6

30

Yes

Narita

36%

90

55

1.6

40

Yes

Amsterdam

35%

30

17

1.8

12

No

Copenhagen

33%

13

13

1.0

7

No

Munich

31%

35

40

1.1

17

No

Vienna

30%

17

16

1.0

12

Yes

London Stansted

29%

70

40

1.7

35

Yes

Paris Charles de Gaulle

28%

45

35

1.3

15

No

Hong Kong

28%

35

23

1.5

21

Yes

27%

20

12

1.7

6

No

Express 9%

45

15

3.0

15

Yes

Frankfurt London Heathrow

Tube Geneva

14%

45

45

1.0

15

No

21%

10

10

1.0

3

No

London Gatwick

20%

80

30

2.7

30

Yes

Stockholm

18%

41

20

2.0

25

Yes

Düsseldorf

18%

12

12

1.0

5

No

Brussels Paris Orly via People Mover

16%

20

14

1.4

7

No

14%

25

35

0.7

9

No

6%

50

8

6.2

18

Yes

Shanghai Maglev

SOURCE: M. A. Coogan, based on airport and rail information.

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems

higher than the rail travel times. Given the extent of roadway investment in the United States, attaining similar relative travel-time advantages for rail services will be difficult in most U.S. applications. The second implication is that the rankings of services by relative travel times to downtown do not correlate linearly with the rankings by mode share performance. The data reveal that it is the comparative travel time on a door-to-door basis that seems to influence choice. The data presented in Table 3-3 show that the focus on travel time to one location may be unproductive. For example, there are many points in central London where the slower mode (i.e., the Underground) gets the traveler to the destination without the negative experience of the transfer. Likewise, there are many points in Hong Kong where the slower mode (i.e., the direct bus) serves the traveler more directly than the faster mode. The third implication is that the travel-time characteristics to downtown may not be a good surrogate for the travel-time characteristics to the actual destinations of the users. The travel time to downtown Geneva is an interesting piece of information, but 75% of those leaving the Geneva airport are not going to the city of Geneva. The ratios of comparative travel times to Lausanne or to Bern are considerably more favorable to rail. The service must be designed based on the understanding of the needs of the travelers and must reflect the actual spatial distribution of tripend destinations.

The Implications of Dedicated Premium Service Dedicated versus Shared Service Public transportation services to airports can be categorized as either a dedicated service or a shared service. In the United States, there are no examples of rail service dedicated only to air travelers, but the Logan Express (Boston), the Van Nuys FlyAway (Los Angeles), and other airporter buses in major U.S. airports are all examples of service designed specifically for the air traveler. In Scandinavia, cities such as Helsinki and Gothenburg that have dedicated bus services attract higher levels of market share than do many cities with rail connections. Under the dedicated concept, services and vehicles designed specifically for the needs of the air traveler are provided. With shared service, air travelers use the same vehicles as other public transportation passengers in the corridor of service. European and Asian airports have many examples of rail services operated for air travelers only. Of the nineteen European/Asian airports in the sample, nine have dedicated rail services (shown in the last column of Table 3-3). In London, both the Gatwick Express and the Heathrow Express rail services are examples of dedicated service, with vehicles designed for the air traveler. Service to Heathrow Airport on the London Underground’s Piccadilly Line and other commuter rail services stopping at Gatwick Airport are examples of shared service. Many dedicated services market their high-quality line-haul times with fast service to only one downtown terminal. Most shared services, such as the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow, provide relatively slow speeds into the city, but with distribution to many points in downtown. In many cases, the dedicated service (e.g., Gatwick Express, Heathrow Express) utilizes a vehicle (originally) designed to accommodate checked baggage. In most shared services, such as Munich’s S-Bahn service, no specialized vehicle is used, resulting in vehicles that may not serve travelers’ need for extra baggage space. The ten airports without dedicated service have chosen to provide public transportation that is designed primarily for commuters and the rest of the system. A characteristic of the dedicated-service strategy is the ability to provide minimized travel times between the airport and the downtown. However, the most successful overall mode share is gained by airports that offer a variety of strategies.

61

62

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Table 3-3 shows that, in general, providing dedicated service does not itself guarantee high market share to rail. Looking at the 14 airports with rail mode share of 20% or higher, seven do provide dedicated service and seven do not. Increase in Mode Share Due to Dedicated Premium Service Given that every airport needs lower priced shared ground access services, the following question is raised: how much increase in rail market share would result from the addition of dedicated service to the existing shared service? This question is currently being examined by ground access planners in Chicago, New York City, and Paris. As summarized below, planners are designing higher priced rail services to O’Hare, Midway, JFK, and de Gaulle airports to serve in addition to existing lower quality rail services to those airports. Ridership data that document the experience of Heathrow airport can help answer this question. Longitudinal data have been created that describe the change in overall rail market share between Heathrow and central London resulting from the addition of highly specialized dedicated services to a system that already offered one-seat, non-dedicated services shared with all other rail system travelers. Data from before and after the addition of Heathrow dedicated services have been examined and, from these data, an expansion factor for each of the four market segments has been calculated to represent the growth in market share attributable to the addition of dedicated rail service. Importantly, the market segment most impacted by the premium service is the resident business segment, which experienced a 60% growth in market share. By contrast, resident non-business, more concerned about cost minimization, grew only by 13%. Non-resident market share to rail grew by about 40%. All in all, the addition of premium rail service to the existing shared rail service resulted in a 33% growth in rail mode share to Heathrow.

Service Attributes of Proposed Projects In four cities around the world, major capital investments to improve rail services to major airports are being considered. In the case of Berlin, the decision was made in connection with the decision to focus all airport activity on one new regional airport, phasing out older closer-in facilities. In the other three cities—Paris, Chicago, and New York, planning is underway to provide high-quality service that is dedicated to the needs of the air traveler. In addition, there have been plans for several years to build a maglev train between Munich Airport and the downtown Main rail station (Figure 3-4); the political future of that project is not clear after a tragic accident on the maglev test facility in Northern Germany. It is important to note that in each of these four examples, local decision makers are considering dedicated, premium service concepts at this time. The actual form of the two U.S. projects, however, is still under active debate.

Berlin Brandenburg Airport In 1999, German Railways announced its decision to develop a dedicated train to operate express service to the new Berlin Brandenburg International Airport, which will consolidate and replace the existing airports in Berlin. An S-Bahn suburban rail line already serves the site for the new airport, currently known as Schonefeld Airport, with a 25-minute service to downtown. The S-Bahn division of German Railways will develop a new dedicated express line that will connect with Berlin’s new central rail station, called “Berlin-Lehrter Bahnhof,” with only two intermediate stations. The specially designed trains will be capable of 100 mph service and will reduce the running time to downtown to 18 minutes.

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems

PHOTO: M. A. Coogan.

Figure 3-4. The future of the proposed Maglev from Munich Airport (shown here in a demonstration mock up at Terminal Two) is unclear.

Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport For years, the access strategy between Charles de Gaulle airport and downtown Paris has been based on the use of standard regional rail services, which are shared with commuters. No specialized service to the downtown was planned. Over the past decade, the French National Railways (SNCF) and Aéroports de Paris (ADP) worked to develop a new dedicated high-speed service to the Gare de l’Est. Responsibility for leading the planning for the new service has recently shifted entirely to the national railway system. Thus, the French authorities are planning for Charles de Gaulle airport to have two services available at two separate price points: a shared commuter service along the RER-B with distribution services through downtown Paris and the suburbs to the south, and a second, non-stop dedicated train service to a terminal at Gare de l’Est, where a transfer to taxi or other mode would be needed to continue the onward journey. In one routing option, an expensive new tunnel was proposed between the airport and the city; more recently the rail authorities are examining more efficient use of the existing rail right-ofway currently used by the RER trains. At present, no downtown baggage check-in services are planned for the new dedicated rail service. While funding commitment for the project has been lacking, the ADP website reports that the French government is now committed to the project.

Chicago Midway and O’Hare Airports The Chicago Transit Authority developed an ambitious plan to operate a dedicated airport train service from O’Hare International Airport to downtown and continuing on to Midway International Airport. A central feature of the plan was the creation of bypass tracks at key stations along the Kennedy Expressway, which would allow for an elaborate skip-stop operation that would reduce travel time from about 45 minutes to perhaps 25 minutes. The plan proposes the creation of a new station at a downtown location (called “Block 37” on State Street) where a connector could be built from the present tunnel of the Blue Line (serving O’Hare) to that of the Orange Line (serving Midway.) At this point a single station would be dedicated to the Blue/Orange train, with the

63

64

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

possibility of a baggage check-in station. New train equipment would be purchased that could accommodate both the air travelers and their baggage. A 2006 consultant report examined a less costly proposal, in which a dedicated service would be provided, but the investment in the bypass tracks postponed (10). This service would run “closed door” on the existing rails, in effect waiting as the preceding train stopped at each station but not serving those stations itself. This concept was developed in the original “Train to the Plane” service operated to JFK in New York for several years. Over time, bypass tracks could be added incrementally to allow the dedicated train to overtake local trains at key locations. Operational details for the new Chicago dedicated service will be developed over time.

New York JFK Airport The concept of a new dedicated rail service for air travelers between the general site of the World Trade Center and JFK airport was proposed in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on Lower Manhattan. For this project, a major engineering study recommended the creation of an entirely new tunnel between Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan, whether for commuter rail service to a new terminal or for extension of rapid transit north into Manhattan. In either case, a new air traveler terminal with full airline baggage check-in was proposed near the World Trade Center site. In the proposed concept, a hybrid form of the existing JFK AirTrain people mover would operate counter-clockwise around the existing air terminal loop and proceed to Jamaica Station. There the vehicle would switch from the existing linear induction propulsion system to a third-rail propulsion system. The vehicle would then reverse direction, traveling from the Jamaica Station to a new connection to the existing Long Island Railroad (LIRR) Atlantic Branch elevated system to a point in downtown Brooklyn. In the preferred plan a new tunnel would be built from there to the World Trade Center site. In an alternative, the new service would be connected to the existing Montague rapid transit tunnel, allowing stops at Broad Street, Fulton Street Transit Center, and Chambers Street, according to the project press release of May 5, 2004. Since the conclusion of that 2004 feasibility study, the prime proponent of the project, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, has ceased operations. A planning study has since been undertaken that “will evaluate all reasonable rail and non-rail alternatives which potentially address the project’s goal and objectives” (11). The project created a list of 47 options for study. No funding commitment has been made to the project, which is being reviewed by the new Governor of New York, particularly in the context of competing transportation proposals.

Summing It Up This chapter has reviewed a series of attributes associated with successful airport ground access systems. It has established that no single attribute or characteristic can be used alone to predict the level of market share attained by public transportation services to airports. Rather, the total travel time—which includes the efficiency of the connection on the airport, the speed of the vehicle to the terminal, the quality of distribution services experienced after the line-haul trip, and the provision of services meeting the unique needs of the air traveler—all interact in determining the marketability of the trip. No mode emerges as perfectly matched to all trips. The experience of fast express time can be marred by the lack of a taxi at the arrival terminal. The experience of a van trip operating directly to a hotel can be damaged by long in-vehicle times serving the needs of three or four other passengers and by long waits to assemble the trip at the airport curb.

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems

Desired Attributes of Rail Service to U.S. Airports The two previous TCRP studies reviewed a wide variety of factors associated with the success or lack of success of airport rail services around the world. The following key factors have been shown to affect the use of rail service: • Proportion of air travelers with trip ends in downtown or the transit-rich core areas. For

example, at Reagan Washington National airport about 33% of all air travelers have trip ends in the downtown area. Other airports where large proportions of travelers have downtown trip ends include those serving Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco. At most airports, fewer than 15% of all travelers have trip ends in the downtown area. Thus, in most communities, the geographic service area directly served by a downtown rail service represents a relatively small percentage of the total air traveler market. Characteristics of air traveler market. Air travelers with few or no checked bags are more likely to use rail service. Large family groups are less likely to use rail. Thus, airports serving a high proportion of business trips (e.g., Atlanta and Reagan Washington National airports where more than 40% of the travelers are making business-related trips) are more likely to attract rail users than those serving tourist destinations (e.g., Las Vegas and Orlando where less than 30% of the travelers are making business-related trips). The proportion of passengers familiar with regional transit systems (i.e., who understand the schedules and how to purchase a ticket) is also important. Regional travel time. The availability of direct service between the airport and downtown (or major activity centers) allowing travelers to avoid transfers or multiple stops is important. Travelers going between the airport and downtown encounter 6 to 9 station stops at Reagan Washington National airport versus 15 or more stops on less successful rail systems. As evidenced by the data, travelers tend to use rail service when they are concerned about (1) unreliable travel times on access roadways or encountering traffic delays en route to the airport and (2) the lack of convenient parking at the airport and the need to search for an available space. Ability to walk between station and destination. Air travelers may find using rail service more attractive if their final destination is within walking distance of the station, and less attractive (and less convenient) if they must transfer to a second mode (e.g., a bus or taxicab) to travel to/from the station. The need for travelers using rail service to wait for and transfer to a second mode may provide a travel time advantage for door-to-door services. Extent of regional coverage. A comprehensive rail network, serving a large catchment area, will serve a larger potential market and provide travelers with more travel opportunities (e.g., those who may wish to leave from their place of work and return to their home) than does a rail system consisting of a single line between downtown and the airport. On-airport travel time. The time (and distance) airline passengers are required to travel between the station and their gate is also important. Convenient rail service is easier to provide at airports that have a single terminal (e.g., Atlanta or Chicago Midway airports) than those that have multiple terminal buildings (e.g., New York JFK, Boston, or Paris de Gaulle airports) where travelers must use intermediate shuttle buses or people movers to get to the rail station. Frequency of service. Waiting times of 10 minutes or less are preferred. The rail service at one U.S. airport operates on 30-minute headways, while a taxi ride downtown at the same airport requires a wait of only 15 to 30 minutes. The availability of late-night and weekend service is also important.

Desired Attributes of Van and Bus Service to U.S. Airports The TCRP studies documented that air travelers represent a unique market that differs from traditional daily commuters. Compared to daily commuters, air travelers are typically more time sensitive and less cost sensitive, have more baggage, use the transit system less often, and are more

65

66

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

likely to use the system outside of normal commute hours. Often designing a special bus or van service to respond to this market is easier than trying to adapt a commuter-oriented, multistop bus (or rail) service to meet the needs of both daily commuters and air travelers. Door-to-door van and express bus services are examples of airport access modes that respond to the desire of air travelers for greater convenience and faster travel times than are typically offered by multistop bus services. Many operators of rail service prefer not to have airport-dedicated vehicles (e.g., with special baggage racks), because these special vehicles reduce their flexibility in the use of equipment. In the United States, specialized services have been developed to respond to specific markets not well served by traditional transit services. These services include the express bus services operated at the airports serving Boston (Logan Express), Denver (employee-oriented SkyRide), Los Angeles (Van Nuys FlyAway), and San Francisco (Marin Airporter). None of these services rely upon the general-purpose transit configuration of the metropolitan area. In each case, the specific needs of the target market segment were defined and provided for. In general, each of the transit services was able to attract about 20% market share in its immediate service area. Market conditions improved for the Logan Express’s Braintree service when both a new express bus lane and a new tunnel serving the airport were opened. Braintree Logan Express’s average daily ridership increased 50% as a result of the new radial bus lane, the commercial-vehicle-only tunnel, coordinated HOV policy, and other factors. As with rail systems, numerous studies have documented the requirements for a successful bus and van transportation service. At an airport, the following key factors affect the use of bus and van services: • Door-to-door transportation. Many air travelers are willing to pay additional fares for the con-

venience offered by door-to-door services because they value travel time (particularly reliable travel time) more highly than travel costs. Such services also allow travelers to avoid transferring between airport access modes. Express bus service. Express bus services, particularly those that offer travel time savings and service from intercept lots near regional access roads, have proven attractive to specific air traveler market segments. On-airport travel time. The time (and distance) airline passengers are required to travel between the terminal and the boarding area is an important consideration. As with rail systems, an airport with a single terminal building allows better levels of service (i.e., fewer stops and faster travel time) than does an airport with multiple terminals or bus stops. Pick-up/drop-off locations. To best serve the needs of travelers, drop-off locations should be located immediately adjacent to ticket counters and pick-up should occur next to baggage claim areas, preferably in areas reserved for buses, vans, and other commercial vehicles. Frequency of service. The availability of off-peak, late-night, and weekend service is also important as many airline passengers travel during non-commuter hours (e.g., the peak hours at many airports are 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on weekdays). Regional travel time. The availability of HOV lanes on airport access routes can allow bus and van services to offer a travel time savings compared to private vehicles. The ability to stop at major activity centers, thereby allowing the traveler to avoid the need to use a second, connecting travel mode at the non-airport end of the trip, is an advantage. Form of competition. The measures used to control competition between bus, van, and other rubber-tired services (e.g., taxis and limousines) are important. In an open market, a legitimate operator offering high-quality service will find it difficult to compete financially with an operator who (1) uses vehicles that are improperly maintained and lack proper insurance and (2) uses owner-operator drivers who lack proper training and are encouraged or required to improperly solicit business.

Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems • Regional coverage/traveler characteristics. The proportion of air travelers whose trip end is

near the bus stops/stations is important. The degree of population density and automobile ownership may also influence the use of door-to-door service. For example, the proportion of travelers using shared-ride vans at San Francisco International Airport is much higher than the proportions at Oakland or San Jose airports, perhaps because of the greater population densities and lower automobile ownership rate in San Francisco.

What’s Next? Understanding the logic of high market shares requires a case-by-case examination of both systems that are performing well and systems that are performing poorly. Using the most basic measure of performance—market share to public transportation, 46 airports around the world are examined in detail in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 then reviews known ridership impacts of strategies to integrate baggage check-in/handling and ticketing across modes. Documentation of the desired attributes of good service is clearly important. However, once documented, the service attributes per se clearly cannot explain the variations in the public transportation market, particularly when examined on the basis of the total airport market. A process to document both the geographic distribution of market segments and the demographic distribution of market segments is needed to understand the extent to which a given service is succeeding or failing in terms of the market for which it was designed. This task will be addressed in Chapter 6.

67

CHAPTER 4

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport This chapter presents an airport-by-airport summary of air traveler ground access mode share by public transportation services. The modes included in this summary are rail, bus, and sharedride vans; modes excluded from this summary are hotel and rental car vans, limousines, and charter buses. In Part 1, the public transportation mode share data for 27 U.S. airports are presented, along with a discussion of trends and patterns for each of the modes. In Part 2, the public transportation mode shares for 19 European/Asian airports are presented with a brief description of the salient characteristics of the services provided. Certain information is provided for the European and Asian airports, such as their baggage-handling strategies and the relationship of ground services to national services, which is not provided for the U.S. airports because of a lack of relevance. The available mode choice (i.e., market share) data for originating airline passengers at large U.S. airports are discussed below. (Unless otherwise noted in the following sections, “passengers” refers to originating airline passengers.)

Part 1: Best Practices at U.S. Airports This section presents brief, factual overviews of the 27 U.S. airports covered in this report in terms of the characteristics of the airport itself, the nature of its configuration relative to ground transportation services, and the role played by rail and bus services. Finally, observations are presented about the market characteristics of the airport ground access services when they are relevant to the emphasis areas of this report. The factors that contribute to the success of the ground access systems are examined in five categories: • The airport: Each U.S. airport is summarized in terms of its location, its traffic in terms of

• •

68

annual enplanements in 2005, and the number of those enplanements representing originating passengers. Automobile travel times to downtown are presented, along with a reasonable approximation of the taxi fares, which will vary by the actual destination of the trip. Connections at the airport: The discussion of this category examines the nature of the airport configuration and design, which influence the ability of both bus and rail services to serve the airport efficiently. Rail: Rail services to the U.S. airports are described when they exist. Bus: Bus services that are specific to the airport market (i.e., “airporters”) and more traditional public transportation services by bus are summarized. In the case of Boston, bus rapid transit is discussed as a separate mode. Shared-ride vans: Shared-ride vans are included in the analysis, but services such as limousines and “black cars” designed to transport single parties are excluded whenever the original data will allow.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

Table 4-1. Public transportation mode shares to U.S. airports.

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Airport San Francisco New York JFK Boston Reagan National Oakland New Orleans Newark Atlanta Denver Los Angeles Baltimore/Washington Chicago O’Hare Las Vegas Orlando Seattle Portland Chicago Midway Phoenix San Diego Indianapolis Washington Dulles New York LaGuardia Philadelphia Tampa Dallas/Fort Worth St. Louis Cleveland

Total 23% 19% 18% 17% 15% 15% 14% 14% 14% 13% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6%

Market Share Rail Bus/Van 7% 16% 8% 11% 6% 12% 13% 4% 9% 6% 0% 15% 5% 9% 10% 4% 0% 14% 0% 13% 3% 9% 5% 7% 0% 12% 0% 11% 0% 11% 6% 4% 5.5% 4% 0% 9% 0% 9% 0% 9% 1% 7% 1% 7% 3% 4% 0% 7% 0% 6% 3% 3% 2% 4%

The public transportation mode shares for all 27 U.S. airports are shown combined and by share to rail and bus/van services in Table 4-1.

Tier 1 Figure 4-1 presents the first tier of U.S. airports—the 13 U.S. airports with a public transportation mode market share of more than 11%—ranked in order according to their performance. Rail

Bus/Van

25% 20% 15% 10% 5%

s

Ve

ga

e

I

ar O

BW

‘H

La s

Sa n

Fr an ci sc o JF K Bo st on R ea g O an ak N ew lan O d rle an s N ew ar k At la nt D a e Lo nv e s An r ge le s

0%

Figure 4-1. Market shares to rail and bus in the first tier U.S. airports.

69

70

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

San Francisco (23% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 1

Airport San Francisco International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

Bus/Van

23%

7%

16%

SOURCE: Surveys (12)

The Airport. San Francisco International Airport is located about 14 miles from Union Square in downtown San Francisco, with a driving time of 18 minutes possible with no traffic. The airport served nearly 33 MAP in 2005; of these, nearly 9 million were originating passengers. San Francisco International Airport remains one of the strongest markets in the United States for publicly available modes of transportation. Connections at the Airport. The airport has two major terminal buildings: a traditional horseshoe configuration to the east and a new international terminal to the west. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station is located within the structure of the international terminal, but requires a transfer to the automated people mover for most connections to the original airport terminals. Rail. In June 2003, the long-planned extension of the BART system into San Francisco was opened. Airport managers report a 7% market share for the new BART service in 2006. Bus. San Francisco International Airport also has a strong tradition of regional bus operations with direct service to the airport, designed for airport users. In the North Bay, three companies operate service; in the East Bay, one company operates service; and there are two operators to the South. The long-operated dedicated bus to downtown, which made or connected to a hotel loop, was abandoned after the opening of the direct BART service to the airport. Together, buses directly serving the airport capture about 5% of the ground transportation market. The Marin Airporter express bus service was developed by private entrepreneurs, who have successfully operated the service between Marin County (located across the Golden Gate Bridge, north of San Francisco) and San Francisco International Airport. Consistent with other successful long-distance bus routes, the Marin Airporter operates from the airport every half hour from 4:30 a.m. to midnight. Shared-Ride Van. Shared-ride vans continue to dominate the public transportation market to San Francisco International Airport, capturing about 11% of the market in 2006. San Francisco International Airport advertises two distinct kinds of van services. For “doorto-door vans,” the members of the public can walk up to the service operator at the airport and purchase a ride without reservation. In the return direction, some form of reservation is required. For “pre-arranged” vans, reservations are required for all services, to or from the airport. Over time, the airport management has analyzed a variety of methods to limit the number of shuttle operators carving up the same geographic market. At the present time, however, multiple operators go after the same shared-ride market, which degrades the services. For example, to the city of San Francisco, the San Francisco International Airport website lists 11 service providers offering services to the same area. To the East Bay, three companies provide service, with two companies providing service to the south, to Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

New York JFK (19% Market Share)

Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

Bus/Van

John F. Kennedy International Airport

19%

8%

11%

U.S. Rank 2

SOURCE: Ground Access Surveys (13)

The Airport. John F. Kennedy International Airport is located about 16 miles from the center of Midtown Manhattan. The airport served about 42 MAP in 2005; of these, some 11.6 million were originating passengers. In theory, driving time between Manhattan and JFK can be as short as 25 minutes, with several hours experienced in the worst cases of congestion. Taxi fares are about $45. Connections at the Airport. JFK has long been known as a difficult airport to serve with public transportation services, as its terminal structure in highly decentralized. To deal with this geographic challenge, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey examined a wide variety of solutions for public transportation access, including a proposed master plan that called for all public transportation facilities to be located in the center of the airport, with people mover shuttles from the central check-in terminal (only for public transportation travelers) to each of the currently existing air terminals. After that plan was rejected, the Port Authority developed the AirTrain concept, which opened in 2003. According to the most recently available data, the airport ground access system serving JFK has experienced a major increase in its public transportation mode share. The overall public mode share of 19% is a major increase over the 7% reported in 1997. The automated AirTrain system operates three services over one right-of-way. One line travels on a counter-clockwise loop from Jamaica Station through the airport, stopping at five stations serving the nine terminals, and back to Jamaica Station. A second line travels through the counter-clockwise loop of airline terminals from Howard Beach Station and back. The system operates a continuous loop with the ability to travel in either direction within the terminal area only, which is used for intra-airport connections. The multibillion dollar project, coupled with a parallel increase in van usage, has resulted in a significant increase in public transportation use since the publication of the two TCRP airport access studies. Rail. The traveler has the option of two separate rail systems for the continuing journey to Manhattan or other regional destinations. The greatest number of rail connections exists at Jamaica Station, which serves the Long Island Railroad and several subway lines. Although it varies significantly by hour of the day, the Long Island Railroad has many non-stop or one-stop trains directly to Midtown Manhattan, terminating in Penn Station. However, the strongest ridership is via Howard Beach Station, which is served only by the A-line, which enters Manhattan near the site of the former World Trade Center. Bus. Dedicated airport-only bus service is offered to a Midtown terminal near Grand Central Station, at which point connections are offered to major hotels and the Port Authority bus terminal. Shared-Ride Van. More than a dozen firms are operating shared-ride services from JFK, in addition to the airport bus service to Manhattan. Boston (18% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 3

Airport General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport

SOURCE: Massachusetts Port Authority Surveys (14)

Total

Market Share Rail

Bus/Van

18%

6%

12%

71

72

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

The Airport. Boston’s Logan International Airport is located about 3 to 4 miles from the center of the business district, with highly dependable automobile travel times now established with the new Ted Williams Tunnel. The trip takes less than 15 minutes, depending on the traffic near the downtown destination. The airport served about 27 MAP in 2005; of these, some 10.4 million were originating passengers. Connections at the Airport. The airport has four major air terminal buildings, which are now connected by moving sidewalk facilities through the central parking garage structures. All buses and ground transportation services pick up and drop off at all four of the terminals. Although the recently relocated Blue Line rail station is only about 1 mile from the farthest terminals, an indirect ramping system makes the connecting ride longer than it was before the reconstruction of the roadway system. An additional water shuttle system serves the downtown and has traditionally captured less than 1% mode share for airline passengers. Rail. The rapid transit station at Boston’s airport attracts more than 4,000 travelers daily, approximately one-third of whom are air travelers. In 2005, the airport’s rapid transit station attracted 6% of airline passengers to the system operated by the MBTA. That rail ridership has declined since the inauguration of the Silver Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to South Station. Bus. The tripling of market share by scheduled services is the result of many years of public agency participation, considerable operator investment, and public subsidy. Of the nearly 2 million travelers per year who use scheduled services to the airport, the majority of them use the Logan Express bus service, which offers non-stop airport connections to three regional terminals located on or beyond Route 128. Over a 25-year period, policy makers in Massachusetts have been trying—with a remarkable level of success—to decrease the use of private transportation and to increase the use of public transit modes to Logan airport. In 1970, 84% of airline passengers arrived at the airport in either a private or rented car; by 1996, that percentage had decreased to 48%. In 1970, fewer than 2% of airline passengers arrived at the airport by scheduled bus. In 1996, 12% arrived by scheduled services, and 10% was recorded in 2006. Five bus companies provide standard coach services directly to the airport, in addition to the Logan Express, which serves Braintree, Framingham, and Woburn with new services to Peabody. Bus Rapid Transit. Since the data was collected, the MBTA has inaugurated a major bus rapid transit project that has dual-propulsion vehicles capable of operating on electric power within the new downtown bus tunnel and on other sources outside of the bus tunnel. The new bus tunnel serves the rapidly developing Seaport area of the city with connections to the new Ted Williams Tunnel (Interstate 90), a stop for a major new convention center, and direct service to the South Station Transportation Center. Travelers going to South Station and the Red Line are encouraged to take the new BRT service; travelers going to Government Center, the Orange Line, or the Green Line are encouraged to take the airport bus (free) to the newly relocated Blue Line rapid transit center. Since the opening of the BRT service to South Station, boardings at the Blue Line station (both air travelers and others) have fallen considerably, suggesting a roughly 50-50 split between the two services. Shared-Ride Van. For some reason, shared-ride van services have not become as successful in Boston as they have in other airports. A major carrier went bankrupt after a series of operating problems, and no single operator dominates the market. The researchers estimate that less than 3% of the Logan ground access market chooses high-occupancy vans, as distinct

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

from single-occupancy limousines. The airport website lists about 12 companies that provide shared-ride services to and from the airport. Reagan Washington National (17% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 4

Airport Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

17%

13%

Bus/Van 4%

SOURCE: 2005 Washington-Baltimore Regional Air Passenger Survey (15)

The Airport. Reagan Washington National Airport is located less than 4 miles from the White House in downtown Washington, D.C., and is accessible with a 10-minute drive under perfect traffic conditions. While traffic conditions do vary, the trip is reliable by the standards of many U.S. airports. The airport served almost 18 MAP in 2005; of these, some 7 million were originating passengers. Connections at the Airport. Reagan Washington National Airport has been rebuilt to be primarily centered around the previously existing Metrorail station. Quite literally, the airport was reconfigured to be closer to the rail station, rather than the other way around. With the 1997 opening of the new integrated air–rail terminal at Reagan Washington National, the airport has one of the shortest walking distances of any air–rail facility. Served by two rapid transit lines from one station, the Metrorail service offers excellent downtown distribution. The market for services from Reagan Washington National is focused on downtown Washington, D.C., and the close-in suburbs, most of which are directly served by the MetroRail network. Rail. Reagan Washington National has the highest rail mode share in the United States at 13%. The rail service is provided by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). Provided by WMATA, the rail service to Reagan Washington National Airport has the highest rail mode share in the United States at 13%. Construction of the Metrorail station at the airport in the 1970s led to one of the largest increases in public transportation share ever recorded, from 2.5% (bus) before the new service to 16% (rail and bus) after the opening of the new station. Shared-Ride Van. Reagan Washington National operates as a franchised facility and all shared-ride services are provided by Super Shuttle, Inc. Thus, there are no traditional bus services serving the airport. Oakland (15% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 5

Airport Oakland International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

15%

9%

Bus/Van 6%

SOURCE: Surveys (12)

The Airport. Oakland International Airport is located about 18 miles from downtown San Francisco, which is about a 30-minute drive assuming no traffic problems. It is about 9 miles from downtown Oakland; driving time is less than 20 minutes. The airport served more than 14 MAP in 2005; of these, some 6.3 million were originating passengers. Connections at the Airport. Oakland International Airport has an unusually high mode share to rail for an airport not directly served by rail. The Coliseum Station of BART is about

73

74

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

3 miles from the airline passenger terminal area of the airport and is served by a dedicated bus line, called “AirBART.” The fare for the AirBART bus is $3. Plans for an automated people mover from the rail station to the airport have been under development for some time. Rail. Oakland airport managers have calculated that the bus connection to the BART system attracts about 9% of the ground transportation market. The airport managers report that, in 2006, bus ridership gained almost 6% over the previous year. From Coliseum Station, BART trains serve an extensive network on the East Bay area of the San Francisco peninsula itself with service between 4 a.m. and midnight. For many hours of the day, the BART connection to downtown San Francisco is actually faster than the taxi alternative. Service from Coliseum Station to the Union Square area takes about 21 minutes, at a rail fare of less than $3.50. Bus. Given the very high utilization of AirBART, scheduled bus services to Oakland airport play a smaller role than in many U.S. airports. In a 2002 survey, scheduled buses attracted about 3% of the market. Shared-Ride Van. In that same survey, shared-ride vans attracted about 3% of the market, which is lower than other recent experiences in the Bay Area. The airport website lists more than 100 service providers under the category “limo” but only two under the category “scheduled vans and buses.” New Orleans (15% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 6

Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

Bus/Van

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport

15%

0%

15%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport is located about 15 miles from downtown New Orleans, which is about a 25-minute drive under conditions of no congestion. The airport served about 7.8 MAP in 2005, of which about 3.5 million were originating passengers. Note that passenger volumes in 2005 were about 20% lower than in 2004. Similar volumes were down 36% in 2006, again compared against 2004. Connections at the Airport. The New Orleans airport is smaller than many in this sample and operates out of a single, compact terminal. Within this terminal, the proximity of the baggage pick-up area to the franchised van departure area is nearly optimal, from the point of view of maximizing public mode use. The Shuttle Express departure locations are closer than private automobile pick-up areas, and ticket sales are located on the immediate path between baggage carousels and the curb serving the vans. Bus/Van. According to the TCRP reports, New Orleans had one of the highest mode shares to bus of any U.S. airport, with a reported 15% of airline passengers using the direct, dedicated hotel loop services to downtown and New Orleans East. From the airport, vehicles are dispatched with varying levels of directness. The highly successful scheduled van system does not require a reservation from the airport, but does require that reservations be made 24 hours in advance of the trip to the airport. No new ground access data are available; however, shifts in mode share are to be expected over the post-Katrina period, as the relative portion of air travelers going downtown to the conventionoriented hotels might have decreased. Nevertheless, the New Orleans example—where a series of small buses run a fixed route and schedule service from the airport, which varies by time

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

of day—may remain as one of the highest public mode shares recorded in the United States from any single mode. Newark (14% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 7

Airport Newark Liberty International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

14%

5%

Bus/Van 9%

SOURCE: Surveys (13)

The Airport. Newark Liberty International Airport is located about 18 miles from Midtown Manhattan. The drive can be made in about 30 minutes, but the travel time varies vastly according to local congestion on route. The airport served about 34 MAP in 2005; of these, some 10.4 million were originating passengers. Connections at the Airport. Newark airport is a comparatively centralized airport, with only three major terminal departure areas. The Newark AirTrain connects these three terminals with a rental car area, a transfer point for hotel courtesy vehicles, and the Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station, which is served by New Jersey Transit and Amtrak. The airport rail station is the only direct connection between an airport people mover and the national rail system. Rail. At Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station, New Jersey Transit offers frequent service both toward Manhattan and in the opposite direction toward Trenton, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. Amtrak offers less frequent service, with many regional trains stopping, but with no connection to the high-speed Acela service. Bus. A wide variety of bus services are offered at the passenger terminal area. A major express bus service serves midtown, and a separate line serves Lower Manhattan. About 5% of Newark’s non-connecting airline passengers choose this bus service. Another 2% use the local bus systems. Shared-Ride Van. Around 10 companies provide services beyond the major express bus services to Manhattan, with direct services in all directions. Atlanta (14% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 8

Airport Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

14%

10%

Bus/Van 4%

SOURCE: Atlanta Airport (17)

The Airport. The Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is located about 10 miles from downtown Atlanta (Peachtree Center), which is a less than 20-minute drive under good traffic conditions. This airport is the largest in the United States, and one of the largest in the world, with nearly 86 MAP served in 2005; of these, about 13.7 million are originating passengers. Connections at the Airport. The Atlanta airport has recently opened a new ground transportation center that is located in the arrivals lobby, next to the Hertz rental car desks. This common location provides information, and allows immediate reservations, for all kinds of publicly available ground services, including both shared and single-party limousines. Because

75

76

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

of the highly centralized landside configuration of the airport, all buses, vans, and hotel shuttles leave from a single fixed-slot loading point: they are each assigned a parking place and, thus, do not circle around the airport, as is common at most U.S. airports. The reconstruction and improvement of this transfer area is continuing in 2007. Rail. The Atlanta airport was constructed with a rapid transit station for MARTA in the arrival area of the airport’s landside terminal. The entrance to the rail station is closer to baggage claim than are the taxi, limousine, and bus services at the airport. The Atlanta transfer point is part of a highly centralized baggage pickup area, with an escalator connection to the transit station above. In a 1997 airport survey, about 8% of originating airline passengers arrived at the airport on the MARTA rapid transit service. At present about 10% of airline passengers choose rail. MARTA’s market share is consistent with the high quality of connections that the system offers. The connections seem to be valued by travelers more than cost savings: in 1990, 54% of those surveyed said they chose MARTA for reasons of convenience; 24% said they chose MARTA because of cost savings. About 6% of those surveyed reported that they chose MARTA because they had no other options. Importantly, the survey showed that MARTA was capturing the business traveler, with 82% of the weekday airline passengers on the train traveling for business or convention purposes. Only 16% of airline passengers on the train were taking a personal or vacation trip. About 27% of airline passengers leaving the airport were going to CBD stations; 32% would walk from the train to their destination, while 28% are picked up. Of airline passengers who used rail, 9% carried three or more pieces of baggage (18). Had the rail service not been available, 46% would have accessed the airport by car, and 36% would have accessed the airport by taxi or limousine. Bus. A system of shuttles within the metropolitan area operates every 15 minutes, while a system of shuttles to destinations outside of the metropolitan area departs every 30 minutes. A wide variety of privately owned companies provide the shuttle services, in addition to companies providing only limousine services. Denver (14% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 9

Airport Denver International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

Bus/Van

14%

0%

14%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. Denver International Airport is located about 27 miles from the center of Denver. The airport served about 43.4 MAP in 2005; of these, some 9.8 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 31 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 1.4 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. The new Denver International Airport has a unique multilevel landside terminal structure, in which the baggage claim level (Terminal Level 5) is used by a wide variety of ground access services. Passengers being picked up by private automobile must take their bags to a different level to find the automobile pick-up area. There are two public mode transfer spaces: one on the east side of the concourse and one on the west side. The immediate curb is for public passenger drop-off; Island 1 is for limousines; Island 2 is for Mountain Carriers, shuttles to mountain resorts; Island 3 is for hotel shuttles; and Island 4 is for rental car shuttles. All public transportation services and scheduled bus services are located on Island 5, located farthest from the terminal area.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

Bus. In Denver, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) has adopted an aggressive program of providing bus service to Denver airport. This service currently captures a 3.5% market share of airline passengers. The Denver RTD SkyRide Service is unique because it provides direct service to several major activity centers, not just to the CBD. The transit agency currently operates five routes providing transit access to the new airport. The SkyRide Service is operated to serve the work schedule of airport employees, with early-morning and late-night service. Toward the airport, service is operated from 3:20 a.m. to various hours ranging from 8:20 p.m. to midnight, depending on the route. From the airport, the service leaves generally between 6 a.m. and 1 a.m. The full fare for a one-way ticket is $8. The service attracts about 3,900 travelers per day. Los Angeles (13% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 10

Airport Los Angeles International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

Bus/Van

13%

0%

13%

SOURCE: MarketSense (19)

The Airport. Los Angeles International Airport is located about 19 miles from the center of Los Angeles. The airport served about 61.5 MAP in 2005; of these, some 16.4 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 22 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 2.1 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Four public transportation agencies serve the airport. Los Angeles International Airport is designed as a series of terminals on a loop road around a central parking garage facility. All public transportation services must collect or distribute their passengers on this loop road. Rail. A free shuttle connects to the Aviation Metro Rail Station. The mode share to the adjacent rail service is less than 1⁄2 of 1%. Bus. To Los Angeles International Airport, LAWA operates an express bus route, called the Van Nuys FlyAway. In 1998, the Van Nuys FlyAway attracted 717,900 airline passengers. The Van Nuys terminal is about 21 miles from the airport, and service takes about 1 hour. Service is similar in scope to the Logan Express service in Boston, with 30-minute headways all day, except in the morning peak period, when headways are 15 minutes. The Los Angeles service offers 1-hour headways after 1:30 a.m. The service operates more than 2,000 spaces at the Van Nuys terminal location. LAWA attempted a second operation, considerably closer to the airport, in West Los Angeles. After a 3-year trial, the facility was closed because of low ridership. Airport staff has suggested that the facility was too close to the airport to attract private-automobile users to the service. Since March 2006, the Los Angeles airport has been operating a new FlyAway service between the airport and the Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. This service operates every half hour between 5 a.m. and 1 a.m., and every hour during the late night. At Union Station, the traveler can connect to regional transit services, downtown shuttle buses, and intercity Amtrak services. Both the original Van Nuys FlyAway location and the new Union Station location now offer baggage check-in services provided by Baggage Airline Guest Services, Inc. The charge is $5 per

77

78

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

person (two bags), and bags must be checked in 3 hours before scheduled flight time. About six major airlines are currently cooperating in the program. Shared-Ride Van. Use of shared-ride vans at the airport increased from about 2% in 1987 to 5% in 1993 (16). As part of a commitment to improve customer service and respond to regional efforts to comply with air quality standards, LAWA has limited the number of sharedride van concession agreements. This program has significantly reduced the number of sharedride companies allowed to pick up on-demand passengers at the airport and is expected to increase the occupancies in the shared-ride vans. At present, shared-ride services are provided by Prime Time Shuttle and Super Shuttle. Baltimore/Washington (12% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 11

Airport Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport

Total 12%

Market Share Rail 3% MARC 2% Metro 1%

Bus/Van 9%

SOURCE: 2005 Washington-Baltimore Regional Air Passenger Survey (15)

The Airport. The Baltimore/Washington airport is located about 11 miles from downtown Baltimore and 32 miles from the center of Washington, D.C. The airport served about 20.2 MAP in 2005; of these, some 7.6 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 42 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.9 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Baltimore/Washington airport has a wide variety of connecting services. For those traveling north to Baltimore, the light rail services connect directly to the international terminal. For those traveling south to the Washington, D.C. area, a shuttle bus operates from the airport to the Greenbelt station on the Green Line. A shuttle bus connects the airport terminal area with the BWI Rail Station, served by MARC and Amtrak. The airport runs a taxi service of owner-operators from the airport, but all taxis are allowed to carry passengers to the airport. Only two shuttle van operators are allowed on the controlled inner curb area; others operate more informally from an outer curb area near the parking garage. The combined rental car facility is several miles from the airport, with a single multiuser bus operation connecting with the airport. Individual rental companies are not allowed to serve the inner curb area. Rail. The combination of Amtrak and MARC services are currently capturing about 2% of the market, with somewhat less than 1% attracted to the Metro shuttle bus to Greenbelt. The market share of airline passengers attracted to the light rail is well under 1%. Bus/Van. Much of the marketing strategy at Baltimore/Washington airport is directed toward capturing metropolitan Washington air travelers. Looking only at that market, the consumers’ response to new ground transportation services has been encouraging. Ridership on the new Washington, D.C., door-to-door van services increased 125% in 1996 over 1995 ridership, and ridership in 1997 was about 80% above 1996 levels. Door-to-door van service to Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties increased 38% in 1996, and early 1997 volumes were about 36% ahead of 1996 rates. The combination of bus and limousine attracts about 10% of the market share; thus, the market share for shared-ride services is somewhat less than 9% (excluding single-party limousines

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

from the calculation). One traditional public transportation bus is operated to Columbia, Maryland. Chicago O’Hare (12% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 12

Airport O’Hare International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

12%

5%

Bus/Van 7%

SOURCE: Chicago Origin-Destination Survey Report (20)

The Airport. O’Hare International Airport is located about 18.5 miles from the center of Chicago. The airport served about 76.5 MAP in 2005; of these, some 14.9 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 23 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 1.8 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. O’Hare airport is served directly by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Blue Line, with a terminal located within the central parking garage, about 1000 feet from Terminals 1, 2, and 3. To access Terminal 5, the international terminal, an automated people mover must be used. In addition, a free shuttle bus connects the terminals with the Metra commuter rail system. A consolidated bus/shuttle center is located immediately above the rail station, on the first level. The major bus/van system to downtown, the Airport Express, operates from curb locations near each of the major terminal baggage collection areas. Rail. The train station at O’Hare airport has the highest use rates of any U.S. on-airport transit station, with more than 7,000 transit boardings per day. Of these boardings, surveys show that fewer than 20% are air travelers, with most of the others working at the airport. Although rail service has somewhat longer travel times than taxi service in off-peak hours, rail benefits from greater travel-time reliability during peak hours. According to the most recent data, between 4% and 5% of O’Hare ground access air travelers choose the CTA train service, while 5% choose airport van and less than 3% choose other forms of buses. In the most recent survey efforts, a logical catchment area was defined, including a central Chicago area, with both a northern and a southern market area. For the prime market area for existing services (and for an express concept now under examination), 12% of travelers take the existing Blue Line train, with an additional 15% taking buses and van services. Bus. Continental Airport Express operates both the downtown hotel shuttle loops and doorto-door service throughout the region. Suburban bus service is operated by PACE to downtown Evanston, Illinois. Six private bus/van companies run direct service to locations in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Iowa and several destinations in Illinois. According to earlier CTA surveys, about 5% of airline passengers used the CTA rail services to or from the airport. There is little variation in rail ridership by air travel purpose: business travelers choose rail at about the same rate as non-business travelers. Rail was slightly more attractive to travelers going to the airport than from the airport. CTA analysts note that almost two-thirds of those arriving at the airport had local origins outside of the CTA service area; within the transit agency’s service area, airline passenger rail market share was estimated at 15% (21). In a 1990 survey, CTA services were found to be used more to the airport (5.8%) than from the airport (4.9%). The service is more often used by residents than non-residents, with 21% of departing residents choosing rail. Although about 60% of airline passengers are non-residents, fewer than 20% of airline passengers who use the train are non-residents.

79

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Las Vegas (12% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 13

Airport McCarran International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

Bus/Van

12%

0%

12%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. McCarran International Airport is located about 9.4 miles from the center of Las Vegas. The airport served about 44.0 MAP in 2005; of these, some 16.3 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 12 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 2.0 MAP per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Terminal One has an unusual configuration, with several dropoff points for the airline departure function, but only one terminal for arrivals and baggage claim for all domestic flights. All shared-ride shuttle services depart from the “west side” curb of the main arrivals hall. Private automobiles pick up travelers on the first floor of the parking garage above the arrivals hall. The airport is unique in that six Las Vegas hotels provide hotel check-in and room key pick-up within the airport arrivals hall. Bus. The Las Vegas airport is now served by six separate shuttle companies with service between the airport and the Strip hotels. With the six companies all serving the same area, the vans compete directly with taxis for service to the hotel area. Four additional companies provide regional service beyond Las Vegas. Traditional public transportation buses also serve the airport.

Tier 2 Figure 4-2 presents, in order of performance, the second tier of 14 U.S. airports that have public mode market shares between 5% and 11%. Rail

Bus/Van

20% 15% 10% 5%

rla nd o Se at tl Po e rtl an d M id w ay Ph oe ni Sa x n D i eg In o di an ap ol is D ul le La s G ua r Ph di a ila de lp hi a Ta m pa D FW St .L ou is C le ve la nd

0% O

80

Figure 4-2. Market share to rail and bus in the second tier of U.S. airports.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

Orlando (11% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 14

Airport Orlando International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

Bus/Van

11%

0%

11%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. Orlando International Airport is located about 13 miles from the center of Orlando. The airport served about 34.1 MAP in 2005; of these, some 13.8 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 18 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 1.5 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Orlando International Airport has a highly centralized configuration, with all landside services in one central structure and air-side services (gates) connected only by automated people movers. Local buses operate from only one departure point (A-side), while shuttle vans depart from both sides of the terminal. Bus/Van. Traditional public transportation bus services are operated by Lynx to downtown Orlando, International Drive, and the city of Apopka. Shuttle vans are provided only by one company. At $17 per trip, the vans provide a cost-effective alternative to taxis for parties of one traveling to hotels on International Drive. A taxi costs about $34, which makes it competitive for any party of two or more. About seven van operators provide regional service to areas outside of the metropolitan area. In operation at Orlando International Airport is one of the world’s few through-baggage check-out services; the Swiss Railways operates one, and another such service is planned for Kuala Lumpur later in 2007. In this system, travelers with reservations at a Disney Hotel are sent baggage tags by mail with the hotel vouchers. These tags are placed by the traveler on the bags (in addition to the airline tags); then the bags are separated at the airport and sent directly to the individual hotel room. A reverse service is sometimes offered at the resort hotel, but not for all flights. Seattle (11% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 15

Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

Bus/Van

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

11%

0%

11%

SOURCE: SEATAC Airport Surveys (22)

The Airport. Seattle–Tacoma International Airport is located about 14 miles from the center of Seattle. The airport served about 29.3 MAP in 2005; of these, some 9.9 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 17 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 1.1 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. The Seattle airport has a traditional horseshoe layout, centered around a large parking structure. Within that parking structure, managed areas have been created for taxis, vans, and courtesy vehicles. An “island” serves as the location for courtesy vehicles and vans, while an inner drive (deeper into the garage structure) serves taxis and the Shuttle Express services. A ground information center is also located in the garage structure. Separate from the garage complex, a departure area is located for charter buses (to cruises, for

81

82

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

example) at the southernmost end of the air terminal complex. Airporter buses also depart from this point. Public transportation buses use the arrivals level roadway at a point south of the terminal area. Bus/Van. Traditional public transportation bus services are offered by both King County Metro and Sound Transit. Included in these services are unique dual-powered buses that operate on gas in the express bus lane on Interstate 5 and then convert to electric propulsion in the downtown bus tunnel. This tunnel will become a shared tunnel serving both buses and light rail upon completion of construction. The Gray Line runs an airporter service to a downtown hotel loop. Ten other companies offer bus and van services around the region. Together, all the scheduled services attract about 4% mode share. All shared-ride van service to the airport is provided by Shuttle Express, which attracts more than 6% of market share. Portland (10% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 16

Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

Portland International Airport

10%

6%

Bus/Van 4%

SOURCE: Terminal Access Study (23)

The Airport. Portland International Airport is located about 12 miles from the center of Portland. The airport served about 13.9 MAP in 2005; of these, some 5.4 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 16 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.5 million travelers who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. The Portland airport has a centralized configuration, with all baggage claim in one location. Across from the baggage claim area, a ground transportation center has been built within the central garage structure. In various island locations, rental cars, shuttle vans, and courtesy vehicles all depart from a relatively small area. The light rail station has been built on the same level as baggage claim, which makes for a very convenient connection for travelers with baggage. Rail. Light rail service has been inaugurated to downtown, with good regional connections to other transit centers. The train trip takes about 35 minutes to downtown, which is competitive with automobile times during peak periods, and costs $2. At present, rail attracts more than 5% of market share. There are six longer distance shuttle operators. Sixteen companies are listed as providing door-todoor shared-ride services. Buses and vans capture more than 4% of airline passenger market share. Chicago Midway (9% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 17

Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

9%

5.5%

Midway International Airport

Bus/Van 4%

SOURCE: Chicago Origin-Destination Survey Report (20)

The Airport. Chicago’s Midway International Airport is located about 11.8 miles from the center of Chicago. The airport served about 17.7 MAP in 2005; of these, some 5.9 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 19 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.5 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

Connections at the Airport. In an unusual terminal expansion, the landside terminal functions of Midway airport were moved closer to the existing Orange Line station, which is connected to the terminal by a series of walkways through the new parking garage. Rail. CTA provides the rail service, and the airport is the terminus of the service’s Orange Line. Nearly 6% of air travelers choose the rail system at Midway airport. Similar to many higher market share services, transit at Midway serves specific market segments well. Specifically, more than 20% of air travelers from the Loop choose the Orange Line service. Bus. Continental Airport Express operates both the downtown hotel shuttle loop and doorto-door services throughout the region. There are five bus and van companies offering regional ground access services to Midway, with connections to Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, and several locations in Illinois. One bus company provides several connections in the Chicago Metro area, including O’Hare International Airport. About 4% of air travelers use buses and airport vans to get to the airport. Phoenix (9% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 18

Airport Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

9%

0%

Bus/Van 9%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport is located about 7 miles from the center of Phoenix. The airport served about 41.2 MAP in 2005; of these, some 11.5 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 11 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 1.0 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Phoenix has a dominant terminal (Terminal 4 with seven concourses) and two smaller terminals (Terminal 2 with two concourses and Terminal 3 with one concourse). (Terminal 1 does not exist.) Terminals 3 and 4 are characterized by a somewhat unusual clockwise-loop roadway (vehicles drive on the left rather than the right). This clockwiseloop roadway allows the landside terminal buildings to be located in the middle of the loops and serve concourses on both sides of the loop. Thus, in total, the buses have three pick-up areas to serve 10 separate airside concourses. Bus/Van. There are two traditional transit bus services serving the airport. All shared-ride shuttle services throughout the region are operated by one company, Super Shuttle. Services depart every 15 minutes until 9 p.m., after which headways become longer. More than a dozen companies are authorized to serve other cities and towns within the state. San Diego (9% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 19

Airport San Diego International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

9%

0%

Bus/Van 9%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. San Diego International Airport is located about 3 miles from the center of San Diego. The airport served about 17.4 MAP in 2005; of these, some 7.8 million were

83

84

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 5 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.7 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. San Diego airport has two general-purpose terminals, which have a one-level curb serving both arrivals and departures. Each terminal has a ground transportation plaza for taxis, buses, and vans. In each case, passengers are offered a “skybridge” to access the check-in areas. Bus/Van. A specialized public transportation service has been created between the airport and the primary convention/hotel area of downtown San Diego, with service every 12 minutes. Many buses are elaborately painted with airport themes, and baggage space is provided. The fare is more than $2. The van services are presented in a novel way: a Transportation Coordinator places the traveler with the first available shuttle, unless the traveler specifies a particular shuttle company. This service may be a small step toward joint or centralized dispatching over several companies. Ten companies are listed as service providers on the airport’s website. Overall, all bus/van services together attract about 9% of the ground access market. Indianapolis (9% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 20

Airport Indianapolis International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

9%

0%

Bus/Van 9%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. Indianapolis International Airport is located about 15.1 miles from the center of Indianapolis. The airport served about 8.5 MAP in 2005; of these, some 3.6 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 28 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.3 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Indianapolis International Airport was one of the first U.S. airports to construct a separate ground transportation center, located on the first floor of its main parking garage. From this point, all buses, limousines, and courtesy vehicles depart. Bus/Limousine. Traditional transit bus service is offered to downtown. Three operators provide shuttle van service from Indianapolis International Airport, with one service going to Champaign/Urbana, Illinois; one to Indiana University; and one to Purdue University. The absence of a shared-ride van service to downtown is interesting. However, the airport website describes seven limousine operators as “shared-ride service.” This difference in definitions may have resulted in a “shared-ride” mode share being reported that is not consistent with other market shares reported in this chapter. Washington Dulles (8% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 21

Airport Washington Dulles International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

8%

1%

SOURCE: 2005 Washington-Baltimore Regional Air Passenger Survey (15)

Bus/Van 7%

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

The Airport. Washington Dulles International Airport is located about 33 miles from the center of Washington, D.C. The airport served about 26.8 MAP in 2005; of these, some 6.5 million were originating passengers. The average driving time to DC was calculated by MWCOG at 51 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.5 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Dulles airport is one of the most highly centralized airport configurations in the United States, with all landside functions occurring in one structure. The curb system at the arrivals level allows for a single point of departure for public mode services. Rail. Travelers from Dulles airport can access the Washington MetroRail system via a scheduled bus service between Dulles and West Falls Church station. The service operates every half hour, for a fare of $9, and takes about 30 minutes. Line time to downtown is then under 25 minutes. This service attracts somewhat less than 1% of the ground access market. Bus/Van. All shared-ride services from Dulles airport are provided under a franchise agreement with Super Shuttle, Inc. The use of traditional coach bus services has evolved considerably over the past decade. For years, the Washington Flyer coach served a fixed route between Dulles and a terminal area at or near the Capital Hilton, near K Street in Washington, D.C. Now the larger coach service is offered only to the Falls Church station of the Metrorail system. The shared-ride van system at Dulles captures a market share of about 7% of airline passengers. As noted in TCRP Report 62, the market share for the Dulles express bus service had been decreasing for two decades, from 15% in 1978 to 9% in 1982, 5% in 1994, and 4% in 1997. During this time, the market area served by Dulles airport shifted from primarily downtown Washington to Northern Virginia, influenced by the increasing airline service available at the airport. New York LaGuardia (8% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 22

Airport LaGuardia Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

8%

1%

Bus/Van 7%

SOURCE: Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York (11)

The Airport. LaGuardia Airport is located about 9 miles from the center of Manhattan. The airport served about 26.7 MAP in 2005; of these, some 11.3 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 17 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.9 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. LaGuardia has traditionally been a difficult airport for ground transportation services because of its four decentralized terminals. With two stops in the central terminal area, and one each at the US Airways and Delta terminals, bus service must also provide access to the Marine Air Terminal, currently the location of the Delta Shuttle, located some distance from the central terminal area. In some years, the bus service from Grand Central Station operated a separate bus for the Marine Air Terminal, but currently all buses must serve all five stops in the LaGuardia facility. Rail. Local bus service is available to several New York City subway stations, including Jackson Heights and Astoria Boulevard stations. These two rail transfer points are actually closer to LaGuardia than Coliseum Station is to Oakland airport; nevertheless, rail service has accounted for less than 1% of the LaGuardia access market.

85

86

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Bus/Van. Bus service designed for and dedicated to airline passengers has been a major public transit mode at the three New York City area airports. At LaGuardia, privately owned buses captured 7% of the market in 1992 and 5% of the market in 1997 (24). New York Airport Service Express Company offers scheduled service, with full-size coaches, to its Grand Central station facility and connecting services to hotels and the Port Authority Bus Terminal. At present, two companies offer shared-ride van services to New York City, and about five more provide services to the distant suburbs and adjacent states. At present, the combination of scheduled airport bus service and shared-ride services together account for about 7% of the market. Philadelphia (7% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 23

Airport Philadelphia International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

7%

3%

Bus/Van 4%

SOURCE: Philadelphia International Airport Ground Access Survey (25)

The Airport. Philadelphia International Airport is located about 9 miles from the center of Philadelphia. The airport served about 31.5 MAP in 2005; of these, some 9.1 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 14 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.6 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. At Philadelphia International Airport, ground transportation services depart from a series of arrival terminals, where baggage claim occurs immediately adjacent to rail departure points. Although the train is required to stop in five places, the overall walking distances between baggage carousels and train boardings are quite short. Rail. Philadelphia International Airport’s layout was designed for good connections to the commuter rail platforms, with baggage pick-up areas adjacent to the three rail stops. Walking distances from each of the baggage claim areas to the adjacent platform of the commuter rail are among the shortest in the world. The 30-minute travel time to a series of distribution stations in downtown Philadelphia can be competitive during congested-roadway periods but not during off-peak conditions. The rail line goes to the center of downtown, serving the Market Street East complex. In 1986, about 4.5% of originating passengers chose the commuter rail service, a market share that has decreased to about 2%. At the time of the 1986 survey, rail captured about 16% of the air traveler market from the center of the city (26). The 30-minute headway of the service is problematic: the traveler can spend more time waiting for the vehicle than on board the vehicle. As a result, Philadelphia’s rail service attracts only about 2% of airline passengers. Although the airport commuter rail station attracts about 2,600 travelers a day, only 14% of them are estimated to be airline passengers. Because of a reported growth in rail ridership on the line, the researchers have estimated the rail mode share at about 3%. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) reports an increase in rail ridership on the line, for all trip purposes, of about 66% between 1990 and 2005. Bus/Van. A wide variety of shared-ride services are offered from the airport, with connections southward to Delaware and north to New Jersey. Based on the last available data, bus and vans together gained about a 4% market share.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

Tampa (7% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 24

Airport Tampa International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

7%

0%

Bus/Van 7%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. Tampa International Airport is located about 6 miles from the center of Tampa. The airport served about 19.0 MAP in 2005; of these, some 8.1 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 12 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.6 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Like the nearby Orlando airport, Tampa airport operates with one consolidated landside air terminal. However, the design of the terminal calls for publicly available transportation services to depart from four separate “Commercial Ground Transportation Quadrants.” Bus/Van. Shared-ride van service to Hillsborough County is provided by Bay Shuttle, while service to Pinellas, Pasco, and Hernando Counties is provided by Super Shuttle. In the most recent survey data available, they attract about 6% of the air traveler market. Traditional public transit buses are provided to Tampa and to Sarasota; the Tampa service stops at one curb location, while the Sarasota bus stops at two of the four quadrants. Dallas/Fort Worth (6% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 25

Airport Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

6%

0%

Bus/Van 6%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport is located about 21 miles from the center of Dallas. The airport served about 59.2 MAP in 2005; of these, some 10.7 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 24 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.6 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Dallas/Fort Worth airport is one of the most decentralized airports in the world, which is a challenge to the designer of shared ground transportation services. Currently there are five terminals, each with two clearly definable baggage claim locations. The airport roadway system connecting these terminals is itself a series of loops, and the task of assembling a shared-ride group of passengers for an outbound vehicle trip can take a considerable amount of time. Rail. The Centre Point/DFW station has been built on the new Trinity Railway Express that operates between Dallas to the east and Fort Worth to the west of the airport. The station is located about 6.5 miles from the center of the airport. Service is operated Monday through Saturday, but not on Sundays. From the rail station, airline passengers are expected to take a shuttle bus, with service every 15 minutes and an 11-minute travel time, to the airport’s Remote South Parking Lot. There the airport runs three shuttle buses: one to Terminals A and C, one to Terminals B and E, and one to Terminal D.

87

88

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Bus. Transit services are provided from two transfer points at two remote lots. An airporter service links the airport with a downtown hotel loop. A variety of shuttle van companies serve the airport. St. Louis (6% Market Share)

U.S. Rank 26

Airport Lambert-St. Louis International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

6%

3%

Bus/Van 3%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. Lambert–St. Louis International Airport is located about 16 miles from the center of St. Louis. The airport served about 14.7 MAP in 2005; of these, some 4.8 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 21 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.3 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. The St. Louis light rail has been integrated into the interior spaces of the airport’s Main Terminal; the traveler does not need to leave the terminal to access the rail system. A second station has been built to serve the East Terminal currently used by Southwest Airlines. Rail. The light rail at St. Louis airport attracts about 3% of airline passengers, as determined from calculations, not surveys. About 2,400 transit riders board at the airport station daily, but no market survey has been undertaken concerning the split between airline passengers and employees. Both airport and transit officials, however, suggest that about one-third of the riders are airline passengers, with most of the rest airport employees. These airport and transit officials have reported that nearby park-and-ride facilities have been filling up with airport employees anxious to avoid an airport parking charge recently established for most airport employees. Bus/Van. Service to a downtown hotel loop is provided by Gem Shuttle/Trans Express Transportation. Two bus companies provide traditional coach service to the airport, and three companies provide additional van services. Cleveland (6% Market Share) U.S. Rank 27

Airport Cleveland Hopkins International Airport

Total

Market Share Rail

6%

2%

Bus/Van 4%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. Cleveland Hopkins International Airport is located about 15 miles from the center of Cleveland. The airport served about 11.5 MAP in 2005; of these, some 3.8 million were originating passengers. Under conditions of no highway congestion, the driving time from the airport to downtown is 20 minutes. The airport currently attracts about 0.2 million travelers per year who use public, high-occupancy modes to the airport. Connections at the Airport. Rail service at Cleveland airport benefits from a well-designed passenger connection to the terminal, with short walking distances from baggage claim. Rail. With a 30-minute ride to downtown (the Tower City Center), the “Rapid” offers travel times that are directly comparable to taxi times. With 15-minute headways for most of the day,

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

the service is one of the most frequent of rail services at airports located this distance from the CBD. The major difference between the two modes is price—$1.75 for rail versus more than $20 for taxis (which capture about 5% mode share)—reinforcing the concept that most air travelers perceive convenience to be more important than cost. Ridership has declined sharply over time, for reasons that have more to do with the perception of the service than the actual times and costs relative to competing modes. A 1970 airport access survey reported a rail market share of 19%, with the downtown’s largest destination zone showing a 33% market share. However, average airport station volumes (all trip purposes) decreased 36% between 1970 and 1975. In 1988, the rail market share was estimated to be 2.8%. Bus/Van. Public transportation bus services are offered to Elyria and Oberlin, Ohio, by Lorain County Transit. No van service to the Cleveland area is documented by the airport, although any state-licensed limousine company is authorized to provide pre-arranged trips to and from the airport.

Other Airports of Interest Airports serving Minneapolis–St. Paul and Milwaukee have begun to offer new public mode services since the publication of TCRP Report 62 and TCRP Report 83, but no survey-based data were found to support any quantitative summaries of market share for this chapter. Officials in Minnesota reported that no new airport-based survey has been conducted since the opening of the light rail service to downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America. Their estimate was that the service was attracting less than 5% of the ground access market. Similarly, no survey-based data have been found for the ridership on the new rail station at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport on the new Amtrak Hiawatha Line. Unofficial reports suggest that airline passengers who take the train to that station, and connect to the terminal by the shuttle bus, would comprise less than 1% of the total airline passenger volumes at General Mitchell International Airport.

Part 2: Best Practices at European and Asian Airports This section presents brief, factual overviews of 19 of the most successful airport ground access systems in Europe and Asia case studies. For each of these systems shown in Figure 4-3, the combination of rail and bus services attracts more than 20% of airline passenger market share. Rail

Bus/Van

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% O H on slo g Ko ng N ar Sh it an a gh ai Zu ric Vi h en St na an Pa ste ris d Am CD st G e C op rda en m ha ge M n un i H ea ch th r o St oc w kh o Fr lm an kf u G rt at w ic k G en ev a Br us Pa sel ris s O D rl üs se y ld or f

0%

Figure 4-3. Public transportation mode shares at European and Asian airports.

89

90

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

In each case, key roles are played by rail and bus services. These systems are presented in order of their mode share to rail and bus services combined. Shared-ride services (such as door-todoor vans) play a very small role in European and Asian airports and have been uniformly excluded from this analysis. The public transportation mode shares for the 19 European and Asian airports are shown combined and by share to rail and bus services in Table 4-2. Each European and Asian airport is reviewed in terms of the characteristics of the airport itself, the nature of its configuration relative to ground transportation services, and the role played by rail and bus services. Additionally, the services are reviewed in terms of their relationship to an overall baggage-handling strategy or approach. (This category was not included in the review of U.S. airports in the previous section.) Finally, observations are presented about the market characteristics of the airport ground access services when they are relevant to the emphasis areas of this report. The factors that contribute to the success of the ground access systems are examined in six categories: • The airport: Data are presented that describe each European or Asian airport’s size and loca-

tion, and give a general estimate of taxi fares to the downtown area. Uniform data on originating passengers are presented. • Connections at the airport: The discussion of this category examines the quality of the connection between the rail services and the airport check-in or baggage claim areas. Physical and architectural details are reviewed as relevant, and the physical quality of the transfer from the airline passenger terminal to the rail system is described. Also noted is the nature of the configuration of the airport itself. The difference between centralized and decentralized airport layouts is examined. • Rail: Most European airports rely on some form of rail service for ground access. This category includes a brief description of the nature of the rail service provided and whether the service is dedicated or shared. Fares are presented. When service is provided beyond the traditional downtown, the nature of the regional services is noted.

Table 4-2. Public transportation mode shares to European and Asian airports. Market Share Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Airport Oslo Hong Kong Narita Shanghai Zurich Vienna London Stansted Paris Charles de Gaulle Amsterdam Copenhagen Munich London Heathrow Stockholm Frankfurt London Gatwick Geneva Brussels Paris Orly Düsseldorf

Total 64% 63% 59% 51% 47% 41% 40% 40% 37% 37% 36% 36% 34% 33% 31% 28% 26% 26% 22%

Rail 39% 28% 36% 6% 42% 30% 29% 27% 35% 33% 28% 24% 18% 27% 24% 21% 16% 14% 18%

Bus 25% 35% 23% 45% 5% 11% 11% 13% 2% 4% 8% 12% 16% 6% 7% 7% 10% 12% 4%

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport • Baggage-handling strategy: In the discussion for this category, each airport access system is

reviewed in terms of the strategies employed to deal with the baggage of the air traveler. Specific examples are presented for off-site check-in strategies, ranging from full-service downtown terminals to integration with other mechanisms for off-site check-in. When relevant, the status of such systems is summarized. • Bus: Although their relative importance in Europe and Asia is less important than in the United States, key services are provided by bus. Small buses (i.e., vans) are included in the overall mode shares for bus. • Relevant market characteristics: This descriptive information is reviewed in the context of any known market data for each of the systems. Market characteristics include the extent to which the market is oriented to the downtown or to other areas well served by the regional rail system. Oslo (64% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 1

Airport Oslo Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

64%

39%

25%

SOURCE: Vergleich internationaler Flughäfen (27)

The Airport. Oslo’s new airport at Gardermoen opened in 1998. The airport is 30 miles north of downtown Oslo and served more than 16 MAP in 2006. Travel time by taxi from Oslo to the airport is estimated to be 45 minutes. Because the new airport is 30 miles from downtown Oslo, high-speed transit services have a market advantage over taxis and other modes of transportation. The Norwegian authorities set a policy goal of 50% market share capture for the combined rail services. Connections at the Airport. The new Oslo airport was built from the initial concept to serve as an exemplary intermodal transfer facility. Designed from the outset to serve as part of an integrated access system, the airport is centralized, with all gates served by a single landside terminal. Because of the natural geography of the airport site, the rail facility is at grade for most of the area. The rail service is in the lower (basement) level of the air terminal building. Escalator service is provided from the train station to the check-in and ticketing area of the airport. Buses depart from a location very close to the baggage claim area. Rail. Rail service between the airport and downtown Oslo was initiated in 1998. The airport is served both by a dedicated service (the Oslo Airport Express) and standard national railway service. In 1998, interim service was operated bypassing an incomplete tunnel section that has now been replaced by a more direct route between the airport and downtown. The Oslo Airport Express is designed for 120-mph operation, consistent with Norwegian intercity services. The train makes this 30-mile trip between the airport and downtown in 19 minutes. There are six trains per hour; of these six trains, three continue beyond Oslo’s Central Station. Baggage-Handling Strategy. The Oslo Airport Express train was designed with a proactive strategy for baggage. The operation does not currently have an off-site baggage-handling system, but it incorporates a unique seating layout, in which every seat faces a baggage storage area. All seats served by each entrance door face the baggage-storage shelves. Originally planned baggage check-in services at the Oslo downtown rail station have now been abandoned. Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) offers a kiosk for check-in for those travelers with only hand baggage. Bus. Airport bus service is offered to some major hotels with a 55-minute travel time every 10 minutes, for a fare that is lower than the competing rail services.

91

92

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Market Characteristics. The managers of the Oslo Airport Express train estimate that some 48% of all deplaning airline passengers are destined to the city of Oslo. Another 11% are going to other towns in the southwest directly served by the rail service from the airport. The marketing strategy for the Oslo Airport Express focuses heavily on the needs of the business traveler, and extensive work has been undertaken with Norway’s largest employers to sell tickets directly to these organizations. Some 58% of the airline passengers using rail were traveling on business. Hong Kong (63% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 2

Airport Hong Kong International Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

63%

28%

35%

SOURCE: MTRC (28)

The Airport. Hong Kong International Airport serves about 44 MAP and is located 21 miles from Hong Kong Island. From the airport, a taxi ride to Hong Kong Island costs more than $50 and takes 30 minutes under optimal conditions, much longer when the downtown roads are congested. The new expressway, a part of the regional highway system built to access the airport development area, has virtually no associated congestion or travel time delay. Connections at the Airport. Hong Kong airport was designed to achieve optimized integration between rail and air facilities. All deplaning passengers retrieve their bags in one centralized arrival hall/customs facility located on the lower level of the airport terminal. From this facility, passengers walk across the arrival hall and board the train without changing levels. Conversely, the train brings all enplaning passengers to the upper level of the airport terminal, where they proceed through ticketing without changing levels. Rail. The Hong Kong Airport Express train departs from the airport every 8 minutes for three stations: Hong Kong (Central), Kowloon, and Tsing Yi. Travel time between the airport and Hong Kong (Central) is 23 minutes. Fares were initially established at $9 to Hong Kong, $8 to Kowloon, and $5 to Tsing Yi. The Airport Express is operated by the MTRC. The researchers estimate that 25% of airline passengers take the Airport Express and 3% take the local. Baggage-Handling Strategy. MTRC developed the world’s first downtown check-in system for use by all airlines. The system provides baggage check-in facilities at both Central Station and Kowloon Station. All check-in functions, including the issuance of boarding passes, are undertaken at the downtown facilities staffed by airline personnel, rather than rail employees. Although the service is free, it is available only to those who have purchased a rail ticket, and its operation is subsidized by the rail system. Central Station started with 28 check-in positions of 45 potential positions, while Kowloon Station opened with 33 positions of 83 potential positions. Bus. The airport can also be reached by a bus connecting with the Tung Hung rail line, which was also built by MTRC as part of the integrated railway project serving the new development area around the airport. About 25% of airline passengers choose the more expensive Airport Express service; about 3% take the shuttle bus to the less expensive Tung Chung service. Bus service specifically designed for airline passengers serves major hotel locations in Kowloon and Hong Kong. Airbus service focusing on hotel locations was originally provided for about $5, while a major transit operator, Citybus, has created a series of new bus routes with lower fares.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

Bus ridership has been estimated at 35%, although the actual share of pre-packaged charter buses is unclear. Market Characteristics. The market for ground access services in Hong Kong is concentrated in a relatively small area. Of those passengers arriving at the previous Hong Kong airport, 40% were destined for the Kowloon Peninsula, while 33% were destined for Hong Kong Island. The rest were destined for the New Territories to the north. Of those passengers checking in, 17% had no bags checked. Another 27% had only one bag checked. Of those passengers on the new Airport Express train, 31% were resident air travelers and 39% were non-resident air travelers (29). Narita (59% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 3

Airport Narita Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

59%

36%

23%

SOURCE: TCRP Report 62 (16)

The Airport. The airport in Narita, located 40 miles east of downtown Tokyo, served more than 31 MAP in 2006. The airport has two terminals, each of which is connected by walkway to its rail station. Travel by automobile between the airport and downtown varies from 90 minutes to several hours. Taxi fare can be as much as $180 for the trip. Connections at the Airport. Initially, Narita International Airport operated from a single air terminal, which was served by the stub end terminal of the rail lines. With construction of the new Terminal 2 complex, a second railroad station has been added at Narita. Both railroad stations are located in plazas beyond the access roadway, with walks of 500 ft. The stations are accessed via a mezzanine level under the airport roadway. Rail. The East Japan Railway Company (JR-East) operates the Narita Express rail service every half hour. Coach, first-class, and super-first-class services are available for the 55-minute trip to downtown. Fares on the Narita Express cost around $40. A private railroad company operates Keisei Railways Skyliner service at lower prices to two downtown stations. The Narita Express captures 14% of the air traveler market; the Skyliner captures 10%. A third level of service is provided by more traditional transit trains, which offer a partial express service to downtown for under $10.The three rail systems at Narita attract about 36% of the market, while buses attract an additional 23%. Baggage-Handling Strategy. The strategies for handling baggage vary considerably by service. The two major express rail services have baggage storage areas on each vehicle; the rapid transit vehicle has no provision for baggage. For years, a major downtown check-in terminal served the airport buses, but not the rail systems. This downtown check-in service was discontinued in 2002. Narita airport has a well-developed program for home delivery of bags that is operated by a private company. Bus. Luxury buses operate from the Tokyo City Air Terminal, where downtown check-in was once offered. Market Characteristics. Narita airport provides an excellent example of the principles of market segmentation by price points. Not only are three levels of service offered by rail operating companies, but on the most popular—the Narita Express—there are three classes of seating. During peak travel periods, all seats on the Narita Express are often reserved days in advance, and only standby seating is sold at the airport.

93

94

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Shanghai (51% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 4

Airport Shanghai Pudong International Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

51%

6%

45%

SOURCE: “The Characteristic Analysis of Passengers’ Selection of Ground Transport Mode Connecting Shanghai Pudong International Airport and the Downtown Area” (8)

The Airport. Shanghai Pudong International Airport is located 18 miles from downtown Shanghai and served more than 21 MAP in 2005. Built in 1999, it serves mainly international travel, with a second, older airport, Hongquiao, serving the domestic market. A taxi trip to downtown takes about 70 minutes, at a cost of about $10. Connections at the Airport. The passenger terminal at Pudong International Airport is connected by a long walking bridge directly to the station for the maglev train to the downtown. The connection can be made without exposure to weather. Rail/Maglev. The extremely high-speed maglev train makes the trip to downtown in about 8 minutes and costs about $7. Surveys presented to the Transportation Research Board have established that the buses as a whole capture 45% of the ground access market, while the maglev captures only 6% of the market. Bus. Costing around $3, a set of bus services offers direct services to a wide variety of city destinations. Six separate routes are offered from the airport, with headways ranging between 15 minutes (to a downtown air terminal) and 30 minutes (to a football stadium). Market Characteristics. A discussion of the relative importance of fast line-haul speed versus directness of service is presented in Chapter 3. Zurich (47% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 5

Airport Zurich Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

47%

42%

5%

SOURCE: Vergleich internationaler Flughäfen (27)

The Airport. Zurich Airport is located in the town of Kloten, about 7 miles from the center of Zurich. The drive to downtown can take about 20 minutes, with taxi fares of about $35. The airport has suffered a loss of traffic since the demise of its principal hub airline, Swissair, and the relative role of Zurich as a transferring hub has substantially decreased. The airport handled more than 19 MAP in 2006. Connections at the Airport. Zurich Airport was one of the first to build a rail station underground beneath the major landside terminals. The compact configuration of Zurich Airport allows for direct connection from the rail station to both Terminals A and B. In fact, the two terminals have now been joined to create one common departure/waiting area for most passengers; this combined landside facility also serves a new midfield terminal. Most of the additional check-in terminals associated with the physical expansion of the terminals have been placed within the upper lobby of the rail station.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

Rail. Service to Downtown. The trains from the airport to downtown Zurich leave approximately every 10 minutes, have a 10-minute travel time, and cost under $10. Integration with Regional Transportation System. The Zurich rail system can be characterized as being part of a national system, which operates as a shared system. More than 200 trains per day arrive at the airport; in general no trains are operated solely to serve the airport, and all trains are part of a longer route. The Zurich Airport rail station is near the eastern end of the major east–west trunk railway, which offers service every hour to Geneva at the western tip of the country. The rail system attracts 42% of airline passengers, and recent statements from the airport operator suggest this share is rising. Baggage-Handling Strategy. Zurich Airport is served by the most comprehensive off-site baggage and passenger check-in system in the world, known as the Fly-Rail Baggage program. Baggage can be checked in at 50 rail stations throughout the country for most scheduled flights, with the exception of some flights to the United States. This service costs $15 per bag. Swiss Federal Railway will accept bags as late as 3 hours before flight time in the downtown Zurich train station and requires up to 16 hours at isolated Alpine stations. The concept of a third party (neither airline nor airport) providing through-baggage service was developed in Switzerland and is discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 5. Bus. Buses play a relatively minor role at Zurich Airport, given the coverage of the national rail network. Public transportation buses are operated primarily to serve employees. Some specialty buses are run from remote locations, including early in the morning (e.g., 1 a.m. to 4 a.m.) when train schedules are poor. Buses attract about 5% of the market. Market Characteristics. The access system for Zurich Airport has been structured around the needs of airline passengers who use longer distance rail, and the mode shares attained for various geographic market segments support this. Of those passengers coming from non-local markets in Switzerland, more than 50% travel by rail. For example, the market share from the national capital, Bern, a city 75 miles from the airport, is about 60%. Conversely, from the immediate bedroom suburbs, only about 8% of airline passengers select the rail option to get to the airport. Of all outbound travelers at the Zurich Airport rail station, about 40% are going to the Zurich metropolitan area, with 60% traveling longer distances. Vienna (41% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 6

Airport Vienna International Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

41%

30%

11%

SOURCE: “Vienna International Airport–AirRail 2007” (48)

The Airport. Vienna International Airport is located about 12 miles from Vienna and served nearly 17 MAP in 2006. The drive by automobile takes less than 25 minutes under uncongested roadway conditions. Connections at the Airport. The Vienna International Airport operates as one single structure, in spite of the terminology of Terminals 1, 1a, and 2. From a common baggage pick-up area, an underground walkway leads directly to the rail station and also connects to the central parking facilities. The traveler can choose between one platform for the express, dedicated train and a second platform for shared commuter rail services. Newly redesigned luxury buses operate from the curb.

95

96

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Rail. A new City Air Terminal has been created within the Vienna-Middle station. The terminal is well located relative to major tourist hotels, at the edge of the Stadtpark, and has four check-in counters and five automatic kiosk machines. From this location, the traveler has a choice of dedicated rail service, called the “CAT,” or shared rail services from the regional suburban rail system. The CAT service offers non-stop connections to the airport in 16 minutes. Tickets on the dedicated service are available for about $12, with the competing services priced like commuter rail service. The dedicated rail is currently attracting about 14% of the market, while the standard rail service is attracting about 16% of the market. Baggage-Handling Strategy. For those travelers who choose the higher priced dedicated rail service, baggage check-in is offered for 25 airlines, including Star Alliance airlines, of which Austrian Airlines is a member. Travelers to the United States can check their bags at the City Air Terminal. The downtown check-in station is unusual in that it offers totally automated baggage check-in service. About one in five airline passengers are reported to use the check-in service (37). Bus. Bus service is offered from three downtown locations, including the South Rail Station and the West Rail Station, at a price of about $8. The airport reports that bus services capture about 11% of the ground access market for airline passengers. London Stansted (40% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 7

Airport London Stansted Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

40%

29%

11%

SOURCE: CAA Passenger Survey Report 2004 (30)

The Airport. Stansted Airport is located 35 miles north of London, which is about 70 minutes by automobile. Taxi fare for the journey is estimated at $100. Stansted served about 21 MAP in 2005 and is growing rapidly. About 13% of traffic is to UK destinations, and about 87% is international. Some 87% of these travelers are terminating, and not transferring to other flights. Connections at the Airport. Stansted Airport has a centralized configuration, with a compact landside terminal serving a series of airside concourses via a people-mover link. The rail station is integrated into the basement of the terminal structure and accessed by elevator, escalators, and ramps. The escalators from the rail station are located in the departures concourse; the escalators to the rail station are located in the arrivals concourse. The bus station is across the airport roadway, in a central plaza. Rail. Stansted Airport is served by both dedicated rail services to London and shared rail services in the region. Initially called the “Stansted Skytrain,” the dedicated rail service to London operated every half hour from Liverpool Street Station, with about a 40- to 45-minute travel time to the airport. In 1999, the service was rebranded as the Stansted Express and began to offer service with 15-minute headways for much of the day. In 2007, the fare was about $30 one way. Hourly local service between the airport and London is also provided. Additional services are provided directly to the Midlands and destinations in the north of England. Rail captures 29% of the airline passenger market. Baggage-Handling Strategy. The dedicated trains of the Stansted Express are designed with ample luggage storage areas on board. The concept of downtown check-in at Liverpool Street Station was explored by the operators of the Stansted Express along with the airlines and the owners of the rail station and was discontinued.

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

Bus. An aggressive program of bus operations to UK airports is now under way, with direct service from the London bus terminal near Victoria and Liverpool Street Station to Stansted, at prices lower than the rail. Over time, bus ridership has risen from 10.2% in 2003 to 11.4% in 2004. Market Characteristics. Managers of the rail system have seen a significant rise in mode share to rail, from less than 10% to 29% in the last decade. Analysts note that, in the past, Stansted air travelers did not tend to come from the London area. Market data showed that, for the small portion of travelers who did come from central London, their mode share to rail was extremely high, at a capture rate of more than 50%. Over the past 5 years, a greater proportion of Stansted air travelers are now coming from London, resulting in a higher airport-wide mode share for rail. Paris Charles de Gaulle (40% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 8

Airport Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

40%

27% RER 21% TGV 6%

13%

SOURCE: Aéroports de Paris (31)

The Airport. Located 15 miles north of Paris, Charles de Gaulle International Airport is the dominant airport in not only Paris, but also France. The airport’s passenger volume was more than 56 million in 2006. A rail station has been built in the center of a new air terminal complex. Ground access time on the motorways from downtown Paris varies from 30 minutes to more than 1 hour in heavy congestion. Taxi fares are about $50. Connections at the Airport. A shuttle bus connects Terminal 1 with the original Regional Express Network (RER) station, which is 1 mile away. In 1998, a second rail station incorporating both high-speed national service and the regional RER was opened in the new Terminal 2 complex. The current long-term plans for the airport call for the creation of a people-mover system; earlier attempts at building an innovative system failed. Currently, Terminal 1 is connected to the rail stations by a shuttle bus. Rail. Line Haul to Downtown. Regional services are capturing 21% of the ground access market. The airport is served by both metropolitan and national rail services. The electrified suburban rail network, known as the RER Line B, provides service every 15 minutes to downtown, with direct service to many downtown stations that offer quick connections to the rapid transit system (Metro). The RER Line B provides a 35-minute travel time from the airport to downtown Paris, for less than $10. Connections to the National System. Over the past decade there has been a rapid increase in the importance of the national high-speed rail system at Charles de Gaulle airport. At present, the national service attracts 6% of the ground access market. These services provide high-speed rail as far north as Brussels, and to the Mediterranean coast to the south. Aéroports de Paris is currently working with the national railroad authority to create a new express service into Paris, reportedly with an 18-minute travel time. Bus. Buses are capturing 13% of the market. Bus service is provided by Air France and the local public transit operator, the RATP. The Air France bus costs more than $10 between the airport and downtown; the “Roissybus” to the bus station next to the opera house costs somewhat less.

97

98

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Baggage-Handling Strategy. There is currently no downtown check-in facility in Paris to replace the original City Air Terminal at Invalides Station on the Left Bank. There are no dedicated areas for baggage on the RER trains, which are overcrowded during peak periods. The longdistance TGV trains have excellent baggage storage, and plans are under consideration for off-site check-in services. Amsterdam (37% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 9

Airport Amsterdam Schiphol Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

37%

35%

2%

SOURCE: International AirRail Organization (32)

The Airport. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Europe’s fourth largest airport, served more than 44 MAP in 2006. It is located about 12 miles from Amsterdam and 40 miles from The Hague, capital of the Netherlands. The airport serves a wide geographic feeder area; for example, travel to Rotterdam (approximately 32 miles from Amsterdam) is often made via rail connections after a flight into Schiphol. A taxi ride takes about 30 minutes from the airport to downtown Amsterdam, at a fare of approximately $30. Connections at the Airport. Schiphol airport was reconstructed to create a common arrivals area adjacent to three baggage claim areas. The rail platforms are located directly under this common area. Even though the design evolved from the construction of separate terminal buildings, the main arrival hall functions occur near the rail and bus departure areas. With metropolitan rail service, national rail service, and an increasing amount of international high-speed rail services, Schiphol airport is served by one of the widest varieties of high-quality public transportation modes of any airport in the world. Rail. Line-Haul Service. The combined rail system provides service every 15 minutes throughout most of the day, with a 15- to 20-minute travel time to Amsterdam Central Station. The fare between the airport and downtown is about $5. Integration with the Regional Transportation System. Although the local rapid transit lines do not serve the airport, the national railway system operates high-frequency services throughout the country, meeting the needs of local commuters. Therefore, service to Rotterdam or The Hague is offered as frequently as many traditional airport services to the dominant CBD. This strategy, which serves destinations throughout the country, is similar to that adopted in Switzerland. Services to international destinations are provided both by traditional intercity trains and by the high-speed Thaylis train. With new high-speed rights-of-way in the Benelux countries, service at 180 mph will be available from France to Cologne, Germany. Baggage-Handling Strategy. Currently, there are no off-site baggage check-in facilities in the Netherlands. In general, the trains that serve Schiphol airport are designed for national service and have ample space for bags. Bus/Van. Schiphol airport is developing a wide array of van-type services. Eight-person shuttle vans depart every 10 minutes to more than 100 hotels, providing essentially a flexible shared-ride van system; the return trip on the hotel shuttle can be requested up to 2 hours in advance. Importantly, the airport also offers shared-ride taxis, which are essentially small vans, operating to any destination in the Netherlands. Taxis must be reserved 24 hours in advance, at which time the user is given an Internet confirmation, including price and pick-up time. The airport shared-ride taxi system commits to the traveler that the distance taken in the journey to the

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

airport will not be more than 1.5 times the distance of a non–shared-ride trip. The reservation systems are well integrated with the airport website, as discussed in Chapter 9. Copenhagen (37% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 10

Airport Copenhagen Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

37%

33%

4%

SOURCE: Vergleich internationaler Flughäfen (27)

The Airport. Copenhagen Airport served nearly 20 MAP in 2005. The airport is located in Kastrup, 7 miles southwest of downtown Copenhagen. Taxi service from the airport to downtown takes about 15 minutes and costs less than $30. The layout of the airport, including the rail station connected with Terminal 3, has been designed to create “seamless” transfer. The airport is an integral part of the Oresund Crossing system, which links Denmark with Southern Sweden by a complex bridge/tunnel system that has both highway and rail facilities. Connections at the Airport. The new Terminal 3 has been designed to include an architecturally ambitious integrated air-rail terminal complex. A new check-in facility has been opened in the rail station lobby of Terminal 3. A new baggage claim and customs clearance center for the airport has been built as part of the new Terminal 3 complex. Rail. Rail service began in fall of 1998 and operates every 20 minutes, with a 12-minute travel time to Central Station for about $4. The service continues on to Hollinger and other cities, providing national rail access to the airport. Passengers on other national services are provided with transfers at major stations, including Central Station. In July 2000, the rail service was inaugurated through the new bridge and tunnel to southern Sweden. Baggage-Handling Strategy. No off-site check-in services are planned in Denmark. The future of airport check-in facilities in Malmo, Sweden, is currently under discussion. New rail equipment for the cross-sound service is designed to accommodate a wide variety of objects, including bicycles. Historically, SAS provided baggage check-in services in many of their hotels, but this has been phased out. Bus. Until 1999, airport bus service to Central Station had been provided every 15 minutes in association with SAS—the airport’s dominant airline. The SAS bus charged $5 for the 20-minute ride. As a result of the introduction of rail service to downtown, the SAS bus to downtown has been eliminated. The city transit agency runs a bus to Central Station downtown, which is priced below the rail fare. Direct bus service is also operated between the airport and the south of Sweden. Before the rail service was initiated, the bus system captured 28% of the air traveler market. Munich (36% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 11

Airport Munich Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

36%

28%

8%

SOURCE: Munich airport website (33)

The Airport. Munich Airport is located 17 miles north of downtown Munich and served nearly 31 MAP in 2006. From its opening in 1992, the airport was served by one line of the S-Bahn, the

99

100

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

suburban rail system. In 1998, the German Federal Railroad inaugurated a second rail service to the Munich Airport. When the airport was served by only one rail line, rail captured 28% of the airline passenger market. By January 1999, the ridership on the two lines together had increased to 31% market share. Taxi service to the downtown area can cost as much as $60 and can take about 40 minutes. Connections at the Airport. The airport rail station was constructed as part of the new airport and, thus, benefits from architectural integration with the airport terminals. Previously, enplaning passengers arriving by rail took an escalator from the platform to a mezzanine level where a check-in facility was provided; that separate baggage check-in area has been discontinued. Although the connection brings the rail passenger directly into the terminal structure, the configuration of the terminal calls for long walking distances within the building. For most of the airline gates, the walking distances from parking and from curbside drop-off are considerably shorter than the walking distance from the rail station. Rail. Rail currently captures about 28% of the market. The original rail service is provided every 20 minutes via the eastern downtown station (travel time of 31 minutes), through City Hall Square (37 minutes), and Main Station (40 minutes). The second service also provides 20-minute headways following the opposite route, with service via Main Station (40 minutes), through City Hall Square (43 minutes), and to the eastern downtown station (48 minutes). In the common downtown distribution section, service is provided every 10 minutes. However, travelers have to monitor train departures in two directions to catch the first train to the airport. A one-way ticket on either line costs about $11. Extensive plans have been developed to build a high-speed maglev from Munich Airport to the main train station in downtown. The route would follow the existing service commuter rail route via the Main Station. At present, the national government has not committed to funding the project. Baggage-Handling Strategy. A downtown check-in facility in the Main Station for Lufthansa passengers was discontinued for lack of customer use. Baggage space on the rail line varies by time of day and by level of crowding on the commuter systems. Bus. The city bus, which goes to Main Station every 20 minutes, has a travel time of 45 minutes. The airport website describes 20 bus services to both metropolitan and longer distance destinations. Eight percent of Munich airline passengers come by bus. London Heathrow (36% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 12

Airport Heathrow Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

36%

24% Tube 14% Express 9%

12%

SOURCE: CAA Passenger Survey Report 2004 (30)

The Airport. London’s Heathrow Airport served more than 67 MAP in 2006, making it the busiest airport in Europe. Heathrow is located 15 miles west of London, with a driving time of 45 minutes to more than 1 hour. The taxi fare is more than $80, depending on the destination in London. Connections at the Airport. Terminals 1, 2 and 3, all located in the central terminal area, are connected with both London Underground and Heathrow Express stations by relatively long underground walkways. In a complex design to serve Heathrow’s scattered terminals, the Heathrow Express uses a two-track tunnel to serve the central terminal area; a single-track tunnel continues on to

Public Transportation Market Share by Airport

Terminal 4. A two-track tunnel to the new Terminal 5 is now under construction. The London Underground employs a one-direction loop between the central terminal area and the newer Terminal 4. Within the central terminal area, the Heathrow Bus Station is the second busiest bus station in the United Kingdom, with many transfers from bus to bus by patrons not destined to the airport. Rail. In 1998, BAA (the airport operator) began operating the high-speed Heathrow Express, which captures more than 9% of the airline passenger market. With another 14% of airline passengers using the Underground’s Piccadilly Line, rail captures almost 24% of the airline passenger market at Heathrow Airport. The Heathrow Express operates every 15 minutes on a scheduled 15-minute journey from the airport to Paddington Station in London’s West End. The new service, with a top speed of 100 mph, uses rail equipment built specifically for airline passengers. The fare for the high-speed express service is about $30, slightly less expensive when purchased online and slightly more expensive when purchased on board. The Piccadilly Line opened in 1977 and averages 20 mph, including station dwell times. This service takes 40 minutes to the closest parts of downtown London, with trip times including transfers of about 1 hour to farther downtown locations. The Piccadilly Line serves many popular destination areas directly, with excellent connections to the rest of the London Underground rail system. The Underground service costs about $10. Recently, the managers of the Heathrow Express, which offers non-stop service to Paddington Station, have added a local train that stops at several stations. These stations allow several points of transfer with the rest of the metropolitan railway and underground systems. The new service, Heathrow Connect, is provided every half hour and the fare is significantly lower than the express service. This new service is not emphasized by the operators; the trains run from a separate part of Paddington Station and are not emphasized in the station graphics. It is too early to analyze ridership results. Baggage-Handling Strategy. Beginning in June 1999, full off-site airline check-in service was provided at Paddington Station, the terminus for the Heathrow Express. At its peak, 27 check-in positions were in use. The baggage check-in service was gradually discontinued between 2001 and 2003 (for more discussion, see Chapter 5). When the baggage system was in operation, Heathrow Express managers attempted to market an in-bound baggage service from the airport to downtown hotels. It was not used to any extent. There is little space to handle baggage on board the low-ceiling Piccadilly Line trains, and Underground stations are not designed for travelers with baggage. The Heathrow Express vehicles have large baggage storage areas on board. Bus. A wide variety of bus services are operated from Heathrow Airport, which serves as the second largest bus station in the United Kingdom. Many buses connect with parts of the national rail service that are poorly accessed through downtown London. National Express runs nearly 400 bus services per day, including to downtown London. Market Characteristics. Ridership of the London Underground service was documented as 62% airline passengers, 11% airport employees, 15% meeters and greeters, and 12% travelers with business in the airport vicinity. Only 5% of airport employees use the Underground (34). Stockholm (34% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 13

Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

Stockholm-Arlanda Airport

34%

18%

16%

SOURCE: Vergleich internationaler Flughäfen (27)

101

102

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

The Airport. The Stockholm–Arlanda Airport is located 25 miles from downtown Stockholm. The airport served 15 MAP in 1998. A taxi ride takes 35 minutes and costs well over $60. Connections at the Airport. The airport configuration causes the Arlanda Express to have two stations: one for Terminals 2, 3, and 4 and one for Terminals 5 and 6. Both are located conveniently near the baggage claim area. Buses depart from a designated curb/island location. Rail. The Arlanda Express rail line is a privately funded and privately managed venture that offers high-speed rail connections between Stockholm–Arlanda Airport and downtown Stockholm. At the airport, there are two rail stations for the Arlanda Express and a third station operated by the Swedish state railways. The closest station is about 17 minutes from downtown Stockholm, with a fare of $29. The trains are designed for the European standard of 120 mph, but initially are operating at no more than 100 mph. Baggage-Handling Strategy. Initially, the main railway station in Stockholm offered three self-service machines and four counters for airline check-in for travelers who do not need to check baggage. These have been reported to be discontinued. Bus. Flybus, the local airport bus service, continues to operate from the airport to downtown in competition with the two train services. Partly because of free-flowing conditions on the expressway system between the airport and the city, the bus provides extremely strong competition to the dedicated rail services, at a lower cost. Frankfurt (33% Market Share) Market Share European/Asian Rank 14

Airport Frankfurt Airport

Total

Rail

Bus

33%

27%

6%

SOURCE: Vergleich internationler Flughäfen (27)

The Airport. Frankfurt Airport served more than 52 MAP in 2006, making it the second busiest airport in Europe after London’s Heathrow Airport. The airport is 6 miles from downtown Frankfurt; travel time is about 20 minutes by automobile. Taxi service to downtown costs about $30 depending on the destination. Connections at the Airport. The original rail station is located in the basement of Terminal 1 and provides direct escalator access to a large mezzanine level, where the platforms are accessed. The new high-speed station is about 1,000 feet from the existing Terminal 1. Currently, all travelers using rail must access the new Terminal 2 by entering Terminal 1 and taking a people mover. Buses depart from a centrally located area adjacent to the original Terminal 1. Rail. Frankfurt Airport is currently served by the regional suburban railway—the S-Bahn—and national rail service on a trunk line between Frankfurt and Cologne. The regional S-Bahn provides suburban rail service to Frankfurt and Mainz, with a travel time of 10 minutes to downtown at a fare of about $5. The second rail station serves the new German high-speed rail system. This new station provides space for four separate lines of the German high-speed rail network, with significantly improved travel times in all directions. For example, rail travel time to Cologne has decreased from 2 hours to 1 hour with the construction of a totally new rail alignment to the east of the Rhine River. New rail stations at Cologne and Stuttgart have their own airline check-in facility. Bus. Nine local bus routes serve the airport, with Lufthansa regional bus service to Heidelberg, Mannheim, and Talheim.

Public Transport