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

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

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 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230

Share