National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

ACRP Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation (2008)
Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)

Citation Manager

Coogan, Matthew A, Transportation Research Board. "Near-Airport Check-in Locations." ACRP Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
117
bottomleft bottomright
Page
117
Front Matter (R1-R12)
Summary (1-14)
Chapter 1 - Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access (15-15)
Coordinate with the Regional Planning Process (16-17)
Data Collection for the Airport Ground Access Survey (18-19)
Data Collection to Monitor the Performance of the System (20-20)
Geographic Scale of the Airport Ground Access Markets (21-21)
Density and Market Support Associated with Specific Modes (22-23)
Best Practices in the United States: Examples of Market Types at U.S. Airports (24-24)
Lessons Learned from Successful Systems (25-26)
Summary: Designing to Deal with Revealed Attributes (27-27)
Best Practices in the United States: Service Based on Markets (28-28)
Encouraging the Use of High-Occupancy Service (29-29)
Learning from Recent U.S. Airport Designs (30-30)
Step 6: Present Information about Ground Access Services to the Traveler (31-31)
Conclusion (32-33)
Understanding the Scale of Airport Ground Access (34-34)
The Scale of the Public Mode Volumes at These Airports (35-35)
What Has Happened over the Last Decade? (36-38)
Trip Purpose: Why Do Airline Passengers Travel? (41-43)
National Patterns of Access to Airports and Terminals (44-44)
Daily Public Mode Volumes to Airports (45-45)
Implications for Choice of Ground Access Mode (46-47)
Ground Access Issues and the Regional Planning Process (48-49)
Environmental Approvals in Europe (50-50)
What's Next? (51-51)
Understanding Successful Airport Ground Access Systems (52-52)
Does Airport Size Explain Ridership? (53-53)
Does the Quality of the Airport Connection Explain Ridership? (54-54)
Does Line-Haul Speed Explain High Ridership? (55-57)
Is Higher Speed or Directness of Service More Important? (58-60)
The Implications of Dedicated Premium Service (61-61)
Berlin Brandenburg Airport (62-62)
Chicago Midway and O'Hare Airports (63-63)
Summing It Up (64-64)
Desired Attributes of Van and Bus Service to U.S. Airports (65-66)
What's Next? (67-67)
Part 1: Best Practices at U.S. Airports (68-68)
Tier 1 (69-69)
San Francisco (23% Market Share) (70-70)
Boston (18% Market Share) (71-72)
Oakland (15% Market Share) (73-73)
New Orleans (15% Market Share) (74-74)
Atlanta (14% Market Share) (75-75)
Denver (14% Market Share) (76-76)
Los Angeles (13% Market Share) (77-77)
Baltimore/Washington (12% Market Share) (78-78)
Chicago O'Hare (12% Market Share) (79-79)
Tier 2 (80-80)
Seattle (11% Market Share) (81-81)
Chicago Midway (9% Market Share) (82-82)
San Diego (9% Market Share) (83-83)
Washington Dulles (8% Market Share) (84-84)
New York LaGuardia (8% Market Share) (85-85)
Philadelphia (7% Market Share) (86-86)
Dallas/Fort Worth (6% Market Share) (87-87)
Cleveland (6% Market Share) (88-88)
Part 2: Best Practices at European and Asian Airports (89-90)
Oslo (64% Market Share) (91-91)
Hong Kong (63% Market Share) (92-92)
Narita (59% Market Share) (93-93)
Zurich (47% Market Share) (94-94)
Vienna (41% Market Share) (95-95)
London Stansted (40% Market Share) (96-96)
Paris Charles de Gaulle (40% Market Share) (97-97)
Amsterdam (37% Market Share) (98-98)
Munich (36% Market Share) (99-99)
London Heathrow (36% Market Share) (100-100)
Stockholm (34% Market Share) (101-101)
Frankfurt (33% Market Share) (102-102)
Geneva (28% Market Share) (103-103)
Brussels (26% Market Share) (104-104)
Dsseldorf (22% Market Share) (105-106)
Part 1: Baggage Strategies for Local Originating Passengers (107-107)
The Importance of Baggage-Handling Strategies (108-108)
A Case Study in Baggage Check-in at a Downtown Terminal (109-111)
Status of Other Downtown Check-in Terminals (112-116)
Near-Airport Check-in Locations (117-118)
Part 2: Integration of Ticketing and Baggage with Longer Distance Systems (119-119)
Integration with National Systems: The GAO Study (120-121)
Why Integrate an Airport with Longer Distance Ground Services? (122-124)
Part 3: Evolving Strategies for Integrated Ticketing and Baggage (125-125)
Las Vegas Strategies for Integration of Modal Services (126-126)
Los Angeles International Airport to Union Station (127-127)
Newark Liberty International Airport Rail Station: A Case Study (128-130)
Lessons Learned: Integration with National Systems (131-131)
Documentation of Examples of Integrated Services (132-134)
Characteristics of the Airport Ground Access Market (135-135)
Demographic Characteristics of Air Travelers (136-137)
Step 1: Decide What Information to Collect (138-138)
Step 2: Select a Data Collection Method (139-140)
Step 3: Determine the Sampling Frame and Sampling Method (141-141)
Step 5: Summarize and Analyze the Results (142-142)
Air Traveler Trip-End Densities Associated with Ground Transportation Markets (143-144)
The Geography of Public Ground Transportation to Airports (145-146)
A Hierarchy of Markets for Public Ground Transportation Services (147-147)
Variation by Demographic Segment: Total Airport Market (148-148)
Variation by Demographic Segment: Washington, D.C. (149-150)
Applying the Four Market Segments: Looking for the Factor of Familiarity (151-151)
Conclusion (152-152)
The Need to Manage Services (153-153)
Measures to Encourage Use of Public Transportation (154-155)
Automated Traffic Monitoring and Management Programs (156-156)
Open Access (157-157)
Balancing Supply and Demand (158-158)
Challenges of Introducing New Services (159-159)
Competition and Enforcement (160-160)
Bond Indenture (161-161)
Airline Agreement (162-162)
Sources of Funding (163-163)
Federal Funding and Financial Oversight of Airports and Airport Access Projects (164-166)
Environmental Implications of Federal Funding for Airport Access Projects (167-167)
Factors That Influence Employee Use of Public Transportation (168-168)
Transit Service Characteristics (169-170)
Employee Characteristics (171-172)
Comparative Comfort of Transit and Automobile (173-173)
Availability, Cost, and Convenience of Parking at the Work Site (174-174)
Extent and Adequacy of Transit Service Hours (175-175)
Non-Flight Crew (176-176)
Getting Information about Ground Access (177-177)
Ground Access Information on the San Francisco Airport Website (178-180)
Ground Access Information on the Portland (Oregon) Airport Website (181-181)
Ground Access Information on the Boston Airport Website (182-182)
Ground Access Information on the New York JFK Airport Website (183-184)
Ground Access Information on the Atlanta Airport Website (185-185)
Ground Access Information on the Amsterdam Airport Website (186-187)
Ground Access Planning on the Narita Airport Website (188-189)
Ground Access Information on the London Heathrow Airport Website (190-190)
Ground Access Information on the Zurich Airport Website (191-191)
The Baltimore/Washington International Airport Prototype Ground Access Module (192-192)
Passenger Information Provided by Other Agencies (193-194)
Conclusions (195-195)
Step 2: Undertake the Program for Data Gathering and System Monitoring (196-196)
Step 5: Manage the Airport to Encourage Higher Occupancy (197-197)
Step 6: Present the Ground Access Services to the Traveler (198-198)
References (199-200)
Appendix - Abbreviations and Acronyms (201-202)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (203-203)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 117
Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 117 Moscow Domodedovo One of Moscow's major airports, Domodedovo, offers direct rail service to a downtown station, where baggage check-in services are offered. Reportedly, 18% of the travelers who use Domodedovo airport access it from the downtown rail station (37). Kuala Lumpur Sentral and Baggage Retrieval The new service between the Kuala Lumpur International Airport and the downtown Sentral rail station is attracting nearly 1,000 passengers per day. About one in three choose to give up their bags at the downtown facility. Of all the off-airport baggage-handling schemes being developed, only Malaysia's Kuala Lumpur International Airport is proposing off-airport baggage claim for its downtown terminal, located at the Kuala Lumpur City Air Terminal at KL Sentral Station. The airport has established the City Air Terminal at Sentral Station as a separate three-letter IATA code, allowing passengers to check their baggage to the city rather than to the airport. This concept was examined in depth in the development of the Hong Kong system and again for the Heathrow Express. One concern of the Hong Kong designers was the amount of space needed by a full-scale baggage claim area. Another concern was the possibility that travelers will inac- curately specify the actual destination, whether at the time of ticket purchase or at the moment of check-in. The in-bound through-baggage system has been designed and is scheduled to open at the end of 2007. Passengers who have specified their destination correctly at the time of check-in will proceed through immigration, take the train to Sentral Station, pick up their bags from a carousel, and then proceed through customs procedures in the downtown station. Near-Airport Check-in Locations Another concept in baggage-handling strategy is the provision of check-in service at a point adjacent to the airport, usually at a point of transfer from one mode to another. Düsseldorf Airport Rail Station The Düsseldorf rail station on the high-speed system in the Rhine/Ruhr area of Germany pro- vides an interesting case study of non-downtown locations for off-site baggage handling. Baggage check-in services were a key element of the new high-speed station in May of 2000. Check-in services were provided for 20 airlines (which served about 75% of passengers), including Lufthansa and its Star Alliance partners. Baggage was accepted up to 60 minutes before airplane departures. A futuristic suspended, automated people mover provided a quick 5-minute con- nection to the main terminal every 4 minutes. The new service was widely publicized by the airport, and ridership for the rail system devel- oped quickly. What Happened in Düsseldorf? Faced with the choice of separating themselves from their baggage at the rail station or carrying it on the people mover to the traditional airport check-in area, passengers overwhelmingly chose to keep it to the last moment. As a result, the check-in service ceased operation in April 2004 (38). Newark AirTrain Rail Station In October 2000, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey opened a major airport facil- ity at the Newark Airport rail station located on the Northeast Corridor served by Amtrak and New Jersey Transit. From a legal point of view, both the AirTrain (formerly called the Airport

OCR for page 118
118 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation Monorail) and the rail station are part of Newark Liberty International Airport; the AirTrain is operated solely for airport travelers and does not carry any general-purpose traffic. Given the very significant difficulties in establishing full baggage check-in service in New York City, this strategy called for travelers to retain their baggage until arrival at this physical extension of Newark International Airport. The baggage check-in station at the Newark Airport rail station was offered to all airlines, but used by only Continental Airlines' hub operation. Baggage was accepted at the mezzanine level on the direct path from the Northeast Corridor rail platforms to the AirTrain station itself. The baggage was sent to the ground level on a spiral ramp (Figure 5-8). From this point, the baggage was carried by the airline truck to the airport baggage make-up area. Continental Airlines commenced its baggage check-in service on November 18, 2001. For- mally, they requested that baggage be checked 2 hours before departure time, but the staff accepted bags with as little as 45 minutes remaining before departure. Continental Airlines did not charge for the service. What Happened in Newark? Faced with the options of going directly to the people mover or parting with their bags at the rail station itself, about 80% chose to carry their bags to the traditional check-in area of the airport. Continental closed the service in 2003. JFK AirTrain Rail Station The new AirTrain transfer facility at Jamaica Station to the Long Island Railroad (with fur- ther connections to the New York City subways) was opened in 2004. The facility includes the PHOTO: M. A. Coogan. Figure 5-8. The Newark Airport rail station includes a baggage transfer system, from which Continental Airlines carried the bags by truck to the terminal.