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. "Integration with National Systems: The GAO Study." 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
120
bottomleft bottomright
Page
120
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 120
120 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation services to airports in Frankfurt, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen, but not in London, Munich, or Madrid; concerns with longer distance systems are a major policy concern in Newark and Baltimore, but not in San Francisco. Although passengers traveling through a few U.S. airports have a strong orientation to nearby downtown origins or destinations, at most U.S. airports, dispersed trip origins or destinations are the norm and represent a significant challenge for successful rail operations. In the United States, a small number of airports have a passenger market that is strongly linked to the nearby downtown area. As shown in Table 5-1, these airports include New York City's LaGuardia and JFK, and Washington, D.C.'s Reagan National. In Europe, several airports have markets that are heavily oriented to the downtown area, including Paris (with 60% of the airline passengers traveling through Charles de Gaulle Airport and 50% traveling through Orly Airport going to Paris itself), Oslo (with 48% of airline passengers going to the downtown), and London (with 35% of the passengers traveling through Heathrow Airport going to London). As noted, the downtown area is typically well served by traditional transit services in the United States. Most U.S. transit systems are configured to respond to the needs of cost-sensitive, daily commuters and are thus radial systems oriented to the downtown area. However, most U.S. airline passengers have trip ends in areas located outside the downtown area and outside the area well served by transit. To travel to these areas, airline passengers often need to make one or more transfers. This need can discourage the use of transit, especially for passengers who have several pieces of baggage or who are traveling in a large family group. An analysis of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport indicates that more than 65% of air- line passengers come from beyond the regional transit service area. Thus, although the CTA serves only 4% of all airline passengers, it is used by 12% of airline passengers with trip ends in its prime market area, which includes the Loop. A similar distribution occurs in Boston, where 61% of the resident airline passengers came from the outer suburban area not served by the regional rapid transit system. Integration with National Systems: The GAO Study In the United States, the issue of interconnection of airports with national ground trans- portation systems has been raised in several forms. A major U.S. transportation advocacy Table 5-1. Orientation to downtown. Percentage of origination trip ends Airport in downtown New York LaGuardia 46% Reagan National 33% New York JFK 32% Chicago Midway 20% Newark 14% Baltimore/Washington 14% Chicago O'Hare 14% Philadelphia 14% Washington Dulles 12% Atlanta 7% SOURCE: TCRP Report 62.

OCR for page 121
Integrated Baggage and Ticketing Strategies 121 group, "Reconnect America," has made the case that the national decline of the airline hub­spoke system has resulted in the severe reduction of air service to smaller airports and that there is a void in terms of effective access to the remaining airports with growing air services. A recent congressionally mandated study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) focused on the connections to nationwide systems for several reasons: "Increases in the number of passengers traveling to and from airports will place greater strains on our nation's airport access roads and airport capacity, which can have a number of negative economic and social effects. U.S. transportation policy has generally addressed these negative economic and social effects from the standpoint of individual transportation modes and local government involvement. However, European transportation policy is increasingly focusing on intermodal transportation as a possible means to address congestion without sacrificing economic growth." (40) The study notes that, although only one U.S. airport has a fixed guideway to an Amtrak sta- tion, no U.S. airport reported to the GAO an intention to build a connection to an Amtrak facility. Figure 5-9 shows Newark as the only example of such a national connection and 18 other airports with shuttle connections. The contrast in U.S. connectivity between major airports and the national long-distance rail system and the European connectivity strategy is noteworthy. SOURCE: GAO (40). Figure 5-9. The GAO study shows that Newark Airport has the only fixed guideway connection with national rail service in the United States.