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. "Transit Service Characteristics." 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
169
bottomleft bottomright
Page
169
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 169
Improving Public Transportation Mode Share for Employees 169 Table 8-1. Number of employees at selected airports. Estimated 1998 average Airport Size (a) daily employees New York JFK L 41,000 (1987) Dallas/Fort Worth L 40,000 (2000) Chicago O'Hare L 40,000 Los Angeles L 40,000 San Francisco L 31,000 Phoenix L 23,665 St. Louis L 19,000 Denver L 17,400 Boston L 14,600 (2000) Houston L 14,406 Salt Lake City L 13,026 Seattle L 11,375 Oakland M 10,500 Tampa L 8,219 Las Vegas L 8,000 (2000) Portland (Oregon) M 5,000 San Jose M 3,500 San Diego L 3,000 Omaha M 2,500 (2000) Sacramento M 1,500 (2000) Orange County John Wayne M 1,000 (2000) (a) FAA hub size: L = Large, M = Medium, S = Small SOURCE: TCRP Report 83, Jacobs Consultancy, based upon data provided by individual airport operators. Data was provided for 1998, unless otherwise noted. have schedules dictated by aircraft operational patterns that are outside of the typical peak-period commuting hours of 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. · The availability and cost of parking for employees. How much do employees pay for park- ing? While some airports are providing subsidized car pools or transit passes, few employees pay market rate parking fees. These factors were used as a starting point to expand the available knowledge base for identi- fying ways to improve employee usage of public transportation at airports. To gain additional insights into the factors affecting employee use of public transportation, surveys were distributed to 34 U.S. airports. Approximately one-third of the surveys were returned and were evenly split between large hub airports and small/medium airports. Survey findings are summarized in the following sections. Transit Service Characteristics Information from the survey responses concerning the existing transit service at the airport such as type, frequency, stop locations, and employee transit mode shares is summarized in Table 8-2. Transit Service Transit service to airports is typically limited in terms of the number of routes and the frequency of service. Only Chicago O'Hare, Reagan Washington National, and Boston airports have relatively robust service with the presence of a rapid rail station on each airport. Los Angeles International Airport has a significant amount of service nearby, but routes serve a transit center and rail station remote from the terminal. Most bus routes only run twice an hour.

OCR for page 170
170 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation Table 8-2. Airport transit service characteristics summary. No. of Transit Bus Frequency Rail Frequency Airport Routes per Route per Route Number of Stops Other Off- Off- Peak peak Peak peak (trips (trips (trips (trips On- Size per per per per Non- airport (a) Bus Rail hour) hour) hour) hour) Terminal terminal shuttle? Birmingham (AL) S 0 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. No Boston L 2 1 1-3 0-2 15 5-6 4 1 Yes Chicago O'Hare L 3 1 1-2 1 8-10 6-8 1 1 Yes Dallas/Ft. Worth L 2 1 (b) 1-2 1-2 2 (c) 1 (c) 2 4 Yes Denver (d) L 8 0 1-2 0-2 n.a. n.a. 2 0 Yes Orange Co. John M 2 0 2 1 n.a. n.a. 1 0 No Wayne Las Vegas L 2 0 2-5 2-3 n.a. n.a. 1 2 No Los Angeles (d) L 12 (e) 1 (b) 1-4 1-4 9 4 9 ? Yes Louisville M 3 0 2 1-2 n.a. n.a. 1 1 No Omaha M 0 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. No Phoenix (d) L 2 0 4 2 n.a. n.a. 3 0 No Reagan National L 1 2 4 6-8 12-20 6-8 1 0 Yes Sacramento M 1 0 1 0-1 n.a. n.a. 2 0 Yes Salt Lake City L 3 0 1-2 0-1 n.a. n.a. 1 3 No Seattle (d) L 6 0 1-3 1-2 n.a. n.a. 1 0 Yes San Diego L 1 0 6 4-6 n.a. n.a. 3 0 No (a) FAA hub size: S = small; M = medium; L = large. (b) Remote rail station. (c) Frequency based on shuttle bus to terminal from remote rail station. (d ) Remote bus station. (e) Linked to terminals with shuttle bus; frequency based on Metropolitan Transit Authority bus schedule. SOURCE: TCRP Report 83, Jacobs Consultancy, based upon data provided by individual airport operators. In addition, only two bus routes serve the west end of the airport, a major employment center where airline maintenance facilities and air cargo hubs are located. Of the other airports that responded, only Las Vegas and Orange County, California, airports have buses that run more than twice per hour. Transit Mode Share The data in Table 8-3 show that for airports with bus service only, typical employee transit mode shares are approximately 2% to 5%. Most airports with bus service only are toward the lower end of the range. The exception is Denver International Airport, which has SkyRide, a suc- cessful bus system oriented to the airport. SkyRide is a semi-express bus service from numerous free park-and-ride lots directly to Denver International Airport. Airports with rail service on the airport have significantly higher employee transit mode shares. O'Hare International Airport (Chicago) has the highest reported employee transit use with more than 23% of employees commuting to work on a typical day using rail or bus. Nearly all of these employees use rail. Most of the rail use was reported by airport employees who do not work for any of the airlines. Non-airline airport employees reported that 34% used rail, while airline employees reported 7% used rail. Non-flight crew airline employees reported the lowest