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 36
36 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation Table 2-1. U.S. airports ranked by market share to public modes. Rank Annual Annual 2005 by Market share airport airport enplanements mode to public traffic traffic as percentage share Airport modes 2005 (a) 1998 (b) of 1998 1 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 International­North 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

OCR for page 36
The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports 37 Table 2-2. Volume of transit use at 27 U.S. airports. Public Rank transport Market by users to share to transit airport public Originating volume Airport (in millions) modes enplanements (a) 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 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 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 depres- sion 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.

OCR for page 36
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 stan- dard response was that it was simply the closest. However, for both Manchester, New Hamp- shire, 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 dis- tances 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