National Academies Press: OpenBook

Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation (2008)

Chapter: Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Six Steps in a Market-Based Strategy for Improving Airport Ground Access
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2008. Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13918.
×
Page 51

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

This chapter presents the context within which the airport manager must form policies towards airport ground access and summarizes the reasons for a policy interest in the subject in the United States. It reviews the present state of the airline system including a review of varia- tions in air traffic over the period before and after the events of September 11, 2001. The chap- ter reviews the extent to which concern about the quality of airport ground access has become an integral part of the process of environmental and political approval of airport expansion and efficient utilization of key national assets. Over the past decade, the way people use the aviation system has changed considerably. In the past, major airlines (now called “legacy carriers”) actively competed with one another in terms of amenities that were offered to attract the user. An almost unstated assumption was that each major national carrier would provide service from any point to any point using some combination of large trunk routes between hubs and smaller commuter airplanes to get to those hubs. Since the publication of TCRP Report 62 (2000) and TCRP Report 83 (2002), much of that has changed. Some major airlines have taken the approach that they will fly between airports that are cost effective at each end of the trip. The net result is that the airport ground access trip length is becoming longer and the difficulty of capturing those trips in high-occupancy vehicles such as trains, buses, and vans is getting greater. This chapter reviews what is known about the changes that have occurred in the field over the past decade. Increasingly, transportation managers in the United States are dealing with close inter- relationships between modal services that have historically been seen, and managed, as separate entities. The scale of trip generation at major airports is of concern to the regional transportation and environmental manager; the airport manager finds that strategies for higher occupancy ground access solutions have become an accepted pre-condition to the expansion and better utilization of the airport assets. Across the country, MPOs are becom- ing involved in problem solving for the difficult issue of public mode airport ground access. To begin this review of the policy interest behind improving airport ground access, it is important to establish a sense of scale for the amount of travel to airports and to other points of intermodal transfer in the United States. Understanding the Scale of Airport Ground Access TCRP Report 62 presented an analysis of the U.S. airports and their orientation to public trans- portation ground access modes, based largely on data collected by the FAA and the Airports Council International (ACI)–North America in the year 1998. In addition, a survey undertaken for TCRP Report 62 drew responses from 33 airports, each of which provided a summary of the 34 C H A P T E R 2 The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports

latest ground access market share. This chapter now presents a summary of how aviation pat- terns have changed between the analysis years 1998 and 2005. This report includes all U.S. airports with public mode share of 6% or more, which creates a sample of 27 of the most public mode–oriented airports in the United States. For Minneapolis– St. Paul International Airport, the research team was informed that no new survey information had been collected since the opening of the Hiawatha Light Rail. If this information had been available, the research team estimates that a rail mode share of somewhere less than 5% would be augmented by bus/van shares, making a combined public mode share of more than 6%. For the sake of brevity, the sample will be referred to as the 27 most transit-oriented airports in the United States—technically the sample should be called 27 out of 28 of the most transit-oriented airports. U.S. Airports and Their Public Mode Share In the study of airport ground access, focus on the originating passengers, i.e., those who are not changing from one airplane to another, is critical. However, the scale of the total operations for the 27 airports is also important and is introduced in Table 2-1, which shows the variation in total enplanement: this category includes all aircraft boardings for revenue purposes. The largest airport in the sample, Atlanta, has more than 10 times the total volume of the smallest airport in the sample, New Orleans. And yet volume alone cannot explain the market share gained by public modes of ground transportation, as New Orleans’s well-managed downtown shuttle bus system gains about the same market share (15%) as the combination of rail and bus/van services in Atlanta. The relationship between public mode share and a wide range of geo- graphic factors is discussed in Chapter 3. The wide variation in the growth or shrinkage of total airline passengers for each airport will be discussed in the following section. For clarification, the number in the first row in the sixth column means that the total enplanements at San Francisco International Airport have decreased and are now 83.4% of those in 1998. The number in the second row of the sixth column means that the total enplanements at JFK Airport have increased, and are now 134.5% of those in 1998. The Scale of the Public Mode Volumes at These Airports The scale of public transportation markets varies by the size of the airport and by the propen- sity of the airport region to support public transportation. Table 2-2 reviews the 27 airports ranked by the volumes of airline passengers actually using public transportation, here defined as rail, bus, and shared-ride vans, but excluding single-party limousines, courtesy shuttles, and charter oper- ations. Table 2-2 focuses on the scale of an airport in terms of the absolute number of passengers who are transported to the airport by a public mode. Importantly, these calculations are applied to the number of originating passengers, i.e., excluding those who are changing from plane to plane. The 27 airports included in the sample generate about 60 million public mode trips when counting trips both to and from the airport. Table 2-2 shows that, at present, more travelers are using the public mode ground access services in New York’s JFK airport than at any other U.S. airport, with an estimated 2.2 million annual travelers going to the airport on JFK’s new combination of people mover to subway/commuter rail, express buses, and shared- ride vans. After JFK airport, the next highest public mode volume occurs at an airport that does not rely on fixed-guideway investment, whether by rail or people mover. (A rail station near Los Angeles International Airport does not attract any significant number of airline passengers.) Table 2-2 The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports 35

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 36 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation Rank by mode share Airport Market share to public modes Annual airport traffic 2005 (a) Annual airport traffic 1998 (b) 2005 enplanements as percentage 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 International–North America, 2005 North America Final Traffic Report; (b) Airports Council International, The World’s Airports in 1998, “Airport Ranking by Total Passengers,” 1999. Table 2-1. U.S. airports ranked by market share to public modes.

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

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 38 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation 500,000 550,000 600,000 650,000 700,000 750,000 800,000 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).

of low-priced carriers has incorporated a business strategy that does indeed serve existing major airports, such as Boston’s Logan International Airport. Turning to the question of the impacts of the events of September 11, survey research during the period of lowest levels of airline patronage during 2002 reported that fundamental attitudes toward air travel options had not changed significantly because of September 11. The study by Resource Systems Group (RSG) based on a 2002 survey concluded: “Comparing the results described in the previous sections to the results from previous years’ surveys, it is clear that the events of 9/11 and subsequent changes to the air security system have not dramatically changed the way that air travelers evaluate alternative air travel options. However, additional questions that were asked in this year’s survey make it clear that there have been some changes in how travelers evaluate air versus other travel options and in the way that they use the system. Almost one-quarter say that they make fewer air trips now than they did before 9/11 and, of those, almost two-thirds drive a car to substitute for air travel, 20% use a train and 40% forgo trips (multiple response were allowed so the total is greater than 100%). “More than 40% of all travelers say that they allow more time for air travel now than they did before 9/11; the median additional amount of time is over 50 minutes. Over 20% say that they feel less safe and secure when traveling; this is partially offset by the 4% who say that they feel more safe/secure now. Only small numbers (approximately 3% each) say that they use different airports or different airlines as a result of 9/11. And, over 37% say that 9/11 has not had any continuing effect on their air travel (2, emphasis added) It seems clear that Americans now routinely allow more time at the air terminal than in previ- ous decades, consistent with the RSG finding at the time. The study also noted that travelers place a different value of time on different modal segments of the full trip. While the business traveler places a value of time of $37 per hour on the scheduled in-air time of the trip, the same business traveler places a value of time of only $24 per hour on the ground access portion of the trip. This value assessment is consistent with the concept that the traveler will indeed spend more time in his/her automobile in order to gain whatever advantage is offered by the airport selected. The survey concluded that only 3% of travelers say they would use a different airport as a result of September 11, but this attitude still allows for a change in selected airport in reaction to lower fares or other service dimension. It is implicit from Figure 2-1 that many of those who, in 2002, had reported a mode change to train or car subsequently returned to the air system over the following 3 years. How Have the Transit-Oriented Airports “Bounced Back” from the Decrease in Air Traffic? The focus of this project is on the U.S. airports with the highest use of public transportation services and specifically on the 27 airports in the sample. For the nation as a whole, the data behind Figure 2-1 shows enplanements grew by about 20% between 1998 and 2005; at the transit- oriented airports, total enplanements increased by 13%. Logically, this statistic suggests that the growth in total enplanements has been considerably stronger in the airports outside of our sample; these other airports tend, with few exceptions, to be smaller and more difficult to serve with public transportation. The research team has focused on the changes in originating passengers (thereby avoiding the double counting of travelers who have to make several segments to accomplish one trip). The results are somewhat more complicated than the simple rebounding trend in total enplane- ments revealed in Figure 2-1. Turning to the number of origin–destination trips being made through the 27 airports, only an 8% increase has occurred overall, with 10 of the major airports having fewer originating travelers than in 1998. It is clear that part of the 13% increase in total enplanements in the sample is associated with an increase in the number of transferring passengers. The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports 39

As shown in Figure 2-2, between 1998 and 2005, the use of JFK airport by originating passen- gers grew by a remarkable 80%, largely attributable to the additional services provided by JetBlue Airlines. The number of originating passengers in Oakland grew by about 50% over the same time period, associated with a growth in service by Southwest Airlines. In the middle of the spec- trum, airports in Boston and Portland, Oregon, had not fully gained back their mid-period losses as of the 2005 data. Volumes of originations decreased by a factor of 10% in airports in Cleveland and Los Angeles. While the New Orleans decline was somewhat expected, the loss of more than 20% in San Francisco is a sharp change for an airport that has invested heavily in infrastructure to improve ground access services In some cases, the changes occur largely within a metropolitan area with decreases at San Francisco International Airport correlated with increases at Oakland and San Jose airports and decreases at Chicago O’Hare correlated with increases at Chicago Midway. The two New York City airports seem to have simply attracted more people (over longer distances) as increases during the time period at JFK airport are not associated with any decrease at LaGuardia airport. 40 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation -40% -20% 0% 20% 60% 80% 100% 40% JFK Oakland Las Vegas Dulles Midway Tampa Philadelphia Orlando BWI San Diego Phoenix LaGuardia Denver National Indianapolis Seattle Boston Portland Atlanta DFW Newark O’Hare Cleveland Los Angeles St. Louis New Orleans SFO SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration, Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic, Domestic. Figure 2-2. Change in originating passengers for the 27 U.S. airports, 1998 to 2005.

Will the Pattern of Air Travel Continue to Grow? While the extent of growth for major U.S. airports was clouded by the market reaction to the events of September 11 and while any precise forecasts are clearly beyond the scope of this proj- ect, there has been considerable consensus on the scale of growth expected over time. The Inter- national Air Transport Association (IATA) based in Geneva has used a growth rate of 3.9% for U.S. air traffic for its forecasting (3). In a worldwide forecast released in January of 2007, the ACI Global Traffic Forecast 2006-2025 predicts a “doubling of current passenger numbers within the next 20 years. Passenger volumes are predicted to grow by an average of 4% annually over the 20-year period, leading passenger volumes to top 9 billion passengers a year by 2025, up from 4.2 billion in 2005.” (4) Some U.S. airports concur in these aggressive forecasts. SCAG, the MPO for the Los Angeles area, forecasts a regional increase at an annual rate of 4%, dealing as it does with a growing market of services between Asia and the Americas. All of this growth is set in the context of a pro- jected increase in the role of the other airports in the region from their original share of 12% of the region’s demand to 33% in the target year (5). The recent New England Regional Aviation System Plan undertook both high and low forecasts. With 49.6 million New England passengers in the base year of 2000, the Plan produced a high- demand 2020 forecast of 90 million air passengers and a low-demand forecast of 67.5 million air passengers (1). The high-demand forecast reflects a compounded growth rate of approximately 3%, while the low-demand forecast translates to about a 2% growth rate. The consensus forecast averages to about 2.3% growth per year, showing the difference in assumptions in the mature Northeast and the developing Southwest (e.g., 4% annual growth in Los Angeles). In the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, a 30-year forecast was adopted at a rate of approximately 2.8% per year compounded (6). As shown in Figure 2-3, this overall regional growth must be distributed over three airports, some of which are more physically constrained than others, as assumed in the transportation planning process now underway at the MWCOG. Figure 2-3 shows the expected growth in three airports expressed in terms of ground trans- portation impacts. In a 25-year planning horizon, between 2005 and 2030, originating enplane- ments at Baltimore/Washington International Airport are expected to double, with an overall growth factor of 2.1. Turning to Dulles International Airport (from the same study), originat- ing enplanements are expected to triple, with an overall growth factor of 3.2. Close-in Reagan Washington National Airport is even more constrained than Baltimore/Washington Interna- tional Airport, with originating enplanements expected to increase only by somewhat more than one-third, with an overall growth factor of 1.38. Importantly for the study of ground trans- portation, these MPO-predicted growths in air travel demand are expressed as flows by mode, which can be immediately integrated into the planning of the ground access system, as shown in Figure 2-3. Understanding the Trips that Use Airports Trip Purpose: Why Do Airline Passengers Travel? Airline passengers are more likely to be traveling for business purposes than are long-distance travelers as a whole. On board the commercial airplane an average of 41% of passengers are trav- eling on business, compared with a national average of only 22% of overall travel for this purpose. Pleasure trips, such as vacations, have a high propensity to occur by car rather than by airplane, as shown in Figure 2-4. Phrased differently, 64% of our national long-distance trip making is for pleasure, while only 49% of airline passenger trips are for pleasure. The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports 41

How Trip Purpose Varies by Airport In TCRP Report 62, airline passenger trip purpose data were reviewed for 25 airports (not all of which are included in this report’s sample of the 27 most transit-oriented airports). The 25 airports are grouped in Table 2-3 according to the trip purpose of originating passengers (business versus leisure). The trip purpose will usually affect a passenger’s decision to use pub- lic transportation to the airport because of several factors, such as frequency of trips, duration of trips, and sensitivity of passengers to time. For example, airline passengers traveling on busi- 42 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation SOURCE: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington-Baltimore Regional Airport System Plan Ground Access Update, 2007 Figure 2-3. Airport growth forecasts and growth in ground access volumes for Washington metropolitan area.

ness may have more information available on access options at specific airports because they tend to make more trips by air than airline passengers traveling on leisure. Certain business travel arrangements may also require the use of particular airport access modes. Five airports appear to be dominated by business travelers. The two airports with the largest proportion of business travelers (Atlanta and Reagan Washington National) also attract signif- icant rail ridership (as discussed in Chapter 4), in part because of the business travelers. At nine airports, between 45% and 55% of all airline passengers are making business-related trips. It is anticipated that the category of airports dominated by business travelers would include most U.S. airports if trip purpose data were available. At seven airports, 35% to 44% of all airline passengers are on business-related trips. Many of these airports (e.g., San Francisco, San Diego, Tampa, and Salt Lake City airports) serve a combination of business and resort/leisure markets. Airports with fewer than 35% business travelers primarily serve leisure markets (e.g., Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, and Orlando). Airports Serving Residents and Airports Serving Visitors Data describing airline passenger place of residence were available from 23 airports in TCRP Report 62. These data suggest four groupings of airports, shown in Table 2-4. Local residents rep- resented in Table 2-4 are airline passengers who are considered part of the airport’s local market The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports 43 Trip Purpose: All Trips Personal business 14% Personal business 10%Business22% Business 41% Pleasure 64% Pleasure 49% Trip Purpose: Air Passengers SOURCE: American Travel Survey, 1995. Figure 2-4. Trip purpose for air passengers vs. all trips over 100 miles. More than 55% 45% to 55% 35% to 44% Less than 35% Atlanta (66%) Boston (54%) San Francisco (41%) Los Angeles (32%) Reagan National (64%) Baltimore/Washington (54%) San Diego (40%) Las Vegas (30%) Dallas/Ft. Worth (57%) Seattle (54%) Tampa (37%) Orlando (23%) Kansas City (57%) Washington Dulles (52%) Chicago Midway (37%) Ft. Lauderdale (23%) New Orleans (56%) Chicago O’Hare (50%) Phoenix (36%) Oakland (50%) Portland (36%) San Jose (48%) Salt Lake City (36%) Denver (47%) Sacramento (46%) SOURCE: TCRP Report 62, Jacobs Consultancy. Table 2-3. Percentage of air travelers who are on business.

area and who live close enough to access the airport using ground transportation. Airline passen- gers who are not local residents are visitors who do not live within the market area of the airport they are using. Resident airline passengers are more likely to have (1) a private vehicle, (2) more information on airport access, and (3) more familiarity with regional traffic patterns and trans- portation options. More than 50% of the airline passengers at seven airports surveyed are local residents. These airports include those that serve as large airline connecting hubs (Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago O’Hare, and Atlanta), plus airports located on the East and West Coasts (Boston, Oakland, and Seattle). The proximity to leisure markets or vacation destinations influences the passenger pro- file at airports serving fewer than 50% residents (e.g., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Ft. Lauderdale, Tampa, Las Vegas, and Orlando). National Patterns of Access to Airports and Terminals Most of the airport ground access data presented in this report were collected by the airports themselves (or regional planning agencies associated with those airports). However, a nationwide view of access patterns to terminals can be obtained from the American Travel Survey (ATS), which described about 365 million annual total ground access trips to and from U.S. airports in the survey year of 1995. In the ATS, these trips are categorized by whether they occur in the traveler’s area of residence or in the non-home portion of the longer distance trip. In this report, travelers in the first category are described as the “resident” market and those in the second cate- gory are described as the “non-resident” market for purchase of ground transportation services. Terminal Access at the Home End of the Trip Getting airline passengers to access the airport with public modes seems to be more difficult than getting passengers on intercity bus and intercity rail to access their terminals with public modes. Looking at the mode of ground access selected from a national aggregate perspective, ground access modes to all three kinds of terminals (i.e., bus, train, air) are dominated by the private automobile. In this resident market, those accessing a bus or a train have a significantly higher propensity to select a mode other than the private automobile to get to the bus or train terminal, with combined mode shares for taxi, limousine, and public mode at nearly 30% market share. Figure 2-5 reveals that bus, van, limousine, and rail capture about 20% of the market to long- distance bus and rail terminals, but capture only 8% of national travel to airports, excluding taxis. 44 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation More than 55% 50% to 55% 40% to 49% Less than 40% Sacramento (69%) Dallas/Ft. Worth (54%) San Jose (49%) Phoenix (38%) Boston (59%) Chicago O’Hare (54%) Baltimore/Washington (47%) Tampa (38%) Seattle (57%) Oakland (52%) Salt Lake City (45%) Washington Dulles (33%) Atlanta (50%) San Francisco (43%) New Orleans (28%) Los Angeles (42%) Reagan National (29%) Fort Lauderdale (41%) Orlando (27%) Denver (41%) Las Vegas (17%) Portland (40%) San Diego (40%) SOURCE: TCRP Report 62, Jacobs Consultancy. Table 2-4. Percentage of air travelers who are local residents.

Unfortunately, the ATS does not allow private limousines to be examined separately from higher occupancy vans in this national overview. The rest of this report will present airport-specific data that allows this important distinction to be made in the analysis. Terminal Access at the Non-Home End of the Trip From a nationwide data perspective, the long-distance traveler has a greater propensity to pur- chase a ground access service while in the non-home end of the long-distance trip than while in their home area. Figure 2-6 shows behavior of the non-resident market: in the non-home area, the pub- lic mode share to the airport is nearly twice as high as in the home area. Non-home area public mode shares to long-distance bus and rail terminals also are greater than those in the home area. Daily Public Mode Volumes to Airports Most airports describe their scale in terms of total annual passenger movement, which includes both enplanements and deplanements. As shown in Table 2-1, airports in Chicago and Atlanta are generally described as airports with more than 70 million annual passengers (MAP). The scale of airport ground access markets is often easiest to interpret in terms of a daily volume from points origin to the airport and, if possible, an hourly volume number. This section refers to The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports 45 Terminal Access - Home End of Trip 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Taxi share 6% 9% 10% Public (Includes limo) 8% 20% 19% Airport Bus Station Amtrak Station SOURCE: American Travel Survey, 1995. Figure 2-5. Ground access mode to terminals by the residential market. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Taxi Share 13% 11% 23% Public (Includes Limo) 15% 23% 25% Airport Bus Station Amtrak Station Terminal Access - Non Home End of Trip SOURCE: American Travel Survey, 1995. Figure 2-6. Ground access mode to terminals by the non-resident market.

ground access flows to the major airports for the simple reason that the vast majority of airport ground access surveys are collected in the airline departure areas, for a variety of reasons of survey accuracy and reliability. The relationship between annual passenger activity figures and hourly flows of persons on public modes is illustrated in the following steps. “Typical” Public Mode Volumes for Large U.S. Airports A “typical” public mode volume for a large U.S. airport can be estimated from the available data. The steps to calculate an average daily ground access public mode volume are straight- forward. 1. From passengers to enplaning passengers. The scale of an airport is generally categorized in terms of total annual airport activity. For example, in 2005, Boston is usually described as an airport of roughly 26 MAP. For the analysis of ground access, it is more useful to examine movements in one direction: Boston could be just as well described as an airport of 13 million enplanements. 2. From total enplanements to originating passengers. The most important step in observing the overall scale of the ground access market is to subtract the airplane-to-airplane connect- ing movements from the total enplanements. When these movements are subtracted, Boston airport in 2005 can be observed to have 10.4 million originating passengers, making it the ninth largest ground access market in the United States. As such, it can be used as a “typical” larger airport in the top 20 U.S. airports. 3. From annual to daily originating passengers. By dividing Boston’s 10.4 million originating passengers per year by 365, somewhat less than 29,000 airline passengers arrive at the airport on an “average” day. 4. From daily to hourly volume. Approximately 10% to 15% of the 24-hour passenger volume have been observed to arrive in a single peak hour, creating a peak-hour volume of between 2,900 and 4,200 airline passengers arriving by all ground access modes. 5. Peak-hour public transit volumes. In Boston, about 18% of arriving airline passengers arrive by some form of public transportation; thus, between 500 and 750 airline passengers arrive in the peak hour by rail, bus, and van combined. Public Mode Volumes for 27 U.S. Airports Table 2-5 presents the estimated scale of use of public mode ground transportation at selected U.S. airports. The steps taken to create the “typical” public mode volume into the airport can be applied to each U.S. airport for which the data are available. Thus, using the assumptions in this section, JFK airport is estimated to attract about 7,000 public mode ground access users per day. The airports in this group of transit-oriented airports vary widely: five U.S. airports attract 6,000 or more public mode users per day and eight airports attract less than 2,000 public mode users per day. Dealing with peaking characteristics at airports is difficult, because different airports have dif- ferent distributions of traffic over the day. A range of 10% to 15% of daily volume in the peak hour can be used as a default. From this assumption, total hourly volumes to U.S. airports are estimated to be far less than 1,000 passengers per hour by all public modes combined (with JFK as the possible exception, from Table 2-5). Implications for Choice of Ground Access Mode The scale of public transportation volumes to major airports must be examined with some caution. Clearly, the transit infrastructure must be able to accommodate volumes in the range 46 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

of 500 to 1,000 passengers per hour into an airport. However, capacity alone should never be the sole justification of rail investment; buses in many corridors in the United States regu- larly carry more people than they would need to carry to serve airline passengers at an entire airport. For example, through the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City, buses carry more than 40,000 persons per hour in the peak direction. There are many powerful reasons to select rail services to airports, based mainly on the existence of a grade separated right-of-way not sub- ject to the daily congestion plaguing such airports as JFK and O’Hare; but, in theory, the capacity constraints of rubber-tired services should not be used as a justification for such a selection. For most metropolitan areas, a comprehensive program to improve public mode airport ground access services, and to raise the overall vehicle occupancy levels, will require a variety of The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports 47 Airport Estimated daily inbound public mode volume (air travelers only) Market share to public modes Annual originating passengers (a) New York JFK 7,000 19% 11,602,440 Los Angeles 6,900 13% 16,441,180 Las Vegas 6,300 12% 16,339,950 Atlanta 6,200 14% 13,696,770 Boston 6,000 18% 10,428,620 Chicago O’Hare 5,800 12% 14,923,320 San Francisco 5,600 23% 8,938,170 Orlando 4,900 11% 13,792,840 Newark 4,700 14% 10,375,220 Denver 4,400 14% 9,817,970 Reagan National 3,800 17% 7,003,410 Seattle 3,500 11% 9,898,290 Phoenix 3,300 9% 11,491,890 Baltimore/Washington 3,000 12% 7,637,130 New York LaGuardia 2,900 8% 11,291,970 Oakland 2,600 15% 6,273,490 San Diego 2,300 9% 7,833,280 Dallas/Fort Worth 2,100 6% 10,683,750 Philadelphia 2,100 7% 9,123,560 Tampa 1,800 7% 8,116,390 Portland 1,700 10% 5,373,750 Chicago Midway 1,700 9% 5,933,190 New Orleans 1,700 15% 3,472,780 Washington Dulles 1,700 8% 6,505,480 Indianapolis 1,000 9% 3,628,540 St. Louis 900 6% 4,845,770 Cleveland 700 6% 3,789,610 SOURCE: (a) U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration, Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic, Domestic 2005. Table 2-5. Daily ground access volumes.

modes and a variety of operational strategies. Modal technologies from multiparty taxi sharing to regional rapid transit have all been found to be relevant to the U.S. experience. For each of these services, the transportation planner must match the characteristics of the supporting mar- ket with the characteristics of the candidate mode. In many cases, the capacity of a given mode, such as express bus service, has been described as a limiting factor in a long-term role of airport ground transportation. However, in virtually all cases under consideration, the capacity of bus, light rail, rapid transit, or commuter rail service is vastly higher than that required for airport- related services. Finding an exclusive dependable right-of-way—such as the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane between the Braintree Logan Express terminal and Boston airport—is a key issue in providing high-quality public mode access. Thus, the choice of airport access mode has more to do with policy decisions made for the rest of the regional transportation system than with any capacity limitations inherent to any given mode. In the United States, the market for public transportation (rail, bus, and shared-ride vans) at airports appears to be finite. Chapter 4 presents descriptions of 27 airport ground access systems in the United States and 19 ground access systems in Europe and Asia. Simply summarized, all of the reported international systems attract a public mode share of more 20%, while none of the U.S. systems attract a public mode share of more than 20%. The question then turns to the most effective way to raise higher occupancy vehicle shares at U.S. airports. Why are Airports Concerned with Ground Access by Public Modes? Seen from the vantage point of the airport manager, key decisions to utilize existing airport assets, and expand upon those assets, are often interrelated with approvals through the envi- ronmental and the local political processes. Airport managers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Boston, like managers in London, Zurich, or Amsterdam, understand that key environmental and political approval processes for more airport airside capacity require a planning process that specifically addresses the impacts of airport ground access. Seen from the vantage point of the regional transportation manager, travel demand manage- ment strategies are being implemented to deal with VMT from major activity centers. A large airport, of greater than 45 MAP, can be associated with the generation of 5 million vehicle miles of ground access travel per day, while a smaller airport of 5 MAP can be associated with 500,000 VMT per day. A public official charged with the creation of a CMS or an air quality control strat- egy cannot help but note the rate of traffic growth of major airports and their role in the regional growth of VMT. Ground Access Issues and the Regional Planning Process The need to acknowledge, and deal with, the problems of ground access have become an accepted part of the process of gaining environmental approvals for major growth in airports. Environmental regulations deal with the air quality implications of transportation facilities, both on and off of the airport. Issues that at one point seemed separate are now seen in an integrated intermodal systems perspective. Throughout the United States, the provision of improved ground transportation strategies is seen as an integral component of plans to increase capacity and efficiency at major airports. Over the last few years, ground access strategies have been advanced at San Francisco; Los Angeles; Miami; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis–St. Paul; Newark; and New York JFK airports. New combinations of services are being explored in Chicago (both O’Hare and Midway), Dallas/Fort Worth, Baltimore/Washington, Seattle, and Dulles airports. 48 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments A good example of the coordination that should exist between airport managers and the met- ropolitan transportation planning process is the Continuous Airport System Planning program of the MWCOG. MWCOG notes: “The transportation linkage between airports and local activities is a critical and often overlooked com- ponent of the airport system. Choice of airport and even the decision to fly are clearly linked to the qual- ity, cost and travel time associated with the ground journey to the airport. The goal of the Continuous Airport System Planning (CASP) program is to provide a process and products that support the planning, development and operation of airport and airport-serving facilities in a systematic framework for the Washington-Baltimore region.” (6) Keeping the aviation system supported by the ground transportation system is a stated goal of the long-range plan of the metropolitan Washington region. “Goal 8 of the [Transportation Planning Board’s] Vision reads: The Washington metropolitan region will support options for international and inter-regional travel and commerce. Goal 8 has three objec- tives: (1) The Washington region will be among the most accessible in the nation for international and inter-regional passenger and goods movements. (2) Continued growth in passenger and goods movement between the Washington region and other nearby regions in the mid-Atlantic area. (3) Connectivity to and between Washington Dulles International, National, and Baltimore/ Washington International Airports.” (6) The New England Regional Aviation System Plan The concept of a continuous regional planning process for three airports together, in the MWCOG program, has been taken one step further in an ambitious plan encouraged and spon- sored by the FAA in New England, where the interaction between all commercial airports in six states was examined in the New England Regional Aviation System Plan (NERASP), which con- cluded in October 2006. According to its managers, the main objective of the study was to identify strategies for opti- mizing New England’s regional airport system: “The objectives of the forecast task are to assess how future air travel demand may be distributed across the region’s network of commercial service airports and how that distribution might vary depending on the level of regional demand or changes in key parameters such as airport access times or airline service develop- ment decision.” (1, emphasis added) The technical forecasting process was unique in that forecasts were developed from a regional perspective first, “rather than from the perspective of an individual airport or a state system of airports. Thus the NERASP forecasts for individual airports in the regional system reflect the fact that many of the region’s passengers have multiple airport options and often choose from among several airports when making travel plans.” Applying the process described in this report, the NERASP study was widened to include a free-standing ground access report, which was unique in its simultaneous examination of many airports and their competition—in many cases—for a common and overlapping market. Los Angeles: Cooperation with the Regional Planning Organization In Los Angeles, work is continuing to ensure the coordination of aviation planning with the other components of the region’s transportation strategy. At SCAG, a professional staff dedicated to aviation issues works closely with other modal specialists in the development of the Regional Transportation Plan. According to SCAG: The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports 49

“The adopted Regional Aviation Plan needs to be supported by complementary ground access pro- grams and projects at existing and proposed regional commercial airports. The aviation plan is a com- ponent of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a federally mandated long-range transportation plan . . . .” (5) To accommodate the projected air travel demand, the Los Angeles aviation planning process focused attention on two areas: (1) the possible use of high-speed ground transportation serv- ices in redistributing the demand away from Los Angeles International Airport toward other regional airports such as Ontario International, Palmdale Regional, Bob Hope, John Wayne/ Orange County, Long Beach, and San Bernardino International and (2) the actions that the airport agency itself can take to deal with ground access issues. The development of all alternatives in the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Master Plan took place within a heightened policy awareness of the importance of higher occupancy strategies, and connection with regional transit. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the airport oversight and operations department for Los Angeles, establishes the following three goals of the Master Plan: • “Maximizing access to and from regional transportation systems, • Providing opportunities for people to connect to mass transit systems, and • Protecting neighborhoods by minimizing or mitigating any impacts on local streets.” (7) The plan states that “In order to relieve traffic impacts on area residents and ease congestion on surface streets and freeways around LAX, LAWA is committed to a Master Plan that improves access to and circulation around the airport and develops alternatives to the increased use of single occupancy vehicles.” (7, emphasis added) The development of the LAX Master Plan entered a new phase in early 2007 with a new mayor and Stipulated Settlement Agreement with petitioners that allowed certain elements of the plan to proceed, while other design elements were put on hold. An earlier terminal scheme, which moved most of the landside access facilities to an intermodal center at an adjacent transit station, has not gained the support of the present mayor. At this time, a planning process is under way to develop a revised design for various components of the LAX Master Plan including reconfig- uration of the North Airfield and the Central Terminal Area. Environmental Approvals in Europe The need for explicit action to deal with the environmental impacts of airport growth has been explicitly spelled out in environmental approvals recently issued in other areas, including London and Zurich. In London, the approval process for the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow was made contingent upon the airport agency bringing about a set of rail improvements in the region, including the Heathrow Express. In fact, the environmental and political approval of the massive terminal expansion project was, at least in part, the result of years of commitment by the airport management to deal with off-airport environmental impacts including the invest- ment of more than $600 million in the Heathrow Express rail system. An airport access program, called “Free Flow Heathrow,” includes the design and subsidization of new local bus routes for employees working at the airport. In Switzerland, the approval for a new airport expansion project was made conditional upon the commitment of the airport authority to make a significant improvement in the overall pub- lic mode share, for both passengers and employees. Until March 2000, Zurich Airport was owned by the local government (called a “Canton”), where every expenditure had to be approved in a town meeting–like process. At the time of the referendum to approve the airport expansion proj- ect, the airport had an overall public mode share of 34%. As part of the political approval of the 50 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation

expansion project, the airport committed itself to raising that mode share to 42% by the end of the period covered by the capital investment. Since that time, the airport has undertaken pro- grams aimed at both airline passengers and employees, including a decision to build a tramway through adjacent neighborhoods, which is expected to appeal to airport employees. In 2006, the responsible authorities approved the results of the mode share study and completed the approval process required by the terms of the capital expansion agreement. What’s Next? The base of the proposed ground access planning process, as summarized in Chapter 1, is a combination of the characteristics of supply (public mode services) and the characteristics of demand, as disaggregated by market segment. Chapters 3 and 4 will present an updated descrip- tion of major airport ground access systems in the United States, Europe, and Asia, with an emphasis on understanding the attributes of successful services. The Context for Public Transportation to Major Airports 51

Next: Chapter 3 - Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems »
Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation examines key elements associated with the creation of a six-step market-based strategy for improving the quality of public mode services at U.S. airports. The report also addresses the context for public transportation to major airports, explores the attributes of successful airport ground access systems, presents an airport by airport summary of air traveler ground access mode-share by public transportation services, and more.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!