Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 54


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 53
Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems 53 is clear that a successful ground access system will need to combine various attributes from sep- arate services designed to meet the needs of the separate market segments. As noted in previous chapters, most U.S. airports have at least three market areas: a dense downtown/inner market area; a distant set of dispersed origins, for which dedicated express buses can carry travelers collected by other modes; and a mid-suburban area, where door-to-door shuttle services can be supported. A quick summary of possible explanations of high mode share is presented in the following sections. Does Airport Size Explain Ridership? Does an airport have to be extremely large to justify and support an exemplary ground access system? As shown in Tables 2-1 and 3-1, the ranking of public transportation use cannot be explained by the location or the size of the airport. MAP is not a good predictor of total public mode market share: the largest airports, Heathrow and Frankfurt, rank in the middle of the sam- ple in terms of ground access market share; the smaller airports rank both higher and lower than the largest. The sheer size of an airport does not explain the mode share to public transportation services. Table 3-1 shows that London Stansted (smaller) has a higher mode share to public transporta- tion than does London Heathrow (larger). Oslo and Zurich are relatively smaller airports but have high mode shares. Oakland (smaller) has a higher mode share than Dallas/Fort Worth (larger). On the other hand, Paris de Gaulle (larger) has a higher mode share than does Paris Orly (smaller) and New York JFK (larger) has a higher mode share than New York LaGuardia Table 3-1. Market share by size and location. Public transport Distance to Rank Airport market share Size of airport CBD 1 Oslo 64% 16 MAP 30 2 Hong Kong 63% 44 MAP 21 3 Narita 59% 31 MAP 40 4 Shanghai 51% 21 MAP 18 5 Zurich 47% 19 MAP 7 6 Vienna 41% 17 MAP 12 7 London Stansted 40% 21 MAP 35 8 Paris Charles de Gaulle 40% 56 MAP 15 9 Amsterdam 37% 44 MAP 12 10 Copenhagen 37% 20 MAP 7 11 Munich 36% 31 MAP 17 12 London Heathrow 36% 67 MAP 15 13 Stockholm 34% 15 MAP 25 14 Frankfurt 33% 52 MAP 6 15 London Gatwick 31% 34 MAP 30 16 Geneva 28% 9 MAP 3 17 Brussels 26% 16 MAP 7 18 Paris Orly 26% 25 MAP 9 19 Dsseldorf 22% 15 MAP 5 SOURCE: M. A. Coogan, based on airport information.