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 58
58 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation
Is Higher Speed or Directness of Service More Important?
In the case studies of successful rail services to downtown, two strategies for service design
emerge: (1) focus on the line speed to the terminal or on the quality of distribution services, and
(2) minimize the headway that comes from joint operation with regularly scheduled services.
Both strategies seek to produce a door-to-door travel time that is competitive with the taxi and
the private vehicle. In the comparison of the two strategies, the Oslo Airport Express can be used
as a prototype of the high-speed dedicated-service strategy (in which services are designed specif-
ically for air travelers) and Munich's standard S-Bahn can be a prototype of the lower speed
shared-service strategy (in which air travelers share public transportation services designed for
commuters and others). In the evolutions of these systems, service was improved in Oslo by
decreasing the line time, while service in Munich was improved by doubling the number of
trains, thus lowering the waiting time by 50%.
An Example of Low-Speed, Shared Service: Munich
Although several cities have chosen to create dedicated express airport services, most of the
airports in the sample are served by rail lines that are also used by daily commuters. Munich can
be used as an example of a local strategy, because, as shown in Figure 3-3, the airport station is
served by only conventional metropolitan railway equipment, with no direct national service. In
the 1990s, the Munich S-Bahn system made a major improvement to airport service with the
addition of a second local rail line, making no change in the basic strategy to serve the airport
with the existing metropolitan rail system.
In 1998, the Munich system doubled the amount of service to the airport with standard local
equipment providing service that is shared with the other users of the system. A new line was
extended for 4 miles from an existing route, the S-1 (shown at the left end of the dotted line
on Figure 3-3), at a cost of DM 220 million (US $121 million). In the first months of the new
service, ridership from the airport station increased by 7%, with air traveler mode share rising
from 28% to 31%. This increase in ridership is notable because the actual travel time by either
of the two lines to downtown remains about 40 minutes. This travel time is similar to that of
the London Underground from Heathrow airport but worse than that of most other local
airport services.
SOURCE: Copyright Münchner Verkehrs- und Tarifverbund GmBH (MVV) Munich.
Figure 3-3. Munich Airport (upper right) is served by two
local train lines, with good network coverage.
OCR for page 59
Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems 59
The Role of Distribution and Connectivity
With shared services, the line-haul travel speeds from the airport to the CBD are slow, but the
service is well integrated with local distribution systems. At both London Heathrow and Munich
airports, the local rail service, with its shared services, captures more of the market than does any
other service. An example can be observed in London: dedicated service on the Heathrow
Express takes about 17 minutes to Paddington Station (central London), leaving every 15 min-
utes. The Underground's Piccadilly Line to central London takes about 40 minutes, leaving every
4 minutes. The Express traveler waits an average of 7.5 minutes and travels 17 minutes, for a total
travel time to Paddington Station of about 25 minutes. The walk from the express rail platform,
through the Paddington Station complex to the specific underground platform takes about
7 minutes. The headway of the connecting service may add another 5 minutes of waiting time.
Examination of total trip times shows that there are only a small number of Underground sta-
tions (the immediately adjacent stations on lines connecting from Paddington) at which the total
travel times for the Heathrow Express plus Underground are superior to the Underground plus
other Underground travel times.
Shared services make the traveler endure whatever level of overcrowding exists on the rail
vehicle during rush hour, which, in London, can be a serious problem. Dedicated services pro-
vide guaranteed quality of service on the line-haul segment, leaving the traveler with the need to
find adequate distribution from the rail terminal.
Case Study: Fast Service versus Slower, More Direct Service
Planners at the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) have been examining
the competitive market position of the fast rail and the slower bus services available to the air
traveler. High-quality air-conditioned buses, often double-decked, provide direct service to
many urban destinations.
Looking only at travel from the airport to downtown (Central Station), the fast train provides
service in 23 minutes, at a fare of more than $10 US; the Airbus A route takes 48 minutes and
charges about half as much; while the standard city bus takes 53 minutes and charges much less.
At the time of the analysis reported here (1998), the rail gained 21% of the market; the Airbus,
16%; and the city bus, 20%.
The factors that result in this high mode share to bus seem to include more than price mini-
mization, because MTRC also provides good lower priced rail service to the airport complex.
From the beginning, planners designed the rail system to operate with two price points. While
the Airport Express Line train to downtown operates directly from the airport terminal, a second
standard train, reached by shuttle bus, operates from a nearby station. The entire trip (shuttle
plus train) on the standard train is about one third the cost of the express, making the shuttle
plus train option directly comparable with the cost of the city buses. In fact, the air traveler who
uses this lower priced rail connection can get to Central Station in only 39 minutes, compared
with 53 minutes on the city bus. But for this price-sensitive market, the shuttle bustorail con-
nection is capturing only 3% of air travelers; the direct city bus captures 20%. The bus system
serves many area destinations directly, with no change of mode required for the trip. For the air
traveler, directness of service may be more important than price minimization or line-haul speed to
the terminal point.
To understand the motivation for mode choice--and to explore the attribute of directness of
service--MTRC managers conducted market research. Of those travelers on the direct bus
routes, an expected 55% said that the lower fare was a reason for choosing the bus; importantly,
51% stated that directness of service (i.e., no need to transfer) was a reason for their choice of
mode. Directness of service was considered a factor by only 18% of rail travelers, presumably
those with destinations convenient to the terminals.
OCR for page 60
60 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation
Of all travelers on the Airport Express, an expected 63% stated that speed was the reason for
choosing the rail. Some 13% mentioned the fare as the reason, which is lower than the fare for
either taxi or airport door-to-door bus service.
In an important conclusion, one of the original architects of the Hong Kong Airport Express
writes:
"It is apparent that even with a good design and well-integrated railway service, the Airport Express
does not have inherent advantages over more direct single-mode bus travel. In other words, the speed
advantage of rail versus single-mode road competitors when traveling over distances of only up to 34 km [21
mi] do not result in significant enough time savings to compensate for the necessary transfer." (9, emphasis
added)
Lessons Learned: The Importance of Line-Haul Speed and Directness
of Service
The examination of relative line-haul speeds in the database of successful European/Asian air-
port rail operations has several key implications for the U.S. practitioner. The first implication,
and by far the most important, is the difference that exists in the basic travel-time conditions,
largely associated with the existence of fast highway connections in the United States. Four of the
airports in the sample offer service to downtown that is twice as fast as automobile service.
Table 3-3 shows that automobile travel times in Oslo are more than twice as long as the rail line-
haul time. Table 3-3 shows many examples in which the automobile travel times are significantly
Table 3-3. Market share by comparative times.
Auto Rail Ratio of Distance
Market travel travel auto from
share time time time to CBD Dedicated
Airport by rail (min) (min) rail time (miles) service?
Zurich 42% 20 10 2.0 7 No
Oslo 39% 50 19 2.6 30 Yes
Narita 36% 90 55 1.6 40 Yes
Amsterdam 35% 30 17 1.8 12 No
Copenhagen 33% 13 13 1.0 7 No
Munich 31% 35 40 1.1 17 No
Vienna 30% 17 16 1.0 12 Yes
London Stansted 29% 70 40 1.7 35 Yes
Paris Charles de Gaulle 28% 45 35 1.3 15 No
Hong Kong 28% 35 23 1.5 21 Yes
Frankfurt 27% 20 12 1.7 6 No
Express 9% 45 15 3.0 15 Yes
London Heathrow
Tube 14% 45 45 1.0 15 No
Geneva 21% 10 10 1.0 3 No
London Gatwick 20% 80 30 2.7 30 Yes
Stockholm 18% 41 20 2.0 25 Yes
Düsseldorf 18% 12 12 1.0 5 No
Brussels 16% 20 14 1.4 7 No
Paris Orly via
People Mover 14% 25 35 0.7 9 No
Shanghai Maglev 6% 50 8 6.2 18 Yes
SOURCE: M. A. Coogan, based on airport and rail information.
