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 61
Attributes of Successful Ground Access Systems 61 higher than the rail travel times. Given the extent of roadway investment in the United States, attaining similar relative travel-time advantages for rail services will be difficult in most U.S. applications. The second implication is that the rankings of services by relative travel times to downtown do not correlate linearly with the rankings by mode share performance. The data reveal that it is the comparative travel time on a door-to-door basis that seems to influence choice. The data presented in Table 3-3 show that the focus on travel time to one location may be unproductive. For example, there are many points in central London where the slower mode (i.e., the Under- ground) gets the traveler to the destination without the negative experience of the transfer. Likewise, there are many points in Hong Kong where the slower mode (i.e., the direct bus) serves the traveler more directly than the faster mode. The third implication is that the travel-time characteristics to downtown may not be a good surrogate for the travel-time characteristics to the actual destinations of the users. The travel time to downtown Geneva is an interesting piece of information, but 75% of those leaving the Geneva airport are not going to the city of Geneva. The ratios of comparative travel times to Lausanne or to Bern are considerably more favorable to rail. The service must be designed based on the understanding of the needs of the travelers and must reflect the actual spatial distribution of trip- end destinations. The Implications of Dedicated Premium Service Dedicated versus Shared Service Public transportation services to airports can be categorized as either a dedicated service or a shared service. In the United States, there are no examples of rail service dedicated only to air trav- elers, but the Logan Express (Boston), the Van Nuys FlyAway (Los Angeles), and other airporter buses in major U.S. airports are all examples of service designed specifically for the air traveler. In Scandinavia, cities such as Helsinki and Gothenburg that have dedicated bus services attract higher levels of market share than do many cities with rail connections. Under the dedicated con- cept, services and vehicles designed specifically for the needs of the air traveler are provided. With shared service, air travelers use the same vehicles as other public transportation passengers in the corridor of service. European and Asian airports have many examples of rail services operated for air travelers only. Of the nineteen European/Asian airports in the sample, nine have dedicated rail services (shown in the last column of Table 3-3). In London, both the Gatwick Express and the Heathrow Express rail services are examples of dedicated service, with vehicles designed for the air traveler. Service to Heathrow Airport on the London Underground's Piccadilly Line and other commuter rail services stopping at Gatwick Airport are examples of shared service. Many dedicated services market their high-quality line-haul times with fast service to only one downtown terminal. Most shared services, such as the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow, provide rel- atively slow speeds into the city, but with distribution to many points in downtown. In many cases, the dedicated service (e.g., Gatwick Express, Heathrow Express) utilizes a vehicle (origi- nally) designed to accommodate checked baggage. In most shared services, such as Munich's S-Bahn service, no specialized vehicle is used, resulting in vehicles that may not serve travelers' need for extra baggage space. The ten airports without dedicated service have chosen to provide public transportation that is designed primarily for commuters and the rest of the system. A characteristic of the dedicated-service strategy is the ability to provide minimized travel times between the airport and the downtown. However, the most successful overall mode share is gained by airports that offer a variety of strategies.