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 89
Public Transportation Market Share by Airport 89
the service is one of the most frequent of rail services at airports located this distance from the
CBD. The major difference between the two modes is price--$1.75 for rail versus more than $20
for taxis (which capture about 5% mode share)--reinforcing the concept that most air travelers
perceive convenience to be more important than cost.
Ridership has declined sharply over time, for reasons that have more to do with the percep-
tion of the service than the actual times and costs relative to competing modes. A 1970 airport
access survey reported a rail market share of 19%, with the downtown's largest destination zone
showing a 33% market share. However, average airport station volumes (all trip purposes)
decreased 36% between 1970 and 1975. In 1988, the rail market share was estimated to be 2.8%.
Bus/Van. Public transportation bus services are offered to Elyria and Oberlin, Ohio, by
Lorain County Transit. No van service to the Cleveland area is documented by the airport,
although any state-licensed limousine company is authorized to provide pre-arranged trips to
and from the airport.
Other Airports of Interest
Airports serving MinneapolisSt. Paul and Milwaukee have begun to offer new public mode
services since the publication of TCRP Report 62 and TCRP Report 83, but no survey-based data
were found to support any quantitative summaries of market share for this chapter. Officials in
Minnesota reported that no new airport-based survey has been conducted since the opening of
the light rail service to downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America. Their estimate was that
the service was attracting less than 5% of the ground access market.
Similarly, no survey-based data have been found for the ridership on the new rail station at
Milwaukee's General Mitchell International Airport on the new Amtrak Hiawatha Line.
Unofficial reports suggest that airline passengers who take the train to that station, and connect
to the terminal by the shuttle bus, would comprise less than 1% of the total airline passenger vol-
umes at General Mitchell International Airport.
Part 2: Best Practices at European and Asian Airports
This section presents brief, factual overviews of 19 of the most successful airport ground access
systems in Europe and Asia case studies. For each of these systems shown in Figure 4-3, the com-
bination of rail and bus services attracts more than 20% of airline passenger market share.
Rail Bus/Van
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
en m
M n
an a
on slo
ea ch
Vi h
St na
ris s
a
st G
Fr lm
k
ng
se y
G rt
oc w
ris d
ai
f
Pa sel
or
ge
it
ic
ric
rl
ev
u
Pa ste
Am CD
op rda
o
gh
ar
i
o
en
O
Ko
O
kf
w
un
r
ld
Zu
en
ha
kh
th
us
N
at
an
an
e
g
G
Br
Sh
üs
H
St
D
H
C
Figure 4-3. Public transportation mode shares at European and
Asian airports.
OCR for page 90
90 Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation
In each case, key roles are played by rail and bus services. These systems are presented in order of
their mode share to rail and bus services combined. Shared-ride services (such as door-to-
door vans) play a very small role in European and Asian airports and have been uniformly
excluded from this analysis. The public transportation mode shares for the 19 European and
Asian airports are shown combined and by share to rail and bus services in Table 4-2.
Each European and Asian airport is reviewed in terms of the characteristics of the airport itself,
the nature of its configuration relative to ground transportation services, and the role played by
rail and bus services. Additionally, the services are reviewed in terms of their relationship to an
overall baggage-handling strategy or approach. (This category was not included in the review of
U.S. airports in the previous section.) Finally, observations are presented about the market char-
acteristics of the airport ground access services when they are relevant to the emphasis areas of
this report. The factors that contribute to the success of the ground access systems are examined
in six categories:
· The airport: Data are presented that describe each European or Asian airport's size and loca-
tion, and give a general estimate of taxi fares to the downtown area. Uniform data on origi-
nating passengers are presented.
· Connections at the airport: The discussion of this category examines the quality of the con-
nection between the rail services and the airport check-in or baggage claim areas. Physical and
architectural details are reviewed as relevant, and the physical quality of the transfer from the
airline passenger terminal to the rail system is described. Also noted is the nature of the con-
figuration of the airport itself. The difference between centralized and decentralized airport
layouts is examined.
· Rail: Most European airports rely on some form of rail service for ground access. This category
includes a brief description of the nature of the rail service provided and whether the service
is dedicated or shared. Fares are presented. When service is provided beyond the traditional
downtown, the nature of the regional services is noted.
Table 4-2. Public transportation mode shares
to European and Asian airports.
Market Share
Rank Airport Total Rail Bus
1 Oslo 64% 39% 25%
2 Hong Kong 63% 28% 35%
3 Narita 59% 36% 23%
4 Shanghai 51% 6% 45%
5 Zurich 47% 42% 5%
6 Vienna 41% 30% 11%
7 London Stansted 40% 29% 11%
8 Paris Charles de Gaulle 40% 27% 13%
9 Amsterdam 37% 35% 2%
10 Copenhagen 37% 33% 4%
11 Munich 36% 28% 8%
12 London Heathrow 36% 24% 12%
13 Stockholm 34% 18% 16%
14 Frankfurt 33% 27% 6%
15 London Gatwick 31% 24% 7%
16 Geneva 28% 21% 7%
17 Brussels 26% 16% 10%
18 Paris Orly 26% 14% 12%
19 Düsseldorf 22% 18% 4%
