Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 50


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 49
49 Table 2.7. Historical changes in Boston to New York Table 2.10. Change in average aircraft size (2). air traffic (2). ROUTE 1993 1999 2007 PASSENGERS 1993 1999 2007 BOS to EWR 118 141 99 BOS to JFK 92 65 79 BOS to EWR 302,160 300,300 145,050 BOS to LGA 153 158 109 BOS to JFK 62,090 58,420 176,790 Total BOS to NYC 131 124 97 BOS to LGA 704,550 868,790 512,980 Total BOS to NYC 1,068,800 1,227,510 834,820 Total All BOS Origins 7,475,400 9,513,440 10,426,610 from 1993 to the present. The net result of multiple changes in operations is a lowering of the number of passengers per plane. Notes: Acela service began in December 2000; JetBlue began JFK operations in February 2000 and began BOS to JFK service in 2004. 2.4.3 Conclusion: What Happened in according to the BTS DB1B description of OD travel (Table 2.7) Response to the Diversion of (2). Although overall domestic passenger originating volumes Air Passengers? at BOS airport are now rising again from their 2002 nadir, air Parallel with the dramatic rise in Amtrak ridership over the passenger volumes in the study corridor are down by over past 8 years, air traffic between BOS and the NYC region fell 20%. Examining the change between 1999 and 2007, study by more than 750,000 passengers. Most of these moved to corridor volumes are down by about 30%. Thus, in the gen- rail, which raised its ticket price; some rail riders (simultane- eral period where the Acela rail services were competing ously) moved to low-fare bus carriers. But the impact on with the air services, nearly one third of the OD air passen- airport and airspace congestion is more complicated than gers between BOS and the three NYC airports ceased flying implied by these basic observations. For, while the number of in the study corridor (Table 2.8). passengers declined sharply, the number of planes did not. The shift in the corridor travel market, as it impacts air- Looking just at BOSLGA (home of the original two shuttle port/aviation capacity, is expressed in two ways. First, the air- operators), the number of planes declined only by about 4%, lines lowered the number of flights in the corridor, but only responding to a corresponding passenger decline (for several slightly. More important, the airlines have used smaller air- reasons) of about 40%. In this period, the average aircraft size crafts for the remaining flights. Comparing the 1999 flows fell by about 30% for the BOSLGA route. with the 2007 flows, the number of flights in the corridor fell There are two powerful "lessons" from the BostonNYC case from more than 25,000 to under 24,000, or by about 6%. The study. First, the implications of alternative policies toward HSR number of passengers per flight fell from 67 to 59, or a drop can have massive impacts on air passenger demand and should of about 13% (Table 2.9). be explicitly modeled in the aviation forecasting process. Sec- The average size of the aircraft decreased by about 22%-- ond, the expected "diversion" away from air to rail cannot be from 124 seats per plane to 97 (Table 2.10). The pattern of seen as automatically having any kind of linear, parallel impact shrinking aircraft size is consistent over the 15-year period, on the number of planes in the subject corridor. This under- scores the essential message of Chapter 5: the primary issue in Table 2.8. Change in number of flights, aviation capacity in the two mega-regions is the need for airport Logan to NYC airports (2). managers to have more control and more accountability for FLIGHTS 1993 1999 2007 improving the throughput of their facilities. BOS to EWR 9,511 5,379 4,394 BOS to JFK 3,729 8,266 8,089 2.5 Rail as a Complementary Mode BOS to LGA 11,741 11,959 11,478 to the Aviation System Total BOS to NYC 24,981 25,604 23,961 Because of an extensive literature base on the subject of potential diversion from air travel stemming from new HSR Table 2.9. Change in average passengers per flight (2). services from city center to city center, it has been possible to establish a sense of scale for the amount of diversion from air ROUTE 1993 1999 2007 passenger traffic that might be possible and to briefly observe BOS to EWR 59 93 66 how the market has responded in one case study corridor BOS to JFK 47 30 58 (BOSNYC). BOS to LGA 67 81 58 At the same time, the research team has found the literature Total BOS to NYC 61 67 59 base to be distinctly weaker, and of generally lower quality, on

OCR for page 49
50 the subject of rail services in a complementary mode to sup- the question of a different form of "rail as feeder" service. The port longer distances services at major airports. In carrying reader is reminded that this diagram was developed to help out the work for this report, it has become clear that the tech- define a concept and does not represent any kind of policy nical base for analyzing rail services as part of an intermodal position on the part of Amtrak. The diagram illustrates the passenger trip is weaker than for other aspects of this project. concept of creating new train lines directly on airport property This section of Chapter 2 reviews what is known about the use and creating a service package specifically designed to support of rail service as a feeder mode to airports both in the United the rail as feeder concept. States and internationally. The concept shown in Figure 2.13 is based largely on the experience in the Paris Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt air- ports, where entirely new high-speed intercity rail lines have 2.5.1 Experience with Rail as a Feeder Mode been built to be integrated with major air passenger termi- to Aviation in the United States nals. (Other cities have diverted lower speed intercity services Inthe United States, the issue of improved interconnection of to airport terminals, such as Zurich and Geneva.) The dia- airports with national ground transportation systems has been gram refers to "dedicated trains," a concept further explored raised repeatedly over the last decade. A major American trans- in Section 2.5.2. portation advocacy group, "Reconnecting America," has made thecasethatthenational decline of the airline hub-spoke system 2.5.1.2 GAO Report on Air/Rail Complementarity has severely reduced service to smaller airports and that there is a void in terms of effective access to the remaining airports with A recent congressionally mandated study by the GAO growing air services (14). At present, there is only a modest focused on the connections to nationwide systems for several amount of study underway to better understand this issue. reasons. In answer to the question of why the GAO under- took the study, the agency notes that: 2.5.1.1 Northeast Corridor Master Planning Process Increases in the number of passengers traveling to and from airports will place greater strains on our nation's airport access The question of how to define and develop the rail comple- roads and airport capacity, which can have a number of negative mentarity concept is still in its infancy. A 2005 report by the economic and social effects. U.S. transportation policy has U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) describes EWR generally addressed these negative economic and social effects AirTrain (monorail) as the most advanced connection with the from the standpoint of individual transportation modes and local government involvement. However, European transporta- National Rail system (15). A conceptual diagram (Figure 2.13), tion policy is increasingly focusing on intermodal transportation created for discussion purposes in the NEC Master Planning as a possible means to address congestion without sacrificing process and furnished to the research team by Amtrak, raises economic growth. (15) Figure 2.13. Conceptual diagram used in the development of the NEC master plan, May 2008 (11).

OCR for page 49
51 The study notes that, although there is only one American modal Facility will serve MBTA commuter trains travelling airport with a people mover to an Amtrak station, no Amer- between Warwick, Providence, and Boston" (16). ican airport reported to the GAO an intention to build a new connection to an Amtrak facility. Figure 2.14 shows that 2.5.1.3 The American Experience with Rail as a EWR is the only current example of such a national connec- Feeder Mode: Newark tion in contrast to the 18 other less direct shuttle connections documented in the study. As noted in the GAO study (15), there is only one example The GAO report did not discuss the developing connection in the United States of an airport terminal area that is physi- at PVD, in Warwick, RI, serving the Providence area. The cally linked with the national rail system, either directly or by "Warwick Intermodal Facility" is located on the NEC main line people mover. EWR rail station stands as the best American and is scheduled to open for train service in mid-2010. It will test case for the integration of long-distance ground service also house bus and rental car facilities and provide parking for (Amtrak) with long-distance air service (the airlines.) An elab- rail users. After a prolonged design process, the airport man- orate intermodal joint marketing and ticketing program was agers settled on a 1,250-ft elevated skyway with moving side- developed to utilize the physical facilities developed. walks to connect the airport with the new rail station. This is Throughout the implementation process, a four-party described as the closest connection between any Amtrak sta- group developed the plans: NJ Transit, the Port Authority of tion and adjoining airport and will not require a shuttle bus New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), Amtrak, and Continen- (unlike the other airports reviewed in the GAO report). tal Airlines. The result was the most concentrated attempt yet If PVD is to extend its geographic market area to the south, undertaken to integrate air and ground services. Continental toward New Haven, CT, and northward to Boston, rail services entered into an agreement with Amtrak to code share certain provided by Amtrak and rail services provided by the Massa- rail services to Stamford, New Haven, Philadelphia, and chusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) will have to Wilmington, DE. As such, Continental is able to sell a single, be designed to serve the needs of air passengers. Reportedly, unified ticket (Figure 2.15) from Stamford to John Wayne Amtrak was at one point considering an airport stop on its Airport, for example. regional service, but not on the high-speed Acela service. More A recently published ACRP study (18) on airport ground recent statements from the airport note only that "the Inter- access concluded, "The goal of seamless integration between Figure 2.14. The GAO study on the complementary role of rail to aviation documented only one direct connection from Amtrak to airport terminals, at EWR (15).

OCR for page 49
52 Figure 2.15. A Continental Airlines flight from Stamford, CT, rail station to California (16). the national aviation system and the national rail system is as 2.5.2.1 Rail Services between Frankfurt Airport yet unrealized. As of 2005, about 370 daily Amtrak riders and Cologne and Stuttgart boarded or alighted at the station, while in 2006 about 350 daily The railway connections were developed with new infra- riders used the station." structure and offering new services to the customers traveling The experience of the EWR rail station and its rail as feeder via Frankfurt Airport. Figure 2.16 shows the location of Frank- service has been documented in some detail. In November furt Airport (airport code = FRA), the Cologne downtown rail 2004, the I-95 Corridor Coalition published the results of an station (airport code = QKL), and the Stuttgart downtown rail intensive study of the intermodal coordination associated station (airport code = ZWS). The project is a cooperative ven- with the rail station project, which is available on the Coali- ture between the airline operator (Lufthansa), the rail operator tion's website (19). (German Rail), and the airport operator (Fraport). The new long-distance train station at FRA started its oper- 2.5.2 Rail as a Feeder Mode: ation in May 1999. Two years later, Lufthansa, German Rail, The Frankfurt Case Study and Fraport announced their cooperation and implemented the new AIRail service; initially it ran between FRA and ZWS. The most highly developed program to implement the Thanks to the new high-speed track between Mannheim and concept of rail as feeder was developed at Frankfurt Airport, Stuttgart, it takes 75 min of travel time for the 97-mile distance with connecting rail service from a city 96 miles to the north from downtown Stuttgart to FRA. The train operated on a and a city 91 miles to the south (as a comparison, Albany, NY, 2-hour frequency, which results in five to six connections a day. is about 136 miles from LGA.) Initially, Lufthansa leased one complete railroad carriage Importantly, the rail service to the north (Cologne) did of the ICE train set operated by German Rail. This carriage lead to a decision on the part of the dominant airline to cease was assigned to AIRail customers and offered only first-class its short-distance feeder flights, whereas the rail service to the seats with respective services. Customers of Lufthansa or Star south (Stuttgart) did not lead to a decision to cancel its short- Alliance carriers were able to book a single ticket that includes distance feeder flights. For the purposes of this report, this a coupon for the train ride. Thus, passengers could book all section of Chapter 2 will review the major aspects of the two the way to the final destinations at ZWS and QKL, respec- rail services and present new information concerning the tively. The train ride fully substitutes a feeder flight and has a demand characteristics of the two services.21 minimum connection time of 45 min in Frankfurt. But, dur- ing the first months, the load factor of the separate AIRail coach was just around 30%, while the expected figure had 21 This section has been prepared for this report by members of the research team previously been about 5060%. who are based in Germany, and it is based on their personal experiences with the The cooperation was initially limited to 2 years, but was project. prolonged by the inauguration of an additional service from

OCR for page 49
53 Figure 2.16. Location of the two services (20). FRA to QKL. This service started in May 2003. A new HSR link lel flight capacities. In autumn 2007, all remaining flights halved the travel time by train to FRA to 51 min. This implied between FRA and CGN ceased. Consequently, the AIRail a very attractive offer for business travelers from the Cologne market share reached 100% in 2008. The relatively high mar- area. Long-haul customers were able to use the AIRail service ket share of the AIRail service was mainly based on the hourly without additional costs. Consequently, Lufthansa cancelled 4 train departures. This frequency gives travelers the opportu- of 12 parallel flights from FRA to CGN (Cologne Airport) nity to arrive within a sufficient time before their flight depar- when AIRail operations started in May 2003 and ceased all ture in FRA or have enough time to claim their baggage and remaining flights on this route in October 2007. reach a train in an appropriate amount of time. FrankfurtStuttgart. The market between Frankfurt Air- 2.5.2.2 Demand for Rail as a Feeder Service to port and Stuttgart was also significantly affected by the emer- Frankfort Airport gence of the low-cost carriers. The passenger figures decreased FrankfurtCologne. The AIRail operations in the mar- from 440,000 in 2002 to below 250,000 in 2008. Figure 2.18 ket between Frankfurt Airport and Cologne market started in shows that roughly one out of six passengers used the AIRail 2003. The market itself, like many others, was decreasing due service in this market. The 2-hour train frequency between the to the advent of low-cost carriers. CGN started positioning Stuttgart rail station and FRA and the continued operation of itself as one of the major low-cost airports in Germany. This the parallel Lufthansa flights combine to explain the generally new supply lowered a considerable amount of Lufthansa's smaller AIRail market share compared with the connection to market from CGN via the FRA international hub. The mar- the Cologne train station. ket decreased from 320,000 passengers in the late 1990s by Lufthansa's decision not to reduce parallel flights signifi- more than one third.22 cantly was due to concerns that a significant number of pas- Figure 2.17 shows that, from an initial market share in sengers would circumvent the train to the FRA hub otherwise 2003 of roughly a quarter, the share of the AIRail (shown in and would fly into alternative hubs like AMS, CDG, or LHR. higher portion of the bar) service rose to 50% during the next Given that the FRAZWS market is approximately twice as 3 years. This development also led to the reduction in paral- large as FRACGN's, a cessation of flights in Stuttgart would require a quadrupling of train seat capacity jointly with a doubling of train frequency to compensate for all flights. In 2008, Lufthansa abandoned the option of checking bags 22Owing to data confidentiality, only isolated figures could be gathered from a vari- into, and out of, the two downtown railroad station termi- ety of sources. On the basis of the official statistics on passenger movements col- lected and published by the German Federal Bureau of Statistics, the research team nals. The service was only lightly used, as passengers preferred estimated and calculated a nearly comprehensive demand picture on these markets. to keep control of their baggage to the greatest extent possible.

OCR for page 49
54 AlRail Passengers Year Figure 2.17. Rise in AIRail market share between Frankfurt Airport and Cologne train stations (20). Although ticket sales were high for the rail connections to the reasonable. In the ZWSFRA market, Lufthansa decided to airport, the presentation of the entire air-plus-rail journey as cease only some of the flights to avoid a spill of demand to one ticket proved less popular than expected. In some cases, other airlines (via hubs other than FRA). first-time users of the joint ticket would note that separately Airlines often operate with small aircrafts when feeding purchased tickets and last-minute choice of trains were more from their spokes into a hub. In these cases, the ratio of pas- efficient than booking all segments at once. sengers per slot at the hub is suboptimal. The operation of larger airplanes might require that frequency be reduced and fixed costs increase. Thus, feeder flights will become less 2.5.2.3 Feeder Flight Substitution and attractive to time-sensitive passengers (business travelers) Increased Slot Availability and will also become more expensive. Freeing slots by substi- The Cologne case in particular shows that sufficient rail tution by adequate frequent rail services could be a good solu- services can be a full substitute for very short-haul flights. As tion to increase the overall network performance of airlines feeder flights are usually not profitable and have to be cross- or airports, respectively. subsidized by long-haul revenues, a substitution with less The substitution of feeder flights by rail services could costly ground-based transport means could be economically be reasonable also in a non-hub context, as observed in the AlRail Passengers Year Figure 2.18. Drop in AIRail market between Frankfurt Airport and Stuttgart rail station (20).