Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A I R P O R T C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M ACRP REPORT 118 TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2015 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration Subscriber Categories Aviation  •  Railroads  •  Planning and Forecasting Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning Resource Systems Group, Inc. White River Junction, VT w i th Matthew Coogan New eNglaNd TraNsporTaTioN iNsTiTuTe White River Junction, VT CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc. Washington, DC Daniel Brand Lyme, NH Mark Hansen uNiversiTy of CaliforNia aT Berkeley Berkeley CA Hanan Kivett Washington, DC Jörg Last sTraTa CoNsulTiNg Karlsruhe, Germany Richard Marchi Washington, DC Megan Smirti Ryerson Marilyn Jordan Taylor uNiversiTy of peNNsylvaNia Philadelphia, PA Louis Thompson ThompsoN, galeNsoN aNd assoCiaTes Saratoga, CA

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans­ portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and inter­ national commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects with other modes of transportation and where federal respon­ sibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Coopera­ tive Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can develop innovative near­term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon­ sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal research programs. It is modeled after the successful National Coopera­ tive Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Pro­ gram. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a variety of airport subject areas, including design, construction, mainte­ nance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, and administration. The ACRP provides a forum where airport opera­ tors can cooperatively address common operational problems. The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100­Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports Council International­North America (ACI­NA), the American Associa­ tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research orga­ nizations. Each of these participants has different interests and respon­ sibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited periodically but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by iden­ tifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport pro­ fessionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels pre­ pare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooper­ ative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the intended end­users of the research: airport operating agencies, service providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work­ shops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are implemented by airport­industry practitioners. ACRP REPORT 118 Project 03­23 ISSN 1935­9802 ISBN 978­0­309­30834­2 Library of Congress Control Number 2015930022 © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not­for­profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not­for­profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Cooperative Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Published reports of the AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at http://www.national­academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR ACRP REPORT 118 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Michael R. Salamone, ACRP Manager Theresia H. Schatz, Senior Program Officer Terri Baker, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Maria Sabin Crawford, Editor ACRP PROJECT 03-23 PANEL Field of Policy and Planning Geoffrey D. Gosling, Aviation System Consulting, LLC, Berkeley, CA (Chair) John Conlow, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), Philadelphia, PA Gene Corazzola, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Toronto, ON Linda S. Culp, San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA Roger Hooson, San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, CA Richard T. Roberts, New Jersey Transit Corporation, Newark, NJ Danielle J. Rinsler, FAA Liaison Jackie Sweatt-Essick, FAA Liaison Paul James Eubanks, Airports Council International–North America Liaison

F O R E W O R D By Theresia H. Schatz Staff Officer Transportation Research Board ACRP Report 118: Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning identifies planning process options, funding challenges, and potential actions to improve integration of rail ser­ vices with airports, particularly in congested corridors. The report identifies the challenges involved in a variety of institutional settings in different regions and develops ways to bet­ ter integrate inter­agency planning processes. It identifies specific site planning and service coordination actions to promote air rail transfers, defines the data and analysis capabilities needed to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of improved integration of air and rail services, and demonstrates the application of methods and tools to support integrated planning for air and rail services and decision making. Key issues covered include rail and air in a competitive and complimentary mode. The report has an accompanying CD­ROM that includes an Air/Rail Diversion model, a sketch planning tool capable of supporting the evaluation of a range of policy actions that affect choice of air or rail for long distance travel. A User Guide provides direction in applying the model to evaluate different scenarios and a Technical Appendix provides supplemental information for the model. The report and accompanying tool will be of interest to airport and rail operators, state and regional transportation planners, and other interested stakeholders. Passenger rail systems interact with aviation systems in several ways. ACRP Report 118 is structured to help the practitioner understand the manner in which rail makes a contribu­ tion to the intermodal system by helping air passengers gain access to airports, and the man­ ner in which rail makes a contribution to the intermodal system by diverting traffic from congested airports. In both cases, the full system may become more efficient as airports become more focused on critical long­distance tripmaking, with rail efficiently transporting people in shorter distance contexts. In both cases, the data, tools, and methods may or may not be in place to support the analysis of multimodal and intermodal systems and strategies. This research has examined the market­based performance of these services, commenced the examination of the adequacy of the analytical tools available, and developed new tools in response to the gaps revealed. The public and private sectors are analyzing the expenditure of billions of dollars on intercity and regional passenger rail projects and airport development projects. However, it is not clear that there is a solid set of standardized, agreed­on methodologies to use when complicated questions are asked about the impacts of passenger rail services on issues such as airport capacity. There is a lack of accepted tools to use in documenting the interrela­ tionship between these modal investments. Most important, there is a lack of a discussion regarding the potential complementary investments in aviation and rail systems in North

America. In many parts of the world, rail and air investments are seen as complementary elements of a larger multimodal and intermodal public policy. Under ACRP Project 03­23, research was led by Resources Systems Group, Inc. in asso­ ciation with Matthew Coogan, an independent consultant who served as Principal Investi­ gator for the project. As part of the research, the team examined experience in the United States and Europe where rail systems interact with air systems in order to identify the quality of tools and methods and the benefits of effective modal combinations for services in an intermodal context.

C O N T E N T S 1 Chapter 1 Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning:  Introduction and Setting 1 Introduction and Structure 1 The Content of the Report 6 Major Questions to Be Explored in This Report 6 Bibliography 7 Chapter 2 Complementarity: European Air/Rail Stations  Served by Long-Distance Rail 7 Introduction and Structure 8 Markets for Air and Rail in Europe 10 The German Experience with Air/Rail Complementarity 17 The French Experience with Air/Rail Complementarity 22 Other Examples of Air/Rail Complementarity in Europe 28 Additional Airports Located on National Rail Lines 28 Airports Not Connected to Long­Distance Rail 30 Conclusion: The European Experience in Connecting Airports with Long­Distance Rail 31 Rail as a Feeder Mode in Europe: Implications for Physical/Site Planning 33 Major Themes from Chapter 2 33 Bibliography 35 Chapter 3 Connecting Airports with Long-Distance Rail  in the United States 35 Introduction and Structure 35 Part One: United States Airports Served by Long­Distance Rail 35 Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall (BWI) Airport Rail Station 37 Bob Hope/Burbank (BUR) Airport Rail Station 39 General Mitchell International Airport (MKE) Rail Station 41 Providence/T. F. Green Airport (PVD) Intermodal Center 42 Newark Liberty Airport (EWR) Rail Station 45 Part Two: The Business Case for and Against an Airport Rail Station 51 Part Three: Typology of Options to Connect with Long­Distance Rail 52 Conclusion 53 Bibliography 54 Chapter 4 Rail in a Competitive Role: Diversion from  Air in Europe 54 Introduction and Structure 54 Rail Diversion from Air in Europe 56 Diversions in Corridors: France

56 Corridor #1 Paris–London 58 Corridor #2 Paris–Marseille 58 Corridor #3 Paris–Strasbourg 59 Diversions from Air to Rail in Spain 59 Corridor #4 Madrid–Seville–Malaga 60 Corridor #5 Madrid–Barcelona 61 Corridor #6 London–Manchester 62 Corridor #7 London–Glasgow 62 Corridor #8 Amsterdam 63 Major Factors Influencing the Aviation Market 63 Bibliography 64 Chapter 5 Rail Diversion from Air in the United States:  Data and Methods 64 Introduction and Structure 64 Part One: Diversion to Rail and its Effect on Air Service 71 Part Two: Data Needs and Modeling Capabilities Applied in the NEC 78 Recap: Responses to Key Questions 79 Bibliography 80 Chapter 6 Air and Rail in the Midwest 80 Introduction and Structure 80 Part One: Rail at Chicago O’Hare—Dealing with Uncertain Futures 84 Part Two: The Range of Higher Speed Rail Options in the Midwest 88 Part Three: Understanding the Demand to/from Chicago’s Airports 95 Conclusion: Demand in the Midwest, Market Categories Together 96 Part Four: Importance of Planning Tools and Data Availability 97 Bibliography 98 Chapter 7 The Role of Rail in Airport and System Planning  in Northern California 98 Introduction and Structure 98 Part One: The Regional Airport System Plan and HSR 105 Part Two: Physical and Site Planning Issues at SFO 109 Summary: Site Planning Challenges 109 Bibliography 110 Chapter 8 Air and Rail Planning Together in San Diego 110 Introduction and Structure 110 Unique Air/Rail Planning in San Diego 112 The Regional Setting of the Planning Process 113 The Three Studies in the Planning Process 114 Destination Lindbergh 118 Regional Aviation Strategic Plan (RASP) 122 Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan (AMAP) 122 Interviews with SANDAG and HSR Planners 124 Issues Raised in the San Diego Case Study 125 Site Planning Considerations from the Case Studies 126 Bibliography

127 Chapter 9 Federal and State Funding for Air/Rail Planning 127 Introduction and Structure 127 Background: The Challenge of Intermodal Planning 128 Federal Programs, Part One: Comprehensive Transportation Planning 130 Federal Programs, Part Two: Transportation Projects 135 How State and Local Programs Work Together with Federal Planning Programs 141 Bibliography 142 Chapter 10 Analytical Tools and Data Sources  for Policy Planning 142 Introduction and Structure 142 Differing Views of the Urgency of the Problem of Lack of Intermodal Tools 144 Multimodal Planning Documents and Data Sources in Europe 147 American Sources of Multimodal Data 151 Major Gaps Revealed in the Research 155 Bibliography 156 Chapter 11 Air/Rail Diversion Model 156 Introduction and Structure 157 Part One: The Public Policy Context—What the Model Is Intended to Do 158 Model Exercise for the East Coast 163 Model Exercise for the West Coast 166 Part Two: Understanding How the Model Works 169 Eight Steps in the Model Implementation Process 175 Bibliography 177 Chapter 12 Strategies for Integration of Air and Rail:  Review and Further Research 177 Introduction and Structure 177 Part One: Reviewing the Major Themes Revealed in this Research 179 Competition: Considerations in the Diversion from Air to Rail 180 Complementarity: Three Components of a Successful Rail Feeder System 182 Component Two: The Quality of Air/Rail Transfer Facilities Provided at the Airport 187 Component Three: Mechanisms for Ticketing and Integrated Services 191 Part Two: Next Steps and Possible Further Research 194 Bibliography 196 Appendix  ACRP Project 03-23 Air/Rail Diversion Model: User’s Guide 264  List of Abbreviations