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.

1 Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning: Introduction and Setting Introduction and Structure Passenger rail systems interact with aviation systems in sev- eral ways. This Airport Cooperation Research Program (ACRP) report is structured to help the practitioner understand the manner in which rail makes a contribution to the intermodal system by helping air passengers gain access to airports, and the manner in which rail makes a contribution to the inter- modal system by diverting traffic from congested airports. In both cases, the full system may become more efficient as airports become more focused on critical long-distance trip - making; rail can efficiently transport people in shorter dis- tance contexts. In both cases, the data, tools, and methods may or may not be in place to support the analysis of multi- modal and intermodal systems and strategies. This project has examined the market-based performance of these services, commenced the examination of the adequacy of the analyti- cal tools available, and developed new tools in response to the gaps revealed. The Purpose of ACRP Project 03-23 The objectives of ACRP Project 03-23 described in this report were established by the project panel at the inception of the study. Objectives: The objectives of this research are to (1) provide guidance to airport and rail operators, state and regional transportation plan- ners, elected officials, and interested stakeholders that identifies planning process options, funding challenges, and potential actions; and (2) develop methods and tools necessary to improve integration of rail services with airports, particularly in congested corridors. As part of this process, it is important to (a) identify the challenges involved in a variety of institutional settings in dif- ferent regions and develop ways to better integrate inter–agency planning processes; (b) identify specific site planning and service coordination actions to promote air/rail transfers; (c) define the data and analysis capabilities needed to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of improved integration of air and rail services; and (d) develop and demonstrate the application of methods and tools to support integrated planning for air and rail services and decision making. The Content of the Report This report summarizes the work undertaken in ACRP Proj- ect 03-23 and presents its major conclusions. A focal area of the project is the examination of data and tools to help policy makers make good decisions about the potential for air sys- tems and rail systems to be planned and implemented together. The project has examined experiences in the United States and Europe in which rail systems interact with air systems in order to identify the quality of tools and methods. The Research Team is aware that excellent examples exist in Asia, including services/facilities in China and Japan, where long-distance rail is working in collaboration with major airports. However, the research team’s scope has been limited to the documentation of case examples in the United States and Europe. The ordering of the chapters in this report follows the arrangement of the research project: • Chapter 1 now seeks to define the issues of rail in a comple- mentary mode with air—and rail in a competitive mode— and establish the overall scale of their application in Europe, with reference to lesser levels of success in the United States. This Chapter introduces basic concepts and themes explored in later chapters. • Chapters 2 and 3 explore the role of rail in a complemen- tary mode, first in Europe and then in the United States. • Chapters 4 and 5 explore the role of rail in a competitive mode to aviation, first in Europe and then in the United States. • Chapters 6, 7, and 8 look at the planning issues being faced in the Midwest, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the San Diego region, looking both at how planners are dealing with C H A P T E R 1

2the integration of air and rail, and also the question of the adequacy of the data, methods, and tools available to them. • Chapter 9 reviews what is known about funding sources to support the kind of analyses described herein, including two case studies on the role of non-federal agencies. • Chapter 10 presents an analysis of what was learned in Europe and the United States about the availability of data and tools to apply to the issue of integrated air and rail planning. This Chapter presents a checklist of areas where resources exist, where research is presently underway, and where more research efforts are warranted. • Chapter 11 presents the results of the model building effort designed to address the issues identified in the review. A new travel forecasting model for the diversion from air to rail has been created by the Research Team. This model is designed to be transparent, intuitive, and easily applied, while deal- ing with the important issue of the reaction of the aviation industry to change in passenger volumes resulting from diversion from rail. • Chapter 12 recaps the major themes developed in the pro- cess described herein and provides suggestions for further research. Interaction of Major Themes to Be Explored in this Report This report examines the experience of practitioners in the United States and Europe to realize the benefits of effective modal combinations of services in an intermodal context. Rail is examined in terms of its impact on air, and air is exam- ined in terms of its impact on rail. These relationships are reviewed in terms of the actual experience with markets and in terms of the experience of practitioners in several areas to plan and analyze these interconnected services. Figure 1-1 illustrates how the project is concerned with the two kinds of modal interaction in one dimension (rows) and with the adequacy of data, methods, and tools in a second dimension (columns.) Thus, the prime focus of the project has been on market-based experience, while a separate thread has exam- ined the adequacy of data, tools, and methods of analysis to better understand how the two modes work together. Central to this project structure is the examination of rail in two very different contexts, shown as the rows in Figure 1-1. This document examines the relationship between air and rail systems once in terms of complementarity and once in terms of competition. In general, in terms of complementarity, rail is seen as providing important services to gather passengers in their access to airports and to distribute passengers from airports. In terms of competition, rail makes a contribution to the full intermodal system by providing choices for travel- ers who may or may not want to use the already congested air system at a major airport. Figure 1-1 illustrates the concept that the data, tools, and analytical methods must be applied separately to the two categories of air/rail interaction. As will be explored in subsequent chapters, the two roles are not only different, but in some cases they may be in direct conflict; the rail manager asked to provide service to an extra airport rail stop may be seeking, simultaneously, to minimize travel times between center-city terminals. The research structure sug- gested in Figure 1-1 suggests the need for separate examina- tion of all six cells of the matrix. The Scale of Rail Services Relating to Aviation, by Categories This research project is concerned with the integration of longer distance rail services with aviation systems, and air- ports in particular (e.g., while rail might influence the need for investment in the air traffic control system, that is not within the scope of this research). Beyond this Chapter, the report will focus on examples where long-distance rail has diverted passengers from air and where long-distance rail has brought passengers to airports to take even longer distance air journeys. Chapter 2 will briefly review the importance of long-distance rail relative to aviation, separately from the other roles of rail for airports, particularly in Europe. Chapter 3 documents that, with the exception of Newark Liberty International Airport and Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Rail and air in a competitive mode Rail and air in a complementary mode Market based experience of the projects Existence of data, tools, and methods Need for additional data, tools, or methods Figure 1-1. Coverage of key issue areas in this research.

3 Airport, American air travelers simply do not access airports by Amtrak in any meaningful volumes. Scale of Long-Distance Rail in the Complementary Mode: Access to Airports This section of Chapter 1 presents some background con- text information to help understand the role of rail in bring- ing in passengers from beyond the immediate metropolitan context. Table 1-1 summarizes the volumes of long-distance rail passengers brought to European airports in this sample. Thus, while Paris’s Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG) has a high amount of air passenger accessing by all kinds of rail (Figure 1-2), higher volumes of long-distance rail use are reported in Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Zurich, ranging from 4 to 6 million annual rail riders. Figure 1-2 shows the total number of air passengers access- ing 16 major European airports by rail, broken out to show the number of trips from beyond the metropolitan area; these represent possible candidates for higher speed services. These calculations were made by the Research Team from data devel- oped in Chapter 2 for airports with long-distance rail, and from metropolitan data presented in ACRP Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation (2008), as updated. The project calculations reveal, in Figure 1-2, that the high absolute volume of rail passengers to a European airport occur at London Heathrow, with Paris CDG, London Gatwick, Madrid Barajas and Amsterdam Schipol similar in overall scale of use by all rail riders. From the outset, the reader can note that, while a significant portion of the Paris rail users came from the national rather than the metropolitan system, no users to either Heathrow or Madrid Barajas came directly from the national system— there are no such connections at either airport. More relevant to this research, long-distance rail does comprise a significant component at airports serving Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Zurich, and Copenhagen. Reading the chart from left to right, there are no long-distance trains serving airports in Munich, Vienna, and Hamburg. Thus, of the 16 airports in this sample, 12 of them are located on track that is part of a nationwide system; 4 of them are located along alignments that serve only metro- politan networks. The data presented in Figure 1-2 show how most rail access to European airports is from the immediate metropolitan area, not from the longer distance national rail network. Specifically, of the 16 relevant airports included in Figure 1-2, 29 million annual air passengers are using long-distance rail to gain access to or from the airports, while 79 million are using metropolitan based systems, according to the calculations. In terms of over- all environmental impact, it should be noted trip distances on the long-distance system are much longer than on the metro- politan systems. Airport Total 2012 Annual Airport Passengers (in millions) Estimated Long Distance Rail Users to Airport (in millions) Frankfurt (FRA) 57.5 6.0 Amsterdam (AMS) 51.0 4.5 Copenhagen (CPH) 23.3 4.3 Zurich (ZRH) 24.7 4.1 Paris CDG (CDG) 61.6 2.8 Geneva (GVA) 13.9 2.5 Manchester UK (MAN) 19.4 1.4 Dusseldorf (DUS) 20.8 1.0 Lyon (LYS) 8.4 0.1 Study Total 280.6 26.7 Table 1.1. Estimates of long distance rail use, 2012. 0.0 Pa ris CD G Am ste rda m He ath row Ma dri d Fra nk fur t Co pe nh ag en Mu nic h Os lo Zu ric h Sta ns ted Ga tw ick Vie nn a Ge ne va Du sse ldo rf Sto ckh olm Ha mb urg Ma nc he ste r 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Long Distance Local Figure 1-2. Air passengers accessing selected airports by long distance rail and local rail.

4Scale of Long-Distance Rail in the Competitive Mode It is instructive to review what is known about the scale of the role of rail in the competitive mode from the same perspec- tive. Figure 1-3 shows the estimated number of rail passenger- kilometers for those diverted from air for 8 of the corridors described in Chapter 4. What Does It Take to Make a Successful Air/Rail Station and Service? It is clear from Table 1-1 and Figure 1-2 that rail service can play a significant role in providing service directly to an airport. The question then turns to how difficult it is to accomplish this, whether in Europe or in the United States. Nearly optimal conditions must exist for an air/rail transfer system to work well: this report reviews a series of attempts in the United States to add rail stations to existing long-distance lines in a man- ner that would allow the intercity (beyond metropolitan) rail service to serve as a feeder service to long-distance aviation ser- vices. As discussed in Chapter 3, only one of them (Newark) has attracted more than 1% of originating air passengers from such intercity rail services. This report will examine the ser- vice options that have been attempted at all of the existing transfer points between intercity rail and major airports in the United States. From this research, one can observe that, in order for long- distance rail to have a successful presence at a major airport, all of the stakeholders must be motivated for the intermodal project to work. Using themes examined in later chapters of this report, success will require a truly rare combination of all the following roles: • The airport must have some rationale for investing in capi- tal and operating costs associated with the station, and the connections for persons and baggage between the rail sta- tion and the airport. Some airports in the United States are supportive of such a concept, while most are not. • The airline must have some belief that cooperation with another mode will increase its competitive position in the market. One airline has entered into an agreement with Amtrak, while the rest have not. • The rail operator must conclude that the additional travel times and costs associated with an additional stop make sense in a rational business model. The business case against high-speed rail (HSR) stops at several United States airports is presented in Chapter 3, as seen from the perspective of the long-distance rail company. • The public must conclude that the investment in capital expenditure is worthy of their support, particularly in a political environment that discourages any activities “in my back yard.” Arguably, it is difficult to expect the public to support projects with local impacts if the overall case has not been made at a higher level of government. Importantly, even if buy-in were to occur from all four stakeholder groups, the experiences documented in this vol- ume reveal that locally managed interventions, such as archi- tectural quality and site planning details, are less important predictors of success than are the conditions of the product in the context of a competitive network. The case study of the Lyon Airport will be used as an example of exceptional site planning and architectural detail, where long-distance access to air failed because of the relative position of the intermodal service offering in the market of long-distance services; the ser- vices were not competitive, and no one bought them. A major observation concerning the successes or failures of airport rail stations is that the role of the station within complex markets and networks, rather than the quality of the local design or site planning, is determinant. This, of course, has major implica- Figure 1-3. Estimated diversion from air to rail, in millions of passenger-kilometers per year. Source: Chapter 4.

5 tions for carrying out locally initiated station and site planning improvements. Air Rail Competition: Where Would One Expect Rail to Do Well? What are the characteristics of successful city-to-city rail investment, especially investment that is effective enough to divert passengers from air to rail? While the subject is explored in detail in Chapters 4 and 5, some context may be helpful. ACRP Report 31: Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions presented information that supports and re-enforces the observation long held in the rail industry that a rail service needs to attain terminal-to- terminal trip times of 3.5 hours in order to be competitive with air in any given corridor. This rule of thumb is further explored in Figure 4-2 of Chapter 4 (in which air markets are examined with the inclusion of passengers connecting to other flights) and Figure 5-2 of Chapter 5 (in which air markets are examined for only those with both origin and destination in the study corridor). Although such a shortcut rule of thumb is not favored for actual forecasting, the observation reported in ACRP Report 31 that 3.5 hour travel times are necessary but not sufficient to attract the majority of this particular market is supported in the present research. As part of the work program for this report, an analysis of the role of the rail system has been prepared by team members Thompson, Galenson and Associates, based on their work with Amtrak, FRA, and private clients. As part of this assignment, Figure 1-4 was created to quantify relationships observed in many years of studying the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington (the authors caution against too much geographic generalization from this site-specific data). The travel times are based on assumptions about access times to airports and downtown terminals, as well as the capabil- ity of the existing corridor to accommodate very high speeds (Table 1-2). The work shows the highest speed that a train can attain is only one factor out of many in determining a good overall total trip time. Particularly for the shorter distance trips, the relationship between speed and total trip time is not linear; for a 250 mile trip, a 220 mph technology might pro- duce an overall trip time that is one 25% lower than produced by a 110 mph technology. Other considerations include a wider set of variables, including: frequency, access times, and the ability of the equipment to recover (re-accelerate) from unavoidable areas of lower speeds. Figure 1-4 illustrates that there is a relatively well-defined market in which rail can be competitive with air. Rail’s pri- mary competitor for mode choice is the private auto across shorter distances. This analysis suggests that highway travel is generally faster than rail services with a top speed of 110 mph or less for distances of under 100 miles, with rail gaining the clear advantage by somewhat around 125 miles of dis- tance. Thus, in examining the shorter distance trip, the rail manager must provide a travel time advantage in the line haul (in-rail-vehicle) portion of the trip that is sufficient to overcome the additional time for access to the terminal, wait time in the terminal, and distribution time from the terminal experienced in the full trip. For market segments To ta l T rip T im e (m in) Trip Distance (Miles) Figure 1-4. Relationship between distance and total time. Source: Thompson and Galenson, for ACRP. Line Haul Distance 200 miles Time by air Airport access 40 minutes Security + board 45 minutes Airport egress 30 minutes Air gate to gate time 65 minutes Time by highway Access from starting point to highway 15 minutes Egress from highway to destination 15 minutes Average highway speed (MPH) 55 miles/hr Time by rail Station access time 30 minutes Boarding time 15 minutes Station egress time 20 minutes Table 1-2. Input assumptions used in Figure 1-4.

6with access to a car, this tends to limit the role of rail for the very-short-distance trip. Concerning the upper geographical limits of rail’s competi- tiveness with air, Figure 1-4 presents some interesting points of observation. The chart shows that rail with a peak speed capability of 150 mph could provide superior travel times for trips of roughly 275 miles in distance. Rails with a peak speed potential of 220 miles per hour could achieve such time parity in city pairs of 400 miles in distance. The outcome of the North American analysis by Thompson is largely consistent with the examination of relative costs undertaken by Steer Davies Gleave (SDG 2006) for condi- tions in Europe. SDG concluded that, at distances of roughly 400 miles, the costs of providing rail service are higher than the costs experienced by the legacy air carriers for the same distance (with the low-cost air carriers considerably cheaper than either). These findings, based on cost characteristics from Europe, support the same basic conclusion observed from American data that HSR services are most relevant in a generalized trip distance range between 150 and 400 miles. Major Questions to Be Explored in This Report A wide variety of themes and conclusions were developed as part of this research effort. A summary of the major themes, and major conclusions based on those themes, is presented in Chapter 12 of this report. Certain questions addressed in this report are previewed herein, presented in the order of their coverage by Chapter. 1. What is the relative scale for long-distance rail compared with metropolitan rail in airport access? How does the number of rail passenger-kilometers accessing airports compare with the number of rail passenger-kilometers diverted from airports? 2. What are the characteristics of successful European proj- ects that integrate long-distance rail with major airports? 3. What has been the experience in the United States with long-distance rail to gain access to airports, and how does Amtrak evaluate additional stops at airports? 4. What are the characteristics of successful European proj- ects in which HSR has diverted air passengers? 5. What is the experience in the United States with HSR diverting air passengers? 6. What is the potential scale of markets for rail impacting the airports of the Midwest? 7. What are lessons learned from analyzing the potential role of HSR in aviation planning in the San Francisco Bay Area; from a regional perspective and from a site plan- ning perspective? 8. What are the potential interactions between air and rail in the context of major airport configuration studies ongoing in San Diego? 9. What are the funding options available to support this kind of planning? 10. What are the kinds of tools needed by the analyst, and where do they stand in development? 11. How can the market decisions of the airlines be better incorporated into a usable, planning-oriented air/rail diversion model? 12. What are the major lessons learned and conclusions from this project? Bibliography Coogan, M., MarketSense Consulting LLC, and Jacobs Consultancy. 2008. ACRP Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. SDG. 2006. Steer Davies Gleave, “Air and Rail Competition and Com- plementarity.” Prepared for the European Commission DG TREN. London, UK.