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.

7 Introduction and Structure The role of rail in a complementary mode to air is dis- cussed in Chapter 2 in terms of the European experience and in Chapter 3 in terms of the United States’ experience. This Chapter explores the potential of long-distance rail to provide truly integrated services in which air and rail work together on a complementary basis. This analysis is based on an up-to-date summary of the extent to which European airport users access their airports by long-distance rail, specifically HSR. From this review, it is possible to form some early “lessons learned” about the relationship between feeder rail and feeder air and how this relationship could affect capacity at major airports. While the scope of this project did not include a total review of all air/rail services in Europe, the Research Team identified over 24 million non-metropolitan rail trips to those European airports specifically designed to gain access from long-distance rail systems, as shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Each of these airports was designed to benefit from a physical presence on the long-distance rail infrastructure, with long-distance ser- vices specifically designed to gain market share from airport passengers (additional airports located on national rail cor- ridors are noted later in this Chapter). Airport links used only by metropolitan rail systems were specifically excluded from this study; these have been documented by ACRP Report 4: Ground Access to Major Airports by Public Transportation. While the relative scale and importance of metropolitan and long-distance markets was noted in Chapter 1, metropolitan markets are not examined in this Chapter. Consistent with its scope of work, the Research Team started by documenting the known characteristics of the HSR ser- vices at Frankfurt (FRA) and Paris CDG. Categorizing rail services by the volume of riders they attract at airports, rather than the speed of train, revealed that airports in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Zurich have intercity rail volumes that are higher than Paris CDG, even though none of the three were characterized as having extensive HSR services (HSR services in the Netherlands have had a difficult experience in early implementation). Importantly, the Research Team found no correlation with the existence of integrated ticketing schemes and high rail market share. The most successful ticketing system to date, offered from SNCF at Paris CDG, was found to be used by only 4% of the rail riders at the host airport. Integrated ticket schemes were simply nonexistent at most of the most successful airports for long-distance rail programs. The sheer range of results is important for the central themes of this ACRP study; one of the most ambitious examples of good site planning and architecture is the Lyon St. Exupéry Airport, which serves to underscore the fact that, unless the market characteristics are positive for the rail operation, rail operators will not provide services at the unwanted airport stop. In theory, short-distance flights could simply disappear in competitive corridors, such as in those under 300 miles, and be replaced by HSR. Examined in this Chapter is the question of under what circumstances rail could provide center-city- to-center-city services that are so superior that origin-to- destination (O-D) passengers would abandon air for rail; this question is reviewed for relevance in the United States in the next Chapter. Chapter 2 documents the role of both air and rail in markets that could be served by feeder air flights. This research shows that high-quality rail service can replace the vast majority of O-D trips in a corridor, but there is little evidence that this change in the O-D market would result in the airlines providing fewer feeder flights than needed for their network operations strategies. This section of the report concludes that the two cases of air feeder services being dis- continued (FRA to Cologne, and Paris CDG to Brussels) are, in fact, highly unusual even in the European context. Thus, there may be very few additional opportunities to carry out a prime goal of air/rail complementarity—the freeing up of “slots” at airports for more efficient use. This Chapter documents that longer distance rail plays an important role in providing access to major European airports—providing high-quality collection/distribution to C H A P T E R 2 Complementarity: European Air/Rail Stations Served by Long-Distance Rail

8that with a robust rail system, there would be no market for air travel at under 300 miles, 400 miles, or even 500 miles. This ACRP study seeks to put the relationship between suc- cessful HSR and aviation service into the context of actual empirical observations based in Europe. It finds that such patterns are simply not supported by the empirical condi- tions in Europe, nor with the visions of the future held by the rail or the aviation industries. Indeed, the observed patterns between London and Paris, Paris and Lyon, and Madrid and Seville might portend a world where much of the demand for aviation services simply goes away, with a much more power- ful successor in high-quality rail systems. However, seen in a larger context, this simply is not the case. A classic source of data in the analysis of rail and air was created for the Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC) by Intraplan, INRETS, and IMTran (Intraplan et al. 2003). This highly used source of overall data for travel within Europe examines the next generation of rail investments—covering the period from 1999 to 2020. Rail traffic is projected to grow from 189 billion passenger-kilometers in the base case to 315 billion on the basic scenario, or a growth of 67%. Multimodal Demand Looking at the growth predicted as a result of the extension of the high-speed network, Figure 2-1 shows that approxi- mately 28% of that increment will be attracted away from the airlines. But seen in a multimodal context, the growth pre- dicted by the rail industry is modest when seen in the context of the growth expected in the total amount of aviation travel; air travel—specifically allowing for the diversion from air to an improved rail network—grows from 401 billion passenger- kilometers to 857 billion, representing a growth of over 110% over the same period (Intraplan et al. 2003), as shown in Fig- ure 2-2. Resulting mode shares show that air is expected to provide more than two and one half times the passenger- kilometers of the rail system (and this is without considering intercontinental flights). All of this suggests that rail is a viable strategy to deal with a massive increase in the amount of air travel (as in the United States), rather than a competitor that will lower the amount of air travel. Rail is expected to interact with air markets in two separate ways; the 2003 UIC market study suggests that of the increment of new riders from the next generation of rail, • 28% of the rail passengers will have been diverted to a train in competition with an airplane; while • 6% are taking a train in order to gain access to an airport, perhaps lowering the need for a feeder flight to provide access to the longer distance flight. at least 23 million longer distance air passengers each year. The study will review success stories in airports that are served by HSR (Frankfurt and Paris CDG) and in airports that are not served by HSR (Copenhagen and Zurich) as well as one in which the transition from medium speed to high-speed is just now being carried out (Amsterdam). This Chapter will also review case studies in which the enthusiasm of the long- distance rail managers was diminished after disappointing market results. The Chapter study concludes with a summary of major themes, recapping the conclusion of a pioneering intermodal manager from Frankfurt who concludes that their major success in one single airport is probably not a model for most airports, but it could serve as a model for the biggest and most competitive airports. Markets for Air and Rail in Europe Individuals interested in the possible role of HSR in the United States consistently look to Europe for examples of what mature HSR systems can and cannot do. Some believe Airport Total Annual 2010 Airport Passengers (in millions) Estimated Long distance Rail Users to Airport (in millions) Frankfurt (FRA) 53 5.5 Amsterdam (AMS) 45 4.0 Copenhagen (CPH) 21 3.9 Zurich (ZRH) 23 3.8 Paris CDG (CDG) 58 2.6 Geneva (GVA) 12 2.2 Manchester UK (MAN) 18 1.3 Dusseldorf (DUS) 19 .9 Lyon (LYS) 8 0 Study Total 257 24.2 Source: Case studies in Chapter 2. Table 2.1. Estimate of scale of airport ground access by long-distance rail, 2010. Zurich 25% Copenhagen 24% Frankfurt 22% Geneva 21% Amsterdam 16% Manchester UK 7% Paris CDG 6% Dusseldorf 5% Lyon 1% Source: Case Studies in Chapter 2. Table 2-2. Case study airports, ranked by mode share to long-distance rail.

9 • Phase Two: the existing airlines react with an initial low- ering of the amount of service to a schedule modified to accommodate the network connections needed to make their major hubs work. • Phase Three: the aviation sector refines its response, often with the creation of new lower cost services in a general cor- ridor of influence, but not necessarily between the original airports. More recently, low-cost carriers (LCC’s), such as EasyJet, have developed services to traditional hub airports. Based on the simple pattern described herein, the evi- dence does not tend to support the concept that airlines will leave markets, opening up all the slots used for short distance in the corridor for longer distance services utilizing larger planes. The two exceptions to this rule, FRA-Cologne and CDG-Brussels, will be discussed in the following sections in exactly those terms: exceptions to the rule, and not precursors of a larger movement of abandonment of key markets by air- lines. Looking at the rail and air market data together suggests the following: • Rail systems and air systems operate in parallel; a given change in the economic supply characteristics of one mode will stimulate a market response from the competitive mode. • The given service balance between modal services will be determined less by the characteristics of the segment, and more by the characteristics of the full network. • Particularly in longer distance segments, the concept that the rail systems can rely on their superior line haul times from point-to-point to dominate market share is challenged by the observed ability of the low-cost airline carriers to provide many services at a lower cost than the railroads, providing the ability to capture market previously considered basic to The extent to which this vision of the new rail growth has or has not been supported by empirical findings of the sub- sequent decade (2001–2010) could be a subject of ongoing monitoring and further research. How Rail Affects Air, and Vice Versa The evidence of the research suggests that the relationship between the two industries may be observed as occurring in three phases: • Phase One: the rail sector makes a vast improvement in travel time, which lowers the amount of O-D traffic between the major airports in the corridor. Figure 2-1. Source of new rail passengers with extension of HSR network. Source: Intraplan et al. 2003. Note: “P.C.” in the index refers to automobile trips. Figure 2-2. Growth in air travel will vastly exceed growth in rail travel in Europe. Source: Intraplan et al. 2003.

10 world—roughly twice the amount at Paris CDG. There were 53 million passengers in 2010 (Frankfurt Airport 2011) nearly equally divided between transferring and originating markets, (Phranger 2011.) Its two train stations (one for high-speed and one for traditional rail) serve about 170 high-speed trains, and 220 regional trains per day. Of the 25 million O-D passengers in Frankfurt (Table 2-3), about 22% of them use the national (beyond commuter) rail system at present, or approximately 5.5 million yearly passengers (Phranger 2011). Its success is the result of several decades of both physical and institutional work. Catchment Area In order to provide a consistent analysis of the catchment areas of several major airports, the Research Team utilized data from a simulation model that describes the European air trans- port market in detail. The entire model system is calibrated with a vast array of statistics and industry information, and is used by major airports and airlines. Due to its under lying the railroads. The effect of lowered airline operating costs on the trade-off between distance and mode choice is cur- rently poorly documented in the literature. In the United States, low-cost carriers have increased fares, partly because of increased fuel costs. The German Experience with Air/Rail Complementarity Frankfurt and the Development of the “AIRail” Service Model Deutsche Bahn (DB), the German rail company, has built new stations to serve airports at Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, and Leipzig Halle—all of which are directly on major HSR lines. As Leipzig Halle is a lightly used airport, this Chapter will focus on services and markets at Frankfurt and Dusseldorf airports. Additionally, the Cologne Bonn Airport station is served by a spur line of the main HSR alignment; although it could be used by HSR services, the rail company has chosen not to route them through that station. A new HSR station is in place in Berlin, and will be opened at some point in time. According to interviews, the management at Munich would like to see some trains with long-distance service directly serve the airport, but the alignment and configuration does not support such services at this time. By contrast, Frankfurt Airport (Figure 2-3) is Germany’s most important airport, with more airline passengers gaining access by long-distance rail than in any airport in the Western DB Rail Staon for long- distance services The long-distance rail staon is located 1,500 feet from the primary air terminal, accessed by walk The rail station is located 6,000 feet from the secondary air terminal, which is accessed by a people mover Figure 2-3. In Frankfurt, the long-distance rail station is 1,500 feet from the original terminal and 6,000 feet from the newer terminal. Image © GeoBasis-DE/BKG, Google. Frankfurt Airport 2010 total air pax, in millions1 53 Total air pax by rail, in millions2 8.7 Estimated air pax by long-distance rail2 5.5 Estimated long-distance rail mode share 2 22% Sources: (1) Frankfurt Airport 2011; (2) Phranger 2011. Table 2-3. Summary statistics (FRA).

11 with a wider catchment area than any other airport examined in the ACRP research. Table 2-4 demonstrates how the share of total rail users varies by distance band from the airport. Nearly half of all the air passengers come from more than 62 miles (100 km) from the airport, revealing a very strong pull from market areas outside of the immediate metropolitan catchment area. Over 58% of the rail origins are estimated to come from beyond this ring, with the share of rail passengers to overall air passengers growing with increasing distance. As will be discussed herein, while 49% of the Frankfurt ground access market comes from beyond 100 km, the corresponding number for Paris CDG is only 32% and only 23% for Schipol. Simply stated, FRA has a very large geographic catchment area for those arriving by modes other than feeder air. Intermodal Ticketing Agreements There are three intermodal agreements in place: • AIRail: consortium between Lufthansa, Fraport (the owner of the airport), and DB since 2003, as discussed herein. region-to-region travel demand information, the system is appropriate for analyzing landside accessibility of air sup- ply, and has been applied for ACRP by STRATA Consulting. Table 2-4 displays the distribution of rail passenger in table format, and Figure 2-4 presents the origins graphically. As this research will demonstrate, the provision of high- quality, long-distance rail service for Frankfurt is associated Distance Band [km] Distribuon of Rail Users by Distance Distribuon of Air Pax by Distance 0 100 41.4% 50.7% 101 200 24.2% 23.9% 201–300 22.2% 17.6% 301–400 9.1% 6.0% 401–500 2.0% 1.3% 501–600 1.0% 0.5% Source: STRATA Consulting for ACRP. Table 2-4. Distribution of FRA users. Figure 2-4. Air travelers access FRA by rail from a geographically wide catchment area. Source: STRATA Consulting for ACRP.

12 Lufthansa entered into the FRA–Stuttgart project with an aggressive approach to problem solving and defining strategies needed to carry out their vision that the train experience must look and feel like the competing feeder air experience. As noted by the Lufthansa project manager, “feeder trains have to compete with feeder planes” (Weinert 2003). The FRA–Stuttgart rail project solved some early Computer Res- ervations System (CRS) issues and created a minimum con- necting time of 45 minutes, which required the creation of new baggage handling systems in FRA. Most importantly, the AIRail program offered through-baggage check-in and off- airport baggage claim at the rail station, a service that today is no longer available. To provide these specialized rail services, the airline bore a series of costs: first, Lufthansa had to pre-buy a block of seats on the train, regardless of whether the seats actually sold. The airline initially booked/pre-bought 46 first class seats for its passengers—even those flying in coach. Second, “in flight” service with snacks and beverages was created— at a higher level than experienced on the corresponding air route. Also, the airport had to connect the baggage system with the somewhat isolated HSR station, and the railroad had to establish a baggage handling system between Stuttgart and FRA. All of this was successfully accomplished, before its later abandonment. Market Reaction to the Integrated Air/Rail Product The project, by many accounts, did not go well—especially in the early years (Weinert 2003). The load factor for the purchased seats on the original Stuttgart service was only 50% after the first two and one half years. What went wrong? It was not the quality of the product, which was specifically over-designed to make the experiment work. More than 90% of the customers liked the product. The managers noted that, despite all the improvements, coverage on the CRS was spotty—infrequently appearing on the first page seen by travel agents. The airline evidently took the marketing challenge seriously. They report that Lufthansa spent more than three times the average (air service) start-up budget on the Stuttgart project. As reported in Weinert 2003, reactions to the new service included (paraphrased): • “I do not know what I have to do at a train station.” • “When I buy an air ticket, I expect a flight not a train.” Replacing the Feeder Flights to Cologne As shown in Table 2-5, the airline and the rail company built an ambitious schedule for the AIRail service between • Rail&Fly: agreement between DB and a large number of airlines. Airlines can offer their customers a long-distance train ticket to FRA when purchasing an international air- line ticket. For instance, Lufthansa offers the customer the option of a single, one-way, second-class “Rail and Fly” ticket for 29 Euros, which is good for accessing the flight to/from anywhere in Germany. The voucher is good at more than 5,600 DB stations and may be used the day of the flight, the day before, or the day after the flight on all rail services in Germany. The traveler is issued an account code that must be entered into an automated rail ticketing kiosk, which provides the actual rail ticket. • Good for Train: agreement between Lufthansa and DB. Flight ticket can be used for traveling by train in case of flight cancellations. The Development of the German AIRail Service Concept Working in close cooperation with the German govern- ment, intermodal planners at Frankfurt in the 1980s began to develop a strategy to replace air feeder services with shorter distance rail feeder services. This was driven by a policy aimed at reducing the number of “slots” allocated to short-distance services, thereby making them available for longer distance services; since the adoption of this policy, the airport has added a new runway. In exploring how to accomplish this, the Fraport, Lufthansa, and DB consortium developed a model that was first attempted in the market between Frankfurt and Stuttgart, and shortly thereafter between FRA and Cologne (Fakiner 2003). In this prototype model, the rail feeder services would mimic the quality of air services in every way possible. Most importantly, baggage on the rail “flights” would be handled exactly the same way as baggage on traditional feeder flights (Weinert 2003). The system would add customs agents at the baggage pick-up areas in both the Stuttgart and Cologne train stations to accommodate international passengers. In addi- tion, Lufthansa passengers would sit in rail cars specifically serviced by flight attendants offering the same free beverage and snack combination as on flights. During the start-up of the Stuttgart service (before the 2003 expansion to include Cologne), rail passengers from all classes of airline ticket were seated in the first class section of the train. This was rectified in May 2003 with the design of a new service to Cologne. The formal agreement between Fraport, Lufthansa, and DB was signed in 2000, with the prototype Stuttgart service started in 2001. In 2003, DB expanded their schedule with a 70% increase in long-distance services to the airport, and the AIRail service was expanded to Cologne in May 2003. It is important to note that all of the participant stake- holders wanted the AIRail joint service to succeed. Thus,

13 combinations from the Stuttgart area to FRA. The passenger could choose from among: • 4 trains on which Lufthansa provides the seat and offered “in flight” snack service; • 60 normal trains a day that serve the same corridor; and • 12 feeder flights a day. Interviews with Lufthansa and DB officials at the time suggested that their market research showed that people who were unfamiliar with train service in general used the AIRail service (bought the joint air/rail ticket) once, but not a second time. In short, the pilot project to provide high-quality rail service with an “in flight” customer experience failed primar- ily because the customers did not choose it. Rail passengers evidently prefer the spontaneity of last minute rail connec- tions over pre-established reservations on a small number of trains. Among other reasons, off-site baggage check-in failed because the customers did not choose to use it in either Cologne or Stuttgart. Something in the nature of 25% of pas- sengers who could use the check-in service chose to do it, while the rest did not. Depart FRA Airport Arrive Bonn Arrive Cologne 07:09 07:47 08:05 08:09 08:47 09:05 08:32 09:21 09:39 09:09 09:47 10:05 10:09 10:47 11:05 12:09 12:47 13:05 13:09 13:47 14:05 16:09 16:47 17:05 17:09 17:47 18:05 18:09 18:47 19:05 20:09 20:47 21:05 21:09 21:47 22:05 22:09 22:52 23:09 Source: Lufthansa 2011. Table 2-5. Trains on which AIRail service is offered (FRA–Bonn–Cologne). Depart FRA Airport Arrive Stugart 09:20 10:34 15:20 16:34 17:20 18:34 19:20 20:34 Source: Lufthansa 2011. Table 2-6. Trains on which Lufthansa service is offered (FRA–Stuttgart). Source: ACRP Report 31: Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 AIRail passengers between Frankfurt Airport and Cologne Train Staon Flight passengers between Frankfurt Airport and Cologne Airport Figure 2-5. Rail now captures all those between FRA-Cologne purchasing the integrated ticket. FRA and downtown Cologne, with more rail service than that offered in the Stuttgart segment (Table 2-6). Between its inauguration in 2003 and 2007, the share of through-ticketed Cologne passengers choosing rail grew to over 50%, and in 2008, Lufthansa carried out the original plan and abandoned the air segment between FRA and Cologne/Bonn airport, as shown in Figure 2-5. Retaining the Feeder Flights to Stuttgart However, passengers offered the option of through-tickets between Stuttgart, and connecting FRA flights via rail or via air, overwhelmingly chose the air mode for the feeder service, as shown in Figure 2-6. In effect, Lufthansa offered three

14 the airport and rail station before any flight details are pro- duced. Thus, for someone who simply clicks the Cologne Bonn Airport (a reasonable guess) flights are offered via Paris and via London before any product from Lufthansa appears, in which transfers via FRA and Munich or FRA and Hamburg are offered—each of these are several hours longer in duration than the single transfer at CDG. A similar test was undertaken from Boston (BOS) to Stuttgart. Table 2-8 shows the extent to which the market between the United States (in this case Boston) and Stuttgart has a wide variety of competition, each of which is a threat to a decision to rely solely on rail as a feeder strategy. In a small, non-scientific test, the Research Team traced a BOS-FRA-Stuttgart trip and assumed the user waited for the next train. The flight arrives at 11:30 a.m., and the train leaves at 12:55 p.m., arriving at 2:08 p.m. This is 7 minutes faster than the best flight connection via FRA, and one hour 16 minutes faster than the Lufthansa-branded train. In short, the fastest Lufthansa connection would have been via the tra- ditional rail (with a one hour 25 minute transfer time). But even that duration (9 hours 53 minutes) would have appeared Selling the Integrated Ticket When an airline chooses of its own volition to substitute rail for all its access (e.g., FRA–downtown Cologne and CDG–downtown Brussels), it is taking a gamble that the well-informed traveler will understand the superiority of the overall service being offered. The Research Team under- took a sample test of this case where the product is nearly optimal; all the options revealed through a major travel information provider (Expedia, USA) for flights from Boston (United States) to Cologne (Germany) were examined for a (random) specific day in midweek in spring of 2011. What the travel agent, or customer sees on the CRS screen is shown as Table 2-7. A seasoned traveler—perhaps one who has taken the train before—will know that, for those whose destination is at the tourist/business center of the city (downtown), the Lufthansa offering has the best travel time duration. However, what is actually shown on the screen is that “durations” via Paris are similar to durations via FRA and train. In fact, the travel information system used requires the user to select between Source: ACRP Report 31: Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 AIRail passengers between Frankfurt Airport and Stugart Rail Staon Flight passengers between Frankfurt Airport and Stugart Airport Figure 2-6. Integrated ticket buyers choose feeder air over feeder rail between FRA and Stuttgart. Flight Choices: Boston Logan to Cologne Hours and Minutes Duraon Route and Mode 9:30 via Amsterdam 9:40 via Paris 9:40 via FRA and train 9:55 via Munich 12:15 via London and Munich 13:35 via Newark and Berlin Source: Expedia 2011. Table 2-7. CRS information, BOS–Cologne. Flight Choices: Boston Logan to Stu gart Hours and Minutes Duraon Route and Mode 9:10 via Paris 9:40 via Zurich 9:50 via London 9:55 via Munich 10:00 via FRA (feeder flight) 10:25 via Amsterdam 11:09 via FRA and train Source: Expedia 2011. Table 2-8. CRS information, BOS–Stuttgart.

15 Dusseldorf Airport The Dusseldorf Airport (DUS) developed a specific strategy for increasing its catchment area and has been investing in ground transportation infrastructure for several decades, attracting some 3.2 million total rail riders (Table 2-9). The airport created a 1.5 mile people-mover connection to a strategic point on the German HSR system (Figure 2-8); in this site plan, the rail has not been re-aligned to detour into the airport and the station is on a straight tangent track. Conceptually, the site planning solution for the Dusseldorf ’s new long-distance rail station is similar to that in Newark (see Chapter 3)—with one major exception. Dusseldorf Airport already had an existing commuter rail connection from the downtown. In 1975, well before the recent investment to connect to the HSR system, a connection was built between the airport passenger terminal (left arrow) and the city cen- ter (Krieger 2003). Thus, the motivation for the additional $160 million connection to the HSR line was to expand the on the reservations screen as a longer duration than that shown on the screen for the flight connection via Paris. The search found 36 trains per day between the cities and the airports. All of this tends to show the extent to which markets like BOS to Stuttgart (or BOS to Cologne) are fiercely competitive and that the airline must make its “segment” decision primarily on the basis of network characteristics, rather than segment characteristics. In short, the provision of integrated tickets did not prove to be as effective a strategy as its proponents had hoped. Currently, some form of specialized rail service is offered to the three cities on Figure 2-7. While the first class passenger on the Cologne service is offered a complimentary “in flight” snack at their seat, the same passenger on the Stuttgart train is offered a voucher for use in the bar car. There are no ameni- ties offered to the second-class passenger. Alternatively, the pas- senger can simply purchase the connecting ticket from the rail company, either independently or as part of a Flyrail voucher system. The consumer seems to be favoring the more flexible options. Similarly, the initial vision of the AIRail service mimick- ing the services of the airline suffered another loss when the check-in facilities at both Cologne and Stuttgart rail stations were closed by Lufthansa due to lack of use by the passengers. This loss of downtown-to-airport check-in parallels the expe- rience of London, where labor-intensive check-in services to Heathrow and Gatwick were also abandoned. Integrated ckeng to Cologne 100 miles Integrated ckeng to Bonn 90 miles Integrated ckeng to Stugart 100 miles Frankfurt Airport AIRail Staon Figure 2-7. Location of the three destinations in Germany where integrated tickets are offered. Base map: Microsoft AutoRoute 2007. Dusseldorf Airport 2010 total air pax in millions1 19 Total air pax by rail, in millions2 3.2 Esmated air pax by long-distance rail, in millions2 0.9 Esmated long-distance rail mode share2 5% Source: (1) Dusseldorf Airport 2012; (2) Calculated from Krieger 2006. Table 2-9. Summary statistics (DUS).

16 mobile. Thus, while the mode share to neighboring Cologne was 18%, the rail mode share to more distant Aachen was 67% (Krieger 2006). However, in the summer of 2010, the DB made the decision to substantially decrease the number of long-distance trains that would stop at the new station, located just a few miles away from the major Dusseldorf station downtown. According to those interviewed for this project, DB came to the conclu- sion that the longer distance riders were simply not using the airport. Unlike the Frankfurt Airport, Dusseldorf does not play a major role in intercontinental travel; therefore, air passengers from areas like Hannover could make network connections just as easily from their nearby local airport as they could by traveling by train to a distant airport with limited direct services not available at the closer airport. Interpretation of the German Experience The ACRP interviews included a day-long interview with Hans Fakiner, considered to be the architect of the Frankfurt intermodal system and expediter for the Lufthansa, Fraport, and DB consortium. He is of the opinion that most airports will not succeed in expanding their catchment areas simply by having high-speed rail available; it is only when the “distant” airport provides superior aviation market offerings compared to a closer airport that there is an inherent advantage for add- ing the train ride to the journey. This is the same conclusion given to us by managers in Lyon, and the same conclusion that emerges from similar rail service changes at Dusseldorf Airport. markets already established by widening the effective area of air/rail service beyond the downtown and S-Bahn (suburban commuter rail system). Dusseldorf is geographically located in a region that is an economic powerhouse, with nearly 15 million residents within a 90-minute drive, and 18 million within 120 minutes. Thus, the highly decentralized region is on the scale of the New York City metro area. Noting that only 17% of air pas- sengers came from the city of Dusseldorf, the DUS strategy to increase its catchment area was to tap into the access of the HSR corridor adjacent to the airport, which ulti- mately links Frankfurt to Hamburg and Berlin. The logic of the new station was based on the desire to connect directly with rail trunk line services. Thus, the people-mover with 2.5 minute headway was designed to meet passengers on the HSR line, and a full airline check-in terminal was built at the mezzanine level, connecting down to the tracks (Krieger 2006). The check-in station includes restaurants and shops to serve transferring passengers. Like the similar station in Newark designed to induce the passenger to use near- airport, off-site check-in, the baggage service was used by less than one quarter of the air passengers, and was closed a few years later. The new rail station offered 340 trains per day, including stops by the longest distance DB high-speed trains. Frequent service was provided to such potential air passenger markets as Hannover (100 miles northeast) and Dortmund (30 miles north). Importantly, market researchers in Dusseldorf noted that rail attained higher mode share for longer distances than for short, reflecting the competitive position with the auto- Dusseldorf Airport Long distance rail station Figure 2-8. The long-distance rail station (upper right) is located 7,200 feet from the main check in terminal at DUS. Image © GeoBasis-DE/BKG, Google.

17 Even for the airport managers themselves, the additional revenues gained from riders in an expanded catchment area needs to be weighed against a decrease in parking revenues associated with the riders who had simply changed modes to get to the same airport. In short, Fakiner shared his position that a successful inter- modal system only occurs when it is in the business interest of the airport, the airlines, and managers of the rail system. He predicts that, outside of major intercontinental players like Heathrow, Paris CDG, and Amsterdam, there will not be many more examples of the success story of HSR in Frankfurt. The French Experience with Air/Rail Complementarity Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG) Airport Charles de Gaulle Airport (Figure 2-9) had 58.2 million passengers in 2010, of which 77% were not transferring. In 2008, 2.5 million air passengers accessed the airport by HSR, with 2.75 million reported in 2011 (Bouffard-Savary 2011); this is up considerably from its 2002 level of 1.6 million air passengers. As shown in Table 2-10, 2.7 million air travelers using the HSR in 2010 would represent about 6% of the non-transferring—or ground access—market. A larger portion of the ground access market uses the metropolitan system, the RER, at a rate three times that of the long-distance system (Coogan et al. 2008). Based on the TGV services that have been integrated into the system, the long-term plan (Leboeuf, 2003) calls for rider- ship for the service to increase from a 2005 base of 1.8 million Fakiner is critical of the transportation planning philoso- phy that, in the United States, is known as “if you build it, they will come” and points to the oversimplified notion that many planners seem to subscribe to that establishing a link between a rail system and airport would result in a marketable product. He noted that a spur track would allow for German HSR trains to veer off the main line, serve the Cologne Bonn Airport, and then return to the main line. Such a diversion might add 15 minutes to the main schedule of the rail, and such a diver- sion has not been agreed to by DB, which does provide a local commuter link to the airport, which allows for a transfer to the HSR at the Bonn station. He argues that for rail to take the place of the feeder air system in a meaningful way, nearly hourly service is needed throughout the day to meet flights—whether on-time or delayed. Thus, the national rail system requires market volumes from an airport sufficient to justify frequent trains all day— a requirement that few airports can provide on the scale needed by the rail managers. Most importantly, Fakiner argued that the airport must provide a product that is not available in the more proximate local airport in the far catchment area sought out by the HSR advocates. Frankfurt has succeeded in being the nation’s airport of choice for intercontinental flights; thus, Germans must access that airport for these unique services. If any air- port, such as Munich or the new Berlin airport, were to gain dominant roles in the intercontinental market, the long- distance rail volumes to FRA will predictably come down. While Berlin will be integrated into the long-distance rail system, managers at Munich are trying to convince national rail managers to provide long-distance services there. Figure 2-9. At Paris CDG, the older air terminal is nearly two miles from the long-distance station. Imagery © 2011 Aerodata International Surveys, One/Spot Image, DigitalGlobe, Landsat, The Geoinformation Group/InterAtlas, Map Data © 2011 Google.

18 the average airplane trip time was 8 hours and 7 minutes, which is longer than the 2005 figure of 7 hours and 15 minutes. In 2005, the average connection time between the plane and the train was 3 hours and 40 minutes (an increase of 20 minutes since the previous survey three years prior). Travelers making long-distance flights ended up with longer (more cautious) connection times (4 hours) than those on short-distance flights at 3 hours. The average time (2005) for a train trip to/from CDG is 2 hours and 15 minutes (DGAC 2006). In 2008, passengers approached CDG by rail from all parts of France, with 38% from the west, 30% from the Mediterranean, 20% from the north, and 12% from Brussels. Interestingly, only 2% were coming from the east, in the Strasbourg cor- ridor; but this was before the new TGV line to Strasbourg was commenced. In terms of the mode choice of the traveler, the DGAC has concluded that, for the market area that has both air and rail feeder mode options available, 55% chose the air, with 45% choosing the rail (DGAC 2006). It is believed that areas with robust air feeder options will have higher than average mode share to air, forming, in effect, two market segments. Catchment Area The catchment area of CDG covers most of France (Fig- ure 2-10), with the exception of the most southerly portions passengers to 4.3 million in 2020. In 2005, 2.7 million riders used the station, of which • 1.8 million (66%) were transferring between a train and a plane; • 300,000 were transferring from one train to a second train; and • 600,000 were not transferring. The French High-Speed Rail (TGV) to CDG is generally not used to access domestic flights, as there are better inter- city options available to the traveler. According to an exten- sive series of studies of the intermodal patterns in France by the civil aeronautics commission (DGAC 2009), 62% of those using the TGV to the airport were on long-distance flights to the Americas, Asia, and Southern Africa; 36% were going within the EU or to the far Mediterranean; and only 2% of train users were going to a destination within France. In 2008, Paris CDG Airport 2010 total air pax, in millions1 58 Total air pax by rail, in millions 11.3 Esmated air pax by long-distance rail, in millions 2.7 Esmated long-distance rail mode share2 6% Source: (1) ACI-Int. 2011; (2) Bouffard-Savary 2011. Table 2-10. Summary statistics (CDG). Figure 2-10. Rail passengers to Paris CDG come from a shorter distance than those to Frankfurt. Source: STRATA Consulting for ACRP.

19 the final rail station). Through ticketing for this segment is offered by American Airlines. French Cities with Integrated Ticket Sales through CDG There are currently twelve train stations in France, and one in Belgium, where an integrated air ticket can be pur- chased for an international flight to/from Paris CDG. The French stations are Angers—St-Laud, Avignon, Champagne, Le Mans, Lille Europe, Lorraine TGV, Lyon Part-Dieu, Nantes, Poitiers, Tours—St-Pierre-des-Corps, Toulon, and Valence (Air France 2012). As previously noted, Germany has only three such non-airport stations in its program. By way of an example of a competitive corridor, a theoretically good can- didate for the use of HSR as a feeder mode to longer distance aviation will be explored—the connection between Lyon and Paris CDG Airport. Marketing the Integrated Air/Rail Ticket Given that the Paris to Lyon route is one of the great suc- cess stories in HSR, and given that the origin-to-destination market essentially abandoned the air system for the rail system, the corridor might be seen as an obvious location for the rail to air market. However, the airline has kept about seven flights per day in each direction, for purposes of network competitiveness. One of the reasons for keeping a flight option in this corridor so well served by rail is that the competing companies offer such a service. The Research Team examined all options for a trip and found these modal options on Expedia. The information provided to the consumer is shown as Table 2-12. For the traveler who is destined for downtown Lyon, the air/rail product is probably the best total trip offering (both are offered by Air France). In this particular trip, a reported 50-minute travel time advantage for the air option might not trump the additional time and congestion uncertainty associ- ated with the taxi ride from the airport into the downtown. However, as noted in the Frankfurt study, the traveler would have to be already aware that this was the case. In fact, unless the user had specified to the CRS that she/he wanted to end up near the Mediterranean. While most of the air passengers come from within a 100 kilometer radius, almost 8% come from farther than 300 kilometers, with the rail users from this distance comprising more than 10% of the sample of all rail users (Table 2-11). But, in general, the trip length to CDG is shorter on average than that of FRA, reflecting the dominance of Paris as a destination. While only 41% of the rail users to FRA travel less than 100 kilometers to get to the airport, 68% of those to CDG travel less than 100 kilometers. About one third of the TGV/air passengers reported that their previous mode was rail, implying a trip from their origin into a traditional Paris terminal station (50% of which went through Montparnasse) and then working their way out on the RER-B, the existing commuter rail link to CDG. Thus, of the 6% estimated long-distance share of ground access trips, perhaps 2% were borrowed from the local rail mode share (DGAC 2009). Two Intermodal Agreements The following two legal agreements have been created to integrate rail and air in France: • TGV/Air: agreement between French National Railways (SNCF) and Air France, Air Austral, Air Caraibes, Air Madagascar, Air Tahiti Nui, Cathay Pacific, Corsairfly, Gulf Air, Middle East Airlines, Openskies, and Qatar Airways, established in 1994 for substituting rail in place of Air France flights between Paris CDG and Lille. TGV/Air train connections have a dedicated flight number and can be booked via reservation systems worldwide. On trains, luggage must be carried by travelers, luggage check-in is available only for flight segments at the airport. • Thalys International: intermodal agreement between Thalys and Air France, stopping all Air France flights between Brussels and CDG. Thalys increased frequencies and reserves at least one car per train for Air France passengers. Passengers (but not their baggage) will be checked through from the station to the final airport (or from the airport of origin to Distance Band [km] Distribuon of Rail Origins Distribuon of All Air Pax 0 - 100 67.8% 68.7% 101 - 200 12.4% 14.5% 201–300 9.6% 9.3% 301–400 5.6% 4.4% 401–500 4.0% 2.7% 501–600 0.6% 0.3% Source: STRATA Consulting for ACRP. Table 2-11. Distribution of CDG users. Flight Choices: Boston to Lyon Hours and Minutes of Trip Duraon Route and Mode 9:15 via Paris (flight) 10:06 via Paris and train 10:10 via London 10:20 via Zurich 12:25 via Amsterdam Source: Expedia 2011. Table 2-12. CRS information, BOS–Lyon.

20 the TGV service revealed high levels of satisfaction with the product. Most surprising of these might be the 77% of the sample who were satisfied with treatment of baggage. This is revealing in that there is no baggage handling system, except a partial service between Brussels and CDG. Other than that, baggage is simply not handled by anyone other than the pas- senger. In a 2008 DGAC survey, 74% of the users thought that handling baggage was “easy,” with only 6% selecting “difficult” (DGAC 2009). The 2008 survey managers offered two abstract concepts to the existing air/rail users. First, station-to-station check-in/ reclaim users, phrased as check-in at airport of origin, reclaim their bag at TGV station of destination. In the second alter- native, the passenger keeps bags while on the TGV, but gets airline check-in functions in the airport rail station. The first was found interesting by 85%, while the second was found interesting by only 75%. The public is mixed about checking bags—they are happy not to have it, but claim they want it. Finally, they asked the sample which improvement they would like; 67% said baggage, and 33% said wider use of the joint ticket (DGAC 2009). Although fewer than one passenger in six said they had problems, the difficulties that were reported included: getting schedule information, reservations, buying the tickets, and research about fares. Other concerns noted were air delay caused a missed train (32%), getting the tickets (20%), baggage (16%), signage/wayfinding (15%), and connections between plane and train (13%). Finally, over 90% of CDG intermodal passengers were interested in a single Internet site that would integrate travel information from rail, multiple air companies, Aeroports de Paris, and the Paris Metro (DGAC 2009). The Unique Corridor Between Paris CDG and Brussels On the whole, when French passengers have a choice between feeder rail and feeder air to Paris CDG, the majority choose the air option. There is one market, however, in which the airline chose not to provide a competitive alternative to the HSR service; the corridor between CDG to downtown Brussels service, where Air France did abandon the air option, much as Lufthansa abandoned its air service to feed FRA from downtown Cologne. In this highly unusual setting, Air France determined that they would attract more fliers through CDG by introducing a non-stop train from downtown Brussels instead of continuing an air service from the nearby Brussels Airport. The service is something of a hybrid, as the long-distance air traveler checks in at the downtown rail station in Brussels, and gives the baggage to the staff. The staff places the baggage on a baggage car on the high-speed train; at Paris CDG Rail station, the staff removes bags from the train and places them on the rail plat- in the rail station, the rail option would not even have appeared on the screen. Importantly, the joint ticketing schemes have not caught on. Most (88%) of the air/rail passengers simply bought their tickets separately; only 4% purchased their tickets from the French air/rail ticket offering, with 8% purchasing from other ticket-selling mechanisms. In the more recent 2011 study, DGAC found that less than one air traveler in five had even heard about the TGV/Air ticketing option. Most of the tickets were bought in the simplest way possible, with the majority of rail tickets purchased on the Internet: • 66% were purchased directly from SNCF. • 6% were purchased directly from an airline (of which Internet purchases comprised 66%). • 28% were purchased for them by someone else (DGAC 2006). At present, all departing users of the integrated ticket check in at a special counter at the rail station for the entire trip. Those with paper airline tickets are given a paper ticket for the rail segment. Those with an Internet-based ticket can use that ticket for both the rail and the air segments of the trip. Those arriving at CDG are instructed to check in at the special counter, even if they hold an Internet-based printed ticket. Buyers of the joint ticket tend to be older than other aviation users, but otherwise consistent with the average demographics Market Segments for Rail Users to the Airport French analysts divide the market into two groups: those for whom there really are good alternatives to the rail, and those for whom there are not good alternatives. Poitiers, Tours, Angers, and LeMans are not served by a major airport, as are Lyon and Brussels. For these towns, the rail access trip is better than going by car, with 41% of residents reporting choosing the train because it is more comfortable (19%), faster, and cheaper (32%) than other modes, with good departure points (24%) (Leboeuf 2003). A second market segment is those who have good alterna- tives, for whom the feeder air service is still there, including Lyon, Nantes, Rennes, Bordeaux, and Montpelier; for this group, their reasons for choosing rail include cost (51%), speed (40%), and proximity of the departure terminal (31%). The authors of the study conclude that for the business traveler, TGV is chosen when it gains time; for vacation and personal business travelers, a combination of cost and sensitivity to time play out equally. All in all, 93% of those who have chosen the TGV alter- native are happy with it, which is basically the same as 3 years earlier. The choice-based sample of those who had selected

21 product for a traveler from the United States to Brussels, at least for those whose destination is downtown. However, as in the previous examples, it is worth noting that the CRS does not provide many details about the product that the screens offered, giving the impression that the KLM trip, via Amster- dam and its “City Hopper” propeller plane system, offers the fastest trip to “Brussels.” Nor is it clear that the management of KLM would do well to abandon that feeder flight for the alternative of using the present rail network to feed Schipol airport, given the terminal-to-terminal travel times shown in Table 2-13, which represents only one example of many sched- ule possible combinations, in this case Boston to Brussels. Lyon Airport This research documents that approximately 2.6 million air passengers each year gain access via long-distance rail to flights from Paris CDG airport, offering a high level of mobility choice to a large geographic catchment area. For some, the TGV is an alternative to the feeder flight; for others, the TGV is an alternative to driving and parking at Paris CDG. How- ever, the clear success story in Paris has not been replicated in further French intermodal connection schemes. As shown in Figure 2-11, Lyon’s St. Exupery Airport was conceived to be one functionally integrated air/rail terminal, with the highest of architectural standards. The problem with the intermodal transfer facility is that it has not attracted many transferring passengers. At the time form for passengers to pick-up. The passenger must take them to the standard check-in desk at CDG terminal and proceed through security. Reportedly, most of the passengers using the train choose to keep their bags with them throughout the journey, as they are accustomed to do on an inter-city train. Just as it is in the interest of Air France to offer a high-quality trip from downtown Brussels to Paris CDG airport, it is not in the interest of Brussels Airlines for the rail system to provide service from its home market to its competitor’s hub. This airline has recommenced flights between CDG and Brussels Airport, thereby using three slots for this very short trip. In France, as in Germany, the airline that has selected the rail-only access option must make sure that its final product is competitive in the open market. In the words of the Lufthansa manager previously quoted, “Feeder trains have to compete with feeder planes.” Looking at Table 2-13, Air France and its feeder rail partners in Thalys probably offer the superior Figure 2-11. The airport rail station is 400 feet from the air terminal Lyon Saint Exupery Airport. Imagery © 2011 One/Spot Image, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, IGN France, Map Data © 2011 Google. Flight Choices: Boston to Brussels Hours and Minutes of Trip Duraon Route and Mode 8:45 via Amsterdam and flight 9:20 via Paris CDG and train 9:50 via Munich 9:55 via London 11:52 via Amsterdam and train Source: Expedia 2011. Table 2-13. CRS information, BOS–Brussels.

22 for most riders will increase by (roughly) 5 minutes. This is particularly important in the Paris–Marseilles corridor, where distances are long and high average rail speeds are essential. Lessons from the French Corridor Services The European model, then, is offering a HSR alternative in carefully selected markets, while encouraging its use with- out broader market promotions. The dominant model is the provision of good high-speed feeder services, without the deletion of flights. The continuation of flights will be deter- mined by network conditions, and the logic of the network system. Given that, for the most part, the tickets are purchased separately, the rail services in a feeder mode model must be designed to meet the difficult schedule needs of the aviation system. Empirically, the distance at which feeder rail can be competitive with feeder air is somewhat under 300 miles, based on the pattern of mode choice in France. Other Examples of Air/Rail Complementarity in Europe Amsterdam Schipol Airport In 2010, Amsterdam Airport served 45.2 million passengers, of which 58% were O-D passengers starting or ending their trip at the airport (Table 2-15). This means there were 26 mil- lion non-transferring passengers, of whom approximately 40% came by rail. Based on the interviews with Schipol man- agement, it is estimated that of the rail passengers, 40% came from outside of the metro area. As shown in Figure 2-12, the Schipol Railway Station is located directly beneath the terminal building of Amsterdam Airport. With direct intercity train connections to all large cities within the country, the Netherlands Railway (NS) provides good rail access to the airport. About two-thirds of the air passengers are heading for destinations in Europe and 91% of passengers are using scheduled flights. Catchment Area It is worth noting that Amsterdam’s Schipol airport has a geographically smaller catchment area than that of either FRA or CDG. Specifically, Table 2-16 shows that essentially of the 2008 survey, of the 8 million air travelers boarding or disembarking airplanes at Lyon, only about 40,000 of them used the long-distance train to access a plane—a ground access mode share of .05%; of those boarding the trains at the sta- tion, about 92% were not air passengers (Lyon Airport 2010). The most recent DGAC survey (Table 2-14) found an uptick in intermodal use to about 70,000 in 2011, which raises the ground access mode share to almost 1% (Bouffard-Savary 2011). For metropolitan use, a new dedicated light rail line now serves the airport, replacing the local bus connections; this line is estimated to carry over 15% of non-transferring air passen- gers (Personal communication, Lyon Airport management). A wide variety of managers associated with the airport and rail systems affecting Lyon were interviewed over several days. In short, the very same SNCF that built the monumental rail station structure is the agency that decided that there was no business case for stopping many trains there. In an interview with an airport manager, it was explained that Lyon was not an international hub, but rather a secondary airport from which the local traveler gains access to other airports for the longest segment of their trip. There is no logic for starting the journey with a train to this second-tier airport if one lived in a non-hub city in the south of France and had a choice of: (a) taking a feeder aircraft to a network connection; or (b) taking a train to Lyon, and there boarding a plane that similarly connects into the aviation network. The managers of the airport were quick to point out, of course, that rail could well be chosen as an access mode in situations where the airport fed by rail offers direct services not available from the airport near the point-of-origin. Evidence for this was provided by a recent experience with non-stop service from Lyon to New York, at which point long-distance rail volumes accessing air grew by about half. More relevant may be the decision of easyJet Airlines to make Lyon Airport a focal point for its French service, providing their direct, low-cost flights. From the point of view of the rail operators, however, not even a significant rise in the scale of the present market would justify the kind of all day rail service that seems to be required for successful airport access (see Frankfurt discussion). Any train between downtown Paris and the south of France that makes an additional stop at Lyon Airport for the purpose of gaining (relatively short-distance) riders from the airport’s natural catchment area simply means that total travel time Total air pax in millions1 8 Lyon Airport Total air pax by rail, in millions2 1 Estimated air pax by long-distance rail3 70,000 Estimated long-distance rail mode share 1% Source: (1) Anna.aero 2011; (2) Calculated from Lyon Airport 2010; (3) Bouffard-Savary 2011. Table 2-14. Summary statistics (LYS). Amsterdam Schipol 2010 total air pax in millions1 45 Total air pax by rail, in millions2 10 Es mated air pax by long-distance rail, in millions2 4 Es mated long-distance rail mode share 16% Source: (1) ACI-Int. 2011; (2) Schipol Airport 2010. Table 2-15. Summary statistics (AMS).

23 rail tickets at the international desks of railroad stations in Antwerp and Brussels South. KLM also operates a bus from Antwerp to Schipol. As in the previous European examples, most Schipol users do not use any integrated ticketing scheme. Copenhagen Copenhagen Airport (CPH) (Figure 2-14) currently has about 16 million non-transferring passengers (Table 2-17), of which 5.9 million access the airport using the services of the national railroad (37% mode share) with another 15% by local metro (Copenhagen Airport 2010(a)). The combination of the two shares would represent the highest rail mode share of any airport in Europe (Coogan et al. 2008). Given the cov- erage of the local metro, it was estimated that two thirds of the national rail passengers are from outside the metro area, resulting in an estimate of about 3.9 million long-distance rail riders per year at CPH. CPH has been transparent in the commitment to expand the geographic scale of their catchment area (Figure 2-15) by cooperation with various forms of ground transportation improvements, noting “There is a clear connection between the size of a catchment area and the number of passengers and routes, so Copenhagen Airport is working to increase its catchment area from four to eight million people in the lon- ger term.” The airport undertook a study “to determine which infrastructure measures would have the greatest effect on the size of the catchment area” (Copenhagen Airports A/S 2010). The research found that hourly high-speed trains to Danish all of the trips going through Schipol come from a distance of less than 300 kilometers, generally drawing patrons from the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany (Figure 2-13). According to interviews, the management at the Amsterdam Airport is focused on utilizing the new Dutch HSR system to increase the functional catchment area of the airport, as was successfully done in Copenhagen with the new bridge/tunnel from the airport to Sweden. Integrated Ticketing at Schipol Arriving passengers traveling on to Belgium, and holding an integrated KLM or Air France ticket, can pick-up their train tickets (including seat reservation) at Netherlands Railway (NS) service desks at the airport. Travelers starting in Belgium and heading to Schipol can change their flight coupons into The Rail Station at Amsterdam Schipol is located within the Terminal Building Figure 2-12. Both long-distance and metropolitan rail services are provided within the passenger terminal complex at Amsterdam Schipol. Imagery © 2011 Aerodata International Surveys, DigitalGlobe, Map data © 2011 Google. Distance Band [km] Distribuon of Rail Users by Distance Distribuon of Air Pax by Distance 0 - 100 76.9% 76.5% 101 -200 18.2% 18.5% 201–300 5.0% 5.0% 301–400 0.0% 0.0% 401–500 0.0% 0.0% 501–600 0.0% 0.0% Source: STRATA Consulting for ACRP. Table 2-16. Distribution of AMS users.

24 Figure 2-13. Amsterdam Schipol draws train users from a smaller catchment area than CDG or FRA. Source: STRATA Consulting for ACRP. Figure 2-14. The rail station at Copenhagen’s Kastrup Airport is located at the Central Baggage Claim area. Imagery © 2011 DigitalGlobe, Scankort, Lantmateriet/Metria, Map Data © Google.

25 Use of Integrated Ticketing in Copenhagen In a reaction to the early development of the German AIRail concept, railway planners in Denmark established a strategy in which rail services to the major airport are fully integrated with the rail network, with no attempt to provide specialized air/rail services. The Danish rail authorities took the position that there would be no need for off-airport check-in services on the rail system, nor for integrated ticketing. Instead, the rail system provides a high level of frequent rail service with exten- sive geographic coverage of the country. Having brought about cities would increase the catchment area by 800,000 persons and that high-speed trains to Gothenburg, Sweden, would further increase the catchment area by another 720,000 per- sons. Interestingly, they cite the need to be competitive with the ground systems of competing airports. In a report on social impacts of the airport, the management notes: The European high-speed train network will be expanded in the years ahead, and this will increase the catchment areas of the major airports considerably. Expansion of such networks contin- ues, and new high-speed train projects are underway in France, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Italy. Airports such as Charles de Gaulle in Paris and Schipol in Amsterdam already have high-speed trains (Copenhagen Air- ports A/S, 2010, page 18). Copenhagen Airport 2010 total air pax in millions 1 21 Total air pax by rail, in millions2 8 Esmated air pax by long-distance rail 3.9 Esmated long-distance rail mode share 24% Source: (1) Copenhagen Airport 2011; (2) Copenhagen Airport 2010 (a). Table 2-17. Summary statistics (CPH). Figure 2-15. The catchment area for CPH reaches far into southern Sweden. Source: STRATA Consulting for ACRP. Distance Band [km] Distribuon of Rail Users by Distance Distribuon of Air Pax by Distance 0 100 88.1% 87.3% 101 200 4.4% 3.8% 201–300 4.1% 5.4% 301–400 2.5% 2.7% 401–500 0.8% 0.8% 501–600 0.0% 0.0% Source: STRATA Consulting for ACRP. Table 2-18. Distribution of CPH users.

26 the highest overall rail share for any airport in Europe, it can be observed that their overall strategy has been successful. Zurich Airport The European strategy to connect a national airport directly to the national, or long-distance, rail system was essentially invented in Zurich in 1980, with the opening of its air/rail station at Zurich Airport (Figure 2-16). Before this time, earlier airport rail stations, such as the Brussels station, built for the 1958 World’s Fair, were designed to serve as part of the regional commuter rail system, with service primarily to a downtown station, rather than for a national system of des- tinations. Today, Zurich ranks among the highest in terms of the percent of originating passengers coming by rail from origins beyond the immediate metropolitan area (Table 2-19) with a catchment area that extends into Germany, Austria, and France (Figure 2-17). Zurich Airport had 22.9 million passengers in 2010, of which 14.9 million were non-transferring, making 35% of passengers O-D in nature (Zurich Airport 2011). Applying a mode share rate of 42% rail, about 6.3 million air passengers use the rail system. They are serviced by over 350 trains per day, which is supplemented by over 720 bus and 340 light rail connections. Of the originating air passengers, 60% are coming from beyond the area served by Zurich’s metropolitan rail services (Zurich Airport 2012), which implies that about 3.8 million intercity rail passengers are using the service. In the Zurich market, cities and towns further from the airport have higher rail mode shares of their respective markets than the Zurich area itself; Bern was reported at 50% rail share, while the bedroom suburbs of Zurich had 8% mode share (Coogan et al. 2008 and Leigh Fisher Associates et al. 2000). Integrated Ticketing at Zurich For the vast majority of Zurich Airport (ZRH) users, the rail ticket is purchased directly from the national railway (SBB) and not through any collaborative arrangement. The one exception to this is tickets booked via Zurich to or from Basle, where SBB operates eight trains per day in each direc- tion, each of which goes directly to the airport without the route’s normal transfer at the Zurich downtown train station. With a travel time of 80 minutes, this train would be competi- tive with any potential feeder air mode, which is not operated The Airport Rail Staon is located in the basement of a unified air/rail terminal Figure 2-16. At the Zurich airport, the rail station is located within the unified air/rail complex. Imagery © DigitalGlobe, GeoContent, Map data © 2011 Google. Zurich Airport 2010 total air pax in millions1 23 Total air pax by rail to airport, in millions 6 Es mated air pax by long-distance rail, in millions 3.8 Es mated long-distance rail mode share 25% Source: Zurich Airport 2011 Table 2-19. Summary statistics (ZRH).

27 between Zurich and Basel. For this destination—and this destination only—Swiss International Airlines (SWISS) offers a single ticket from the airport of origin to Basel. While a lim- ited airline “check-in” function is available at the Basel train station, airline users are asked to have an Internet e-ticket already printed out before arriving at the train station. There is no baggage service of any kind offered at the time of departure of the “AirTrain.” As shown in Table 2-20, the actual travel times for this airport rail service are positive. However, during the travel time data collection period, the ticket option with air and rail together did not appear from either Expedia or Travelocity, even when additional queries were undertaken with the proper code for the train station. Again, the airline that offers this specialized ticket seems to run the risk that the existing CRSs may not properly display it. Integrated Baggage Systems in Switzerland SBB, the national railway, has developed the most com- prehensive airport baggage system in operation anywhere. In the incoming direction, the rail company offers a service in which the user of any airline places an additional tag on the baggage, which shows the user has paid a $15-per-bag fee to send it to any rail station in Switzerland. Most of the larger stations offer baggage pick-up on the flight arrival day, while at smaller stations an extra day is involved. Swiss citizens are not allowed to include in those bags any items that would normally be checked by customs, such as “goods received or purchased while abroad.” The depth of the outbound (from Switzerland) baggage handling depends on the cooperation of the long-distance airline. Most airlines operating in Zurich will allow the bag- gage given to the railroad on the previous day to be checked through; at present, no American airline offers this service. For the second group, the SBB offers a service at the same cost (about $ 20 per bag), that allows baggage pick-up at the rail desk near the airport check-in desk, where the traveler is responsi- ble for giving the baggage to their airline. For the cooperating airlines, on routes where the service is allowed, the computer at the major rail station prints a baggage tag that covers the full airline trip. No attempt is made to integrate passenger airline tickets and rail tickets under this system. In a French study of intermodality, Pavaux (1991) estimated that 4% of Zurich air passengers used the system. Figure 2-17. The Zurich airport’s catchment area includes most of Switzerland. Source: STRATA Consulting for ACRP. Flight Choices: BOS to Basel Hours and Minutes of Trip Duraon Route and Mode 9:40 Zurich with train* 10:23 Via Paris 11:33 Via Paris and Lyon 12:11 Via Amsterdam *Note: Rail service did not appear on CRS Source: Expedia and SWISS Airlines website. Table 2-20. CRS information, BOS–Basle.

28 Geneva Geneva Airport attracts about 12 million passengers (Geneva Airport 2011), the great majority of whom are non- transferring passengers who gain access over the ground sys- tem, as summarized in Table 2-21. Using the most recent rail mode share of 31% of air passengers (Geneva Airport 2011a), it is estimated that about 3.3 million passengers are using rail from all ground origins/destinations. The airport draws from a nationwide catchment area, with only about a quarter of the airport users coming from the city of Geneva. Looking for rail riders beyond the metropolitan area, the Research Team estimates that two thirds of the rail riders can be mean- ingfully categorized as “long-distance” rail users. This results in an estimated volume of 1.6 million long-distance rail riders per year. Of the total airport market, 18% come from Lausanne, and most of the rest are from the western, French speaking portion of Switzerland (Coogan et al. 2008). In 2011, over 40% of the non-transferring passengers were on easyJet, whose presence in Geneva is about 2.5 times that of SWISS (Geneva Airport 2011). While there are no examples of an integrated air/rail ticket offered at Geneva, the entire SBB railway baggage system is offered at Geneva as in Zurich. Manchester, UK For several decades Manchester Airport has been building a ground access strategy that is based more on attaining high rail mode shares outside of the metropolitan area than on the traditional connection to the downtown. The airport attracts about 18 million airline passengers who are overwhelmingly O-D in nature and not based on transferring between planes (Table 2-22). The airport managers report that more than two thirds of the users of the rail system to the airport are not going to the Manchester area, but rather to more distant destinations in the north of England, such as York (Longworth 2010a). To deal with this demand, the rail authorities created a system called the Transpennine Express to Leeds, York, and Scarborough, which attracts some 1.7 million rail users. Rail mode share of air passengers has increased from 5% in 2004 to 10% in 2009. Including non-air passengers, the small airport station attracts some 2.5 million rail passengers a year, which is sig- nificant for a system that does not benefit from HSR services (Longworth 2010). Airport market research shows that rail gains a higher mode share to/from Manchester Airport for the longer distance feeder function. Long-distance rail gains over 60% market share to the city of York, some 55 miles away, with market share penetration of between 30% and 60% to areas surrounding York (located generally to the north and east of the airport) and under 5% mode share to Manchester and its immediate suburbs (Longworth 2010). Additional Airports Located on National Rail Lines As noted in the opening discussions of Chapter 1, there are several airports in Europe that were built primarily to serve a given metropolitan market but are located on the national rail system, which allows some amount of non-metropolitan markets to be served. Examples used in Chapter 1 include, London–Gatwick, London-Stansted, Oslo, Stockholm Arlanda, and Milan Malpensa. Often, these services are not aggressively marketed. For example, while two trains a day from Milano Malpensa Airport proceed to Florence, higher speeds and better travel times are attained by shuttling into the down- town rail station and taking a high-speed service from there. However, good connections can be made between London Gatwick and the Southampton area, and between London- Stansted and Cambridge. Hourly service is available between Oslo Airport and the Lillehammer area. The Stockholm Arlanda Airport website reports there are “70 long-distance trains to districts in the Lake Mälaren Valley region around Stockholm, and to the counties of Dalarna and Norrland to the north” (Swedavia 2011). Airports Not Connected to Long-Distance Rail In addition to noting these airports in Europe that are directly served by long-distance rail, it is worth commenting on some of those that are not included in this review of inter- modal connections. While some countries are placing a high value on connections between air and rail, others are not. Geneva Airport 2010 total air pax in millions1 12 Total air pax by rail, in millions2 3.3 Estimated air pax by long-distance rail, in millions 2.2 Estimated long-distance rail mode share 21% Source: (1) Geneva Airport 2011; (2) Geneva Airport 2011a. Table 2-21. Summary statistics (GVA). Manchester Airport , UK Total air pax in millions1 18 Total air pax by rail, in millions 1.8 Estimated air pax by long-distance rail, in millions3 1.25 Estimated long-distance rail mode share2 7% Source: (1) anna.aero 2011; (2) Longworth 2010; (3) Longworth 2010a. Table 2-22. Summary statistics (MAN).

29 London Heathrow—Connecting to the High-Speed Rail System In the next phases of investment for the British HSR system, called HS2, there will be no new rail right-of-way to directly serve Heathrow Airport. Design attention is now focused on the existing Heathrow Express alignment to a point on the proposed HSR system where a long-distance train would stop to provide a transfer with the new Crossrail system. The new HS2 line, as designed, will have a major transfer terminal at Old Oak Common, a point of convergence of several rail lines about 5 miles from the center of London, where one transfer facility would serve Crossrail, HS2, and a rail shuttle to Heathrow, as shown in Figure 2-18 (Crossrail 2011). The focus of Heathrow ground access planning is on connections to the downtown and to the City rather than any direct connections to national destinations; the national plan for HSR adds a spur connection to Heathrow in a later phase of implementation, making its future somewhat in doubt. The concept of routing the main line of HS2 via Heathrow was rejected by an indepen- dent review for the government, which concluded that, “[I]t is clear that changing the route of the main high-speed line to run via Heathrow, at an additional cost of £2 billion to £4 billion, would connect Heathrow to HS2 at a point in time when this connection is not likely to represent value for money to the taxpayer or the train operator. In any event, such a route is not supported by the evidence of benefits. I recommend that this route should not be pursued” (Mawhinney 2010). Another group in the UK, called “Heathrow Hub,” advocates leaving the main line rail alignment where it is, but adding a new “Heathrow Hub” station about 3.5 kilometers north of Heathrow Terminal 5. This, the proponents noted, is “about the same distance as between existing Terminals 2 and 5– Heathrow Hub includes a railway and bus/coach station, car and taxi facilities and a fully integrated airport passenger terminal, allowing passengers to check in and transfer to a fast airside transit direct to their aircraft” (Heathrow Hub 2012). In this concept, HSR service at the new Heathrow station would be extended beyond downtown London and onto the European continent. Although London Heathrow does not have any direct services to the UK’s long-distance rail network, it could han- dle them physically. Heathrow is an interesting case study, in that the tunnel alignment built for the Heathrow Express is designed to accommodate rail equipment that shares rights- of-way with high-speed, intercity services. Thus, from a geo- metric point of view, it could handle equipment that was through-routed to the Channel Tunnel to the Continent, but Government has decided against strategies which would connect the present HS1 system with the future HS2 system. Rail as a Feeder Mode from Heathrow to Paris and Brussels Given the rail tracks already in place, service could be provided, in theory, to gain access to CDG from downtown Heathrow Airport would be connected to the HS2 long-distance rail system with a proposed transfer facility at Old Oak Common (near the words ‘Acton Main Line’), connecng to the new CrossRail service, as shown on this diagram. Figure 2-18. A map of the Crossrail system, showing possible connections between Heathrow Airport and a proposed HSR station at Old Oak Common. Source: Crossrail 2011.

30 London. In a similar manner, connections could be provided to gain access to Heathrow from downtown Paris. Although Eurostar does not provide a service from London to CDG, the existing track infrastructure is in place to do so; indeed, Eurostar does provide service between London and the Paris Disneyworld Resort, which is close to CDG. Likewise, under certain infrastructure assumptions, the Eurostar train would commence at stations in the Heathrow Express tunnel at Heathrow, which would allow a traveler to go to Heathrow by air, connecting by rail to Paris or other destinations on the Continent. This question was recently addressed in research under- taken for the HS2 project in the United Kingdom. In 2008, about three million air trips used Heathrow to travel onward to destinations connected to London by the existing rail net- work (Atkins 2011). The HS2 research, based on somewhat basic modeling assumptions, concluded that a high percentage of the long-distance air passengers transferring at Heathrow to Paris or Brussels could be diverted to rail. In this analysis, rail services between Heathrow and Paris or Brussels could attract about 1.35 million annual riders in the analysis year of 2030. Beyond those two destinations, however, the market seems to be small; the Paris and Brussels markets together represent about 90% of the total number of rail passengers projected between Heathrow and the continent (Atkins 2011). Madrid—No Direct Connection with High-Speed Rail Similar to the present design of HSR in London, Madrid is another example of a rail system that has a massive invest- ment in new rights-of-way, but no direct service to airports. The HSR services go to two downtown Madrid stations, one of which connects by a new commuter rail line to Terminal 4 of Barajas Airport. Connections between Barajas Airport and Atocha station (the other high-speed terminal) exist only by multiple transfers on the metro system. Interviews with Spanish managers suggest that integration with airports, local services, and local town centers was not a major design priority in the creation of the Spanish HSR network. In short, the concept of long-distance rail as a feeder to the major airports of Spain has not been adopted. Conclusion: The European Experience in Connecting Airports with Long-Distance Rail The Importance of Merged Ticketing and Operations It can be argued that the importance of integrated ticketing and merged service concepts may have been over-estimated by the industry in the 1990s and the first decade of this century. In Stuttgart, Lufthansa kept investing the rail-as-feeder mode concept, even as it was proving not to work. When faced with decisions between complex, multi-entity tickets, and dealing directly with the supplier, travelers are voting with their feet and choosing the flexibility associated with the direct relationship with the carrier. In Paris CDG, users of the train tend to buy the rail tickets from the rail company, rather than from the air company. In both Cologne and Stuttgart, most rail users chose to keep their bags with them rather than rely on the extensive checked baggage system developed for them. Consumers are tending to purchase the simpler set of services, and the services with the least down- side risk when faced with more complex alternatives. Airlines Abandoning Network Services? All of this comes together on the question of eliminating feeder flights entirely. The most dramatic decision in the provi- sion of competitive services here was the decision by Lufthansa to eliminate all flights between Cologne and Frankfurt airports, and to route all air travelers by rail in the corridor. This is criti- cal because without the cancellation of flights, the presumed impact of high-quality rail on airport operations (i.e., the less- ening of runway congestion) does not occur. Between Lyon and Paris CDG, about eight flights per day are maintained. Thus, in a market where there is virtually no origin-destination traffic choosing the airline, a basic service of eight flights each day is maintained between the two air- ports. Removing those flights would provide the dominant airline with fewer marketing options in a fiercely competi- tive situation. Passengers make choices based on the network options offered to them, not on the details of the segment. As noted by an aviation expert in an interview at the PANYNJ Aviation Department, “It’s all about networks and no one understands that. People make travel decisions based on the overall characteristics from point of actual origin to point of actual destination.” Thus, when a decision is made to delete all flights, and offer rail to 100% of the users of that segment, this does not mean that 100% of the travelers will use the rail service—they can and do find other ways for the competing networks to meet their travel needs. Chapter 2 has concluded that the actual number of inte- grated services, including joint ticketing, in Europe is small; there are twelve locations in France, three in Germany, and two in Belgium where joint ticket options are offered. And among these 17 destinations, only two have resulted in the withdrawal of all aviation flights for that corridor. Thus, it is not possible to use the present state of air/rail integration in Europe to argue that rail, when serving as a feeder system to airports, presently results in a significant lowering of the number of takeoffs/landings at major congested airports.

31 Such a shift in demand is revealed in two different impacts of HSR on aviation. As HSR increases focus on massive capi- tal investment, the rail systems have priced themselves out of long-distance markets while capturing medium-distance markets. In many cases, rail simply cannot compete with the low-cost carriers for long-distance markets they dominated for many decades. Thus, the relationship between distance and mode is some- what more nuanced than might be expected. In Europe, the successful pairing of two cities does indeed lower the number of flights, but the number of remaining flights has little, if anything, to do with point-to-point. Remaining flights are explained by network configuration, not by city center-to- city center flows—and they do not go away. At the same time, competing flights influence point-to-point rail volumes, with costs lower than what the HSR operation charges. Rail as a Feeder Mode in Europe: Implications for Physical/ Site Planning This review of successful integration of rail as a feeder mode to an intermodal system suggests that the fundamental relationships between long-distance rail alignment and major airport passenger terminals in Europe are very similar to those observed in the United States, as discussed in Chapter 3. Three categories of solutions are introduced, which would apply to both the European and the American design challenges. Site Planning Considerations from the European Case Studies Greenfield vs. Brownfield Site Planning Categories A basic observation from the review of successful Euro- pean airport rail stations is that they do not all look alike. In rare cases, the airport and the rail link were conceptualized together, in a “greenfield” context, where the designer starts from scratch. In most cases, however, the rail line is added to an existing terminal complex, and must deal with the decen- tralized patterns of those separate airport landside terminals. Thus, in the most successful system in this study—Frankfurt Airport—the long-distance rail passenger must walk about 1,500 feet to the original terminal building and board a people- mover for a 2,000-foot ride to the newer, more remote termi- nal; at that point, the traveler can proceed through security. Similarly, Paris CDG requires a 10,000-foot people-mover ride, with several stops between the HSR station and the furthest air terminal. In a few cases, the airport rail station was planned from the beginning, including Oslo Airport, London Gatwick, and London-Stansted; in most cases, however, the train system had to be added to an already functioning airport, which poses more difficult design decisions for the “brownfield” situation. Site Planning Concept #1: Full Integration at Airport: Route the Long-distance Rail Line to Go to a Point from Which the Air Traveler Can Walk a Short Distance from the Train to the Check-in Terminal Within the concept of full integration between air and rail, there are two major site planning sub-categories. First, an air terminal can be planned from conception to be located at the rail alignment. The first of these was the opening in 1958 of a single air terminal structure at London Gatwick that incor- porated a train station, a bus station, and facilities to serve those approaching by auto. Importantly, London Gatwick is located on the national rail line, which allows for riders to approach from origins above and beyond the dominant metropolitan area served by the airport. Other “greenfield” examples, where the design of the air terminal was conceived from the outset to include a long-distance rail station, include Oslo, Norway and Lyon, France. Second, an existing air terminal area can be adapted to incorporate a rail tunnel, usually from a rail alignment diverted into an edge of the air terminal area. This is the option first accomplished in Zurich, which was the first long-distance trunk line to be placed in a subterranean level of the airport terminal, followed by Amsterdam Schipol, Frankfurt, Geneva, and Copenhagen. In the case of Zurich, Geneva, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt, new tunnels were diversions from existing rail alignments; in the case of Copenhagen, the tunnel to the edge of the airport terminal area was built as part of a new rail system. A more recent project saw the opening in June 2012 of a new rail tunnel under the Brussels Airport, which converts an original stub-end commuter line to a through-route service towards Antwerp to the north of the airport. While improved local connections within Belgium have been inaugurated, exact plans to incorporate this new line into long-distance service, such as Paris, Brussels, Antwerp, and Amsterdam has not been announced (Railway Technology 2011). Attempts at full integration between rail and air termi- nal check-in facilities are often complicated by the need for airport terminal expansion. Expansion at Gatwick took the form of a “North Terminal” that the rail user can access by a short people-mover from the original air/rail complex to the check-in function in the newer terminal. Similarly, expansion at Frankfurt caused the rail user (from both the local and the long-distance stations) to board a “within security” people- mover to get to the newer Terminal Two. While an originally promised people-mover from the long-distance rail station was never built, a compromise was developed in Frankfurt in which users of the long-distance rail station are offered

32 a check-in hall within the rail station complex. Expansion of Zurich Airport was carried out with all airline check-in remaining in the original terminal location, within the exist- ing air/rail station; the addition of a “midfield” terminal was accompanied by a program to increase the number of air pas- sengers checking in at the mezzanine level of the rail station. By contrast, the original master plan for Paris CDG did not call for direct access by rail to any of the decentralized passenger terminals originally planned. That master plan was later altered to allow rail to directly serve the Terminal Two complex, from which users of the older Terminal One must take a 10,000-foot ride on the connecting people-mover, with several stops; indeed, walking distances for rail users within the Terminal Two complex to distant gates are sometimes problematic. Site Planning Concept #2: Shuttle to Nearby Rail Alignment: Build a Separate Airport Rail Station on the Rail Alignment at a Point As Close As Possible to the Airport Passenger Terminal Complex This site planning concept is particularly relevant to the integration with higher speed, long-distance services, where both horizontal and vertical track curvature must be mini- mized. Thus, Dusseldorf chose to a make a 1.5-mile connection to the closest point on the HSR alignment, even though the airport already had a stub-end commuter line in the basement of the existing terminal. The Dusseldorf people-mover is similar in concept to that between the Northeast Corridor rail alignment and the three airport terminals at Newark, as the main rail line was not moved closer to the airport. Although it is not an official plan, London’s Heathrow Hub concept is based on the idea that it is cheaper to connect the airport to the rail alignment via people-mover than it is to reroute the rail through the airport (Heathrow Hub 2012). From a design perspective, Paris Orly was the first European airport where an automated people-mover connected to an existing rail sta- tion, the so-called Orly-Val system; however, no connections are offered to long-distance rail services from Paris Orly, and thus it is not included in the sample of relevant airports. Often, it is cost effective to bring the rail as close as possible to the terminals, but without attempting physical integration with the airport terminal buildings themselves. An example of such an airport rail station with long-distance rail connections is Manchester Airport (UK) where the moving walkways each average about 1,000-feet in length to connect with the airport terminal buildings. From the passengers’ perspective, some airports could be categorized as partially offering direct connections, and partially offering shuttle connections. As noted previously, long-distance rail users at Frankfurt, Paris CDG, and London Gatwick may require shuttle services to gain access to their actual check-in terminals, affecting the overall travel times of the air/rail combination. Site Planning Concept #3: Connect to Network at a Central Place: Connect with the Best Consolidated Rail Transfer Point Possible The review of major site planning concepts in Europe reveals that many airports have chosen not to bring long-distance ser- vices onto or adjacent to the airport fields. Included are airports in London (Heathrow), Madrid, Barcelona, Vienna, Munich, and Hamburg, all of which have high-quality, metropolitan- scale connections to downtown stations. While the details of HSR implementation in the UK are far from clear, the official plan for Heathrow is to connect with the HS2 alignment at the location already planned for the transfer with Crossrail, where most trains will stop anyway. In the Heathrow Hub scheme, an additional HS2 stop is planned for Heathrow users at a location closer to the airport. In short, airport travelers will be shuttled to a point of maximum transfer possibility for the rest of the rail systems, and the HSR operator will not endure the additional stopping time. Another early example of this strategy was the plan to connect Munich airport with a non-stop Maglev service to the downtown Central Station, but this plan has been dropped. Implications from the three site planning concepts. Based only on the review of European examples, the pros and cons of each of the three categories of interconnection can be observed. 1. Re-routing the main line (long-distance) rail alignment into an airport is expensive, unless both the airport and the airport rail are built at the same time. Thus, it is highly unlikely that many more examples of re-routed main line track will be built as in Amsterdam or Zurich. Similarly, there will be few additional chances to replicate the “green- field” solution of Oslo or Berlin, where new track is built with new terminals. However expensive, this is the design concept with the fewest transfers for the air passenger. 2. Connecting an airport, a rail line, and a people-mover will be cheaper than re-aligning a long-distance rail right-of- way. This was accomplished at Dusseldorf Airport, con- necting to a station with long-distance service, and at Paris Orly, which connected to a station without long-distance service. However inexpensive, this design concept requires an additional mode between the long-distance service and the airport terminal. 3. Providing high-quality shuttle service from the airport to a station on the rail system where high levels of transferring already occurs may provide the highest levels of overall system connectivity, even if that rail station is not close to

33 the airport. However it is effectuated, this design concept minimizes the perception that the airport has been con- nected to the rail system. Major Themes from Chapter 2 • The European research suggests that developing feeder rail services to the level where they actually replace feeder air services has been rare in Europe; this seems to hold true even in city pairs where O-D traffic has moved almost entirely from air to rail. From this view, any given candidate for deletion will be reviewed critically both by the airline affected and the long-distance rail carrier. Clearly, the busi- ness case for deleting a feeder flight and substituting a rail connection must be beneficial to both parties before such a deletion will occur. The putative benefit of the rail service for lowering airport congestion is not established unless the number of flights is lowered. • Research about the European experience in making HSR serve as the sole feeder function to longer-distance air ser- vices suggests that early successes in Frankfurt and Paris CDG airports may be difficult to replicate elsewhere in Europe. Further development of this intermodal service concept, beyond such existing cases as Paris CDG to Brussels and Frankfurt to Cologne, may be unlikely. • The European research suggests that some airlines are losing interest in the process of selling joint air/rail tickets— except where their own decisions have resulted in remov- ing air service to a given destination, such as Cologne from Frankfurt Airport or Brussels from Paris CDG. A quick examination of schedules suggests most airlines are hedg- ing their bets by offering both a feeder air service in addition to major rail-as-feeder; for example, between Boston and Cologne, Lufthansa offers air feeder service via Munich and rail feeder service via Frankfurt. Between Boston and Lyon, Air France offers one service by air and one by rail. • Other cities have opted not to send long-distance rail to airports: Madrid is an example of a rail system with a massive investment in new rights-of-way that does not integrate well with airports. The HSR services go to two downtown Madrid stations, only one of which is connected directly by rail to the airport. EU and Spanish managers who have studied the integration of HSR with Madrid airports were interviewed; they concluded that air/rail simply was not a priority in these locations, and certainly not aimed at the replacement of feeder flights. In short, there is no universal adoption of the rail-as-feeder strategy in Europe. • The market share data presented in this case study strongly suggests that high rail market share for the complementary trip cannot be accomplished by design quality alone; the most architecturally integrated of the examples is Lyon, which did not succeed in creating a pattern of access to the airport by long-distance rail. Good market share penetration has been accomplished in both Frankfurt and Paris CDG— airports with lower-quality connections—where the people- mover connections to some air terminals are confusing at best, with distances of 6,000 feet in FRA, and 10,000 feet in CDG. The research examples support the concept that the design quality at the airport alone cannot explain the use of rail to major airports; clearly other factors are at play, includ- ing the kinds of air services offered at the host airport. Bibliography ACI-Int. 2011. Airports Council International, http://www.aci.aero/ Data-Centre/Annual-Traffic-Data/Passengers/2010-final. ADP. 2010. Aeroports de Paris. Interviews by Research Team, November 2010. Air France. 2012. http://www.airfrance.us/US/en/common/resainfovol/ avion_train/reservation_avion_train_tgvair_airfrance.htm. Accessed 2012. anna.aero. 2011. European Airport Traffic trends 2011. http://www. anna.aero/wp-content/uploads/european-airports-2011.xls. Atkins Limited. 2011. “WP2, International Connections—A Report for HS2 Ltd.” London. Bouffard-Savary, E. 2011. “L’enquête 2011 sur la complémentarité TGV-avion en France,” Presented at the conference, TGV-AVION: une alliance d’avenir? DGAG, Paris, France. Available at http:// www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/TGV_Avion_ une_alliance_d_avenir.pdf. Accessed 2012. 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. Copenhagen Airport. 2011. http://www.cph.dk/CPH/UK/ABOUT+CPH/ International/United+Kingdom/Traffic/ Copenhagen Airports A/S. 2010. Copenhagen Airport and Society 2010. Available at http://www.cph.dk, accessed 2011. Copenhagen Airport. 2010 (a), Dec 29, 2010. “Copenhagen Airport and DSB sign strategic partnership agreement.” http://www.cph.dk/CPH/ UK/Newsroom/News/2010/DSB+and+CPH+partnership.htm. Crossrail. 2011. http://www.Crossrail.co.uk/route/maps/. DGAC. 2006. “Les notes thematiques: Le TGV et l’avior: une complemen- taritie qui se developpe.” March 2006, Issue #4. Accessed at http:// www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/dast_n4.pdf. DGAC. 2009. “Enquete sur la complementarie modale TGV/Avion.” Accessed at http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ Presentation_synthese_internet-2.pdf. Dusseldorf Airport. 2012. http://www.duesseldorf-international.de/ dus_en/verkehrszahlen, Accessed 2012. Expedia, 2011. www.expedia.com Fakiner, H. 2003. “Intermodality at Frankfurt Airport,” Presented at Air/ Rail Conference, Frankfurt Airport. Flightmapping. 2011. http:// www.flightmapping.com/james-blog/hs2-is-no-replacement-for- a-third-runway-at-heathrow-in-fact-it-strengthens-the-case. Frankfurt Airport. 2011. www.frankfurt-airport.com. Fraport. 2011. Accessed at www.fraport.com/content/fraport/en/investor- relations/financial-and-air-traffic-figures/traffic-figures.html. Geneva Airport. 2011. http://www.gva.ch/en/Portaldata/1/Resources/ fichiers/institutionnels/statistiques/2010_Stats-GeneveAeroport_ en.pdf. Geneva Airport. 2011a “Environment, Results and Objectives,” 2013 http://issuu.com/gva-airport/docs/re2011en. Heathrow Hub. 2012. http://www.heathrowhub.com/.

34 Intraplan Consult GmbH, INRETS, and ImTrans. 2003. “Passenger Traffic Study 2010/2020 Executive Summary.” On Behalf of the International Union of Railways (UIC). Jorritsma, P. 2009. “Substitution Opportunities of High Speed Train for Air Transport,” Aerlines Magazine, e-zine. Krieger, E. 2003. Dusseldorf Airport, Presented at Air/Rail Conference, Frankfurt Airport. Krieger, E. 2006. DUS Rail Access: History, Development, Experiences, Presented at the Air/Rail Conference, Dusseldorf Airport Leboeuf, M. 2003. “Serving Airport by TGV,” Presented at Air/Rail Conference, Frankfurt Airport. Leigh Fisher Associates, M. A. Coogan and MarketSense, 2000. TCRP Report 62: Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Longworth, R. 2010, Regional Railways—Focus on Manchester Airport presentation to the Air/Rail Conference, Lyon, France. Longworth, R. 2010a, Personal communication. Lufthansa. 2011. www.lufthansa.com. Lyon Airport. 2010. “Intermodality in Lyon Saint Exupery Airport” Presented at Air/Rail Conference, Lyon Airport. Lyon Airport. 2011. http://www.lyonaeroports.com. Manchester Airport. 2011. http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk. Mawhinney, Rt Hon. 2010. “High-Speed Rail Access to Heathrow.” A Report to the Secretary of State for Transport, Department for Transport, London, UK. Phranger, P. 2011. “Intermodality and Its Impact on Aviation: Intermodal Hub Frankfurt Airport,” Presentation to the ECAC-Forum, Paris. Railway Technology. 2011. http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/ diabloproject/. Schipol Airport 2010, Interview with airport staff, October 2010. Swedavia. 2011. http://www.swedavia.com/arlanda/to-from/train/. Weinert, W. 2003. “Long-Distance Intermodality using High-Speed Trains–the Frankfurt Experience,” presented at Air/Rail Conference, Frankfurt Airport. Zurich Airport. 2011. http://www.zurich-airport.com/Portaldata/2/ Resources/documents_unternehmen/investorrelations/news-flash_ 2012/ZRHTrafficNov2012EN.pdf. Zurich Airport, 2012. Facts and Figures 2012. From the data presented on page 10, the Research Team defined the geographic area served by the Zurich S-Bahn as the Cantons of Zurich, Schaffhausen and Zug. The report is accessible at: http://www.zurich-airport.com/~/media/ FlughafenZH/Dokumente/Business_und_Partner/Marketing_und_ Werbung/Broschuere_Zahlen_und_Fakten_2012_en.pdf.