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.

110 Introduction and Structure Chapter 8 brings together many of the themes introduced earlier in this report. Chapters 2 and 3 compared and contrasted the experience in the United States with long-distance rail ser- vice to major airports with that of the Europeans; site planning considerations emerged from these comparisons. In Chapters 4 and 5, the experience in the United States, with rail as a compet- ing mode to airports, was contrasted with the European experi- ence in diverting air travelers to high-quality, long-distance rail systems. Chapter 6 introduced the concept of possible air/rail combinations in smaller markets, such as those of the Midwest. Chapter 7 described how a highly sophisticated regional plan- ning process was constrained in its ability to influence the actual design of a major air/rail interface because so much infrastruc- ture was already in place—all of which emphasizes the difficulty in dealing with uncertainty concerning the longer term impli- cations of short-term decisions. Threads from all these themes weave together in one final case study: the future of Lindbergh Field (Figure 8-1–8-4) at the San Diego International Airport (SAN). Not unlike the case of Northern California, the setting includes a major, high-visibility regional airport systems planning project (RASP); however, in this case, the infrastructure constraints are remarkably open and malleable for a major air/rail implementation. Of course, this is dependent on the local parties concluding that this is warranted in the local decision making process. Chapter 8 covers six content areas: • First, the setting is established, including the long history of planning activities for a new airport in a greenfield location, which had the unintended consequence of post- poning badly needed infrastructure improvement in the existing terminal areas. • Second, the Destination Lindbergh planning process is described, with an emphasis on the goals and objectives established by the participants in the planning process. • Third, the site planning implications of these regional planning considerations are reviewed, including the need to coordinate with ongoing efforts to locate and plan the proposed California High-Speed Rail station somewhere in the project area. • Fourth, an analysis is presented of the more recent RASP, which challenges some of the major directions set by the Destination Lindbergh process. • Fifth, the results of interviews are summarized, a review of planning tools available to decision makers is presented, and the extent to which participants needed or requested better intermodal planning tools is noted. • Finally, the typology of site planning concepts established earlier is reviewed for implications in San Diego. Unique Air/Rail Planning in San Diego A review of air/rail options at San Diego Airport suggests that there is more active examination of the relationship between airport physical investment and HSR investment in the San Diego area than anywhere else in the nation—and perhaps the world. Decision makers in San Diego, as part of several planning processes, have been considering: • The possibility of rail service influencing the basic terminal configuration of the airport; • The ability to expand the geographical market for desired air services; and • The possible loss of riders to newly competitive airports because of rail. The study team has undertaken a series of interviews with managers at the San Diego International Airport (SAN), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and techni- cal managers at the consulting firm Leigh|Fisher. Key leaders from the airport, regional planning, and the consultant C H A P T E R 8 Air and Rail Planning Together in San Diego

111 Proposed Location for Long-Distance Rail Station Distance to proposed check- in terminal = 400 feet Present location of air passenger terminals Figure 8-1. Destination Lindbergh locations for rail and passenger terminals. Image © Landsat, Google Earth. Figure 8-2. Land north of the runway is located close to the rail and highways and available for development. Image © Landsat, Google Earth.

112 • The RASP planning and analysis suggests that the best location for a single HSR station would be in the center of CBD (at the Santa Fe terminal), while the HSR planning process suggests the north edge of the airport. • The case study includes recent analyses concerning the possible role of California HSR to either widen the natural market area of the airport towards the north, or to divert “swing markets” away from SAN to a revitalized Ontario International Airport (ONT). • The case study concludes with a summary of the extent to which the planning tools and methods used in the recon- figuration debate and the RASP were believed to be satis- factory or to support the case for the development of new tools and methods in intermodal analysis. The Regional Setting of the Planning Process Development in the San Diego region is constrained because of its geographic position: north of the Mexican border, west of the mountains, and east of the Pacific Ocean. These geographic characteristics have concentrated regional development to the north of the city and impose constraints on airport expansion, HSR service, and development of alter- native airports. The region has traditionally enjoyed a stable economy driven by its desirable climate, geographic characteristics, a significant level of tourism, and a high level of economic activity in support of active duty military personnel, support contractors, and retirees. The San Diego—Carlsbad—San Marcos area is the 17th largest Metropolitan Statistical Area in the United States, according to the 2010 Census. Site Constraints and Operations Site constraints at SAN are significant barriers to further airport development. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies the airport as a primary-service, large-hub airport. It was the nation’s 27th busiest airport, boarding just under 8.5 million passengers in 2009, according to the FAA. However, at 661 acres, it is physically one of the smallest major airports in the country and its single runway serves as the pri- mary commercial access to the National Aviation System for the region’s three million residents. The site is further con- strained by the presence of aeronautical obstructions to the east that limit aircraft operations in periods of reduced vis- ibility and by the runway length of 9,401 feet that limits the airport’s ability to accommodate extremely long-range flights. Landings and takeoffs on the single runway occur primarily to the west for about 94% of the time. When landings and takeoffs must take place to the east, some heavier depar- tures would suffer weight penalties due to the obstructions Figure 8-3. Land available north of the runway could support a complete passenger terminal if a taxiway were extended. Source: Destination Lindbergh. communities were interviewed by the Research Team. Major observations include: • The geographic location, site and environmental con- straints, regional demographic characteristics, and orga- nizational structure of SAN—including its relationship to other regional governmental entities—have had a con- siderable influence on the planning processes used in the evaluation of future aviation capacity and HSR in the San Diego region. • The Destination Lindbergh design process has resulted in what its proponents call “the ultimate build-out”—a phrase for a vision that is somewhat short of a master plan for the airport terminal complex. The airport hopes to commence that master planning process in the immediate future. • The ultimate build-out vision for the airport calls for all landside passenger processing to be moved to an open area to the north of the airport’s sole runway, at a location where high-quality connections can be built with the interstate and the Pacific Highway, and where HSR would ultimately be located. In the recommended vision, all airside terminal facilities are located to the south of the runway, connected by a rather difficult-to-build tunnel. An alternative termi- nal layout would place the airside concourse facilities to the north of the runway; this would require the use of a strip of land currently used for non-aviation purposes by the United States Marine Corps, which caused planners to drop this option. • Important arguments, cited by several managers inter- viewed, for moving the landside passenger terminals to the north were related both to highway ground access issues and to rail access issues. In any scenario, access by road will be the dominant mode.

113 way, offering the possibility of direct access to two levels of the regional system without impacting local roadways. As discussed in the following section, the northern site is also adjacent to the existing rail alignment, used by the San Diego Trolley, Coaster commuter rail, and Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner intercity rail service. This general right-of-way will be the location of the California HSR service in the area. The Three Studies in the Planning Process Background State legislation created the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (Airport Authority) in 2003 to find a solu- tion to the region’s air transportation needs. The legislation also required a November 2006 ballot initiative to allow San Diego residents to vote on a new site for the presently con- strained airport. However, relocating San Diego’s Lindbergh Field was an extremely contentious issue that had been immediately to the east of the airport. In those conditions, the heavy airplanes depart to the west, against the predominant landing flow and create the need for the FAA air traffic control tower to apply greatly increased separations to maintain safety. This significantly reduces airfield capacity. The runway divides the site into two parcels; the passenger terminal facilities are located in the southern area of the site. The lack of a dual parallel taxiway system serving the south side of the runway causes congestion between aircraft exiting the runway and aircraft pushing back from gates. Lack of a parallel taxiway system to the north of the runway makes it very difficult to provide access for landing aircraft bound for the northern portion of the site. Ground access to the airport is also constrained, as no direct connection to the adjacent interstate highway exists; the airport relies on the congested local street system (North Harbor Drive) for all passenger access. By contrast, the unde- veloped area immediately to the north of the single runway is directly adjacent to the Interstate 5 and the Pacific High- Figure 8-4. The airports initially reviewed for the RASP are shown. Source RASP.

114 Diego, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, and United States Department of Defense. Destination Lindbergh Destination Lindbergh was a year-long, comprehensive planning process (Jacobs Consultancy 2009) designed to: • Determine the ultimate build-out configuration of SAN at Lindbergh Field; • Evaluate and plan to minimize airport-related traffic impacts to adjacent communities; and • Improve intermodal access to the airport, while consider- ing the airport as a potential location for a regional trans- portation hub. The Destination Lindbergh planning effort revised ear- lier forecasts and explicitly considered a constrained level of activity, based on projected levels of delay that were deemed acceptable by the study committee. This level of activity was projected to permit the airport to serve 14 million enplaning passengers in the year 2030 with acceptable levels of delay. The basic forecasting of unconstrained demand relied on commonly used regression analysis based on regional econo- metric forecasts (personal income) and airline fares (yields). The Phased Implementation Program for the Preferred Alternative After an extensive series of scenario evaluations, a phased implementation of a preferred scenario was adopted. Phase 1 The first phase called for continuation of Terminal Two expansion to the west, adding 10 additional aircraft gates and supplementary aircraft parking. These are shown as the far-left gates on Figure 8-5. During this phase, all passenger process- ing, including ticketing, security screening, and baggage claim, remains south of the airfield. All passenger terminals would continue to be accessed by North Harbor Drive. Phase 2 Figure 8-5 shows the full second phase, which would handle 20 million annual passengers and would include the Inter- modal Transit Center (ITC); a Consolidated Rental Auto Center (CONRAC), using a shared bus system; a customer service building linked to the ITC by a pedestrian bridge; and a new dedicated on-airport road connecting the ITC and rental car garage to the terminals on the south side. The ITC would be constructed by SANDAG adjacent to the north side studied for more than 40 years without resolution. The San Diego County Airport Site Selection Program evaluated sites within approximately 100 miles of San Diego for their feasibil- ity from aeronautical, ground access, and financial perspectives. In 2006, the study concluded that the most feasible solution was to co-locate a new airport with the United States Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar, either through an acquisition of prop- erty interests or a joint-use agreement. Despite a concentrated effort by the Airport Authority, the public referendum rejected the Miramar site and the issue of future aviation capacity in the region remained unresolved. Effectively, the policy orienta- tion towards abandoning the old airport site, and replacing the facility at Miramar, had the effect of postponing normal capital investment and improvements at the existing airport site. The current airport master plan was adopted by the airport authority in May 2008 after the failure to gain approval for a new airport site. That plan contemplated continued develop- ment of the passenger terminal complex to the west of the existing terminals, with 10 new gates and additional apron for aircraft parking. It also provided for: • Construction of a new two-level roadway serving the ter- minal area; • Construction of a new parking structure serving terminal two; • Reconstruction of parking facilities on the north side of the runway; • Demolition of the old and construction of a new general aviation facility; • Construction of a new access road from local streets to the north area of the airport; and • Reconstruction of taxiways and airplane holding aprons in the north area. The adoption of the master plan raised community con- cerns about additional terminal development and the effect of the proposed new parking garage on traffic and congestion on North Harbor Drive. Managing the Three Studies In order to address the concerns raised by the master plan, regional coalitions were formed to undertake three related studies: Destination Lindbergh, RASP, and Airport Multi- modal Accessibility Plan (AMAP). Guidance for the Desti- nation Lindbergh project was provided by an alliance of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the City of San Diego, and SANDAG, which formed the Ad Hoc Airport Regional Policy Committee, chaired by the Mayor of San Diego. The Ad Hoc Committee also invited other key par- ticipants to assist in this important effort, including policy- makers from the Unified Port of San Diego, County of San

115 terminal and passengers would travel to the concourses and aircraft gates via the APM. A conceptual model of the north side passenger processing facility is shown in Figure 8-8. The ITC and transit facilities would ultimately be able to accom- modate 8.5% to 13% transit ridership, or about 1.2 to 1.8 mil- lion annual air passengers. The program’s modeling indicated that the combined public transit ridership would increase to between 9% and 15% with the addition of a HSR stop at the ITC. The transit ridership forecast used in Destination Lind- bergh was prepared by SANDAG and projected the levels of activity that were expected to use the ITC. The ITC would serve both airport-bound passengers and regional transit passengers connecting between public modes. The transit ridership fore- cast included review of comparative data from other airports and regions similar to San Diego, use of the SANDAG model to forecast non-airport ITC users, and a final review of the fore- casts by a peer group of aviation and transit industry experts. Site Planning Issues Raised in Destination Lindbergh Background The potential for developing a dramatic new concept for integration of HSR, commuter, and light rail into a consoli- dated intermodal terminal serving Lindbergh Field has been under study the past four years by SANDAG, in collaboration of SAN serving the blue and orange trolley lines, as well as the Coaster, the MTS bus routes, and a future HSR station. Park- ing for both transit and airport users would be provided at the facility. The ITC plan includes surface roadway improve- ments between the airport and the regional highway system. Phase 3 As shown as Figure 8-6, the third phase would accommodate 22 million annual passengers and consist of: improvements to the ITC; new passenger processing facilities, including ticketing and baggage claim facilities in the north terminal; construc- tion of a new structured parking facility adjacent to the pas- senger processing facilities; and a new automated people-mover (APM) connection from these facilities to two new satellite concourses in the south. The ITC and transit facilities after this phase would handle approximately 7% to 10% of air passen- gers, representing approximately 760,000 to 1.1 million arriving annual passengers by public mode. Phase 4 The final development phase proposed in Destination Lindbergh would accommodate 28 million annual passengers (14 million enplanements), shown as Figure 8-7. At this time, all passenger processing facilities would be located in the north Existing facilities Opening day facilities Support facilities Note: All passenger processing remains on south side Figure 8-5. The first phases of the Destination Lindbergh implementation. Source: Destination Lindbergh.

116 Existing facilities Opening day facilities PAL 1 facilities Support facilities Note: Terminal 1 passenger processing is in north ITC; Terminal 2 processing remains on south side Figure 8-6. The third phase would serve passengers on both sides of the runway. Source: Destination Lindbergh. Note: All passenger processing is in north ITC Existing facilities Opening day facilities PAL 1 facilities PAL 2 facilities Support facilities Figure 8-7. The final build out would process all passengers on the north side of the runway. Source: Destination Lindbergh.

117 • Alleviating future ground access and curbside congestion and parking shortages. • Providing increased airline gate positions for medium- and long-haul services by diverting short-haul air feeder services to HSR where feasible. • Centralizing airline ticketing, bag check-in, security/ screening, and bag claim. The proposed long-term development plan in Destination Lindbergh provides for all air passenger processing on the north site adjacent to the ITC; HSR, commuter and light rail services, consolidated rental car, and airport parking would be located north of the runway, with all airside concourses on the south of the runway. In this plan, the rental car facil- ity is built on airport land, while the ITC is built on adjacent land. One architectural concept for this major integrated landside airport complex is shown in Figure 8-8, designed by Leigh|Fisher (formerly Jacobs Consulting). The central structure shown in Figure 8-8 is where all passenger process- ing occurs, transporting them through a people-mover at the subterranean level of the complex. Observations on the Site Plan The long-term development plan allows for substantial potential modal split to rail—up to 15% of the airport users— an optimistic percentage compared to most airports in the United States in operation today. The plan assumes all park- ing to eventually be consolidated at the ITC and all gates to remain on the south side of the runway with an APM system as the sole mode of access to the airline gates/aircraft board- ing positions. The capital, operational, and maintenance costs to bring this phased program online are substantial, and the financial plan will require buy-in from the airlines and other with Caltrans, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, City of San Diego, and San Diego’s two transit districts. The prospects of having the future California High- Speed Rail network adjacent to the edge of the airport pro- vided the catalyst for the local, regional, and airport officials to produce three studies focused on long-term development of the airport with design goals specifically tied to regional ground access considerations. This section examines the site planning implications of Destination Lindbergh, followed by a discussion of both the RASP and the AMAP. The review of the details of this site planning process will help to under- stand the extent to which present modeling and analysis tools are adequate to support the kinds of decisions that must be made, both in the present and staged over a long implementa- tion process. The implications for modeling tool refinement are discussed in the final section of the case study. Development Plan The Research Team’s review of the referenced planning studies, the physical plans developed to date, and interviews conducted with key officials actively involved with these three studies provided the framework for an assessment of potential upside benefits and of obstacles to implementation. The physical planning concept’s primary focus is the devel- opment of the ITC adjacent to the existing rail corridor to the north and east of the airport itself. The primary objec- tives for advancing this development are very similar to those considered at other airports in the United States examining improved intermodal connections: • Improving intermodal connections and convenience to attract a higher rail mode share and maximize non-auto modes of travel to the airport. Figure 8-8. Concept design for a landside passenger processing facility, located north of the runway. Source: Destination Lindbergh. Design: Jacobs Consultancy.

118 tion, capacity, functions, and amenities to be provided in the ITC and the airline gates/concourses. • Advancing the environmental process to a successful conclusion. • Obtaining the required right-of-way for all major components. • Advancing the planning and design of the incremen- tal improvements to obtain reliable cost estimates for construction. • Financing the capital investment. • Assuring long-term revenue stream for operations and maintenance of all facilities, including rail modes, inter- modal terminal, landside people-mover, and airline gates/ concourses. Regional Aviation Strategic Plan (RASP) The San Diego Regional Aviation Strategic Plan was man- dated by a state senate bill, and “requires that the Airport Authority, in collaboration with the SANDAG, identify work- able strategies to improve the performance of the regional airport system in San Diego County” (San Diego Interna- tional Airport 2011 and 2011a). Contrasting the Destination Lindbergh study’s focus on the ultimate site plan for the air- port, the goal of the RASP was to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of existing and planned aviation facilities in the entire San Diego region. The RASP built upon Destina- tion Lindbergh, but it also examined maximizing airport effi- ciency throughout the San Diego region. The RASP tested 15 aviation scenarios, including enhanced commercial, general aviation, and air cargo strategies. Coordination with Other Regional Modeling A regional econometric demand model was developed for the RASP, and it was used as a decision support tool to estimate travel to each airport in the county. The model was based on information regarding the propensity for people to travel and the factors that lead to a choice of airport, primar- ily the time and costs associated with accessing aviation ser- vices. The model predicted passenger enplanements for the various segments of aviation services (e.g., commercial, com- muter, air taxi, private aviation, and military) and for broad categories of destinations (e.g., local domestic origin and des- tination, local domestic connecting, international [excluding Mexico], Mexico, and Northern California). Output from SANDAG’s Regional Travel Demand Model was also incorpo- rated into the RASP model to estimate ground transportation changes and access times. The RASP incorporated the SANDAG ground access esti- mates from the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, adopted tenants. Centralization of airline check-in, security screening, bag sorting/distribution, and bag claim in a single consoli- dated facility has its benefits from the point of view of opera- tions, maintenance, and passenger convenience. However, the use of the people-mover system for all access to the gates must maintain a high level of reliability, have sufficient capacity and frequency to handle the passenger loads, and not result in long walking distances to the various gates. This central- ized processing concept has been implemented (to a greater or lesser extent) in many airports in the United States, including Tampa, Orlando, Atlanta, Pittsburg, and Denver—but none of these airports have integrated their landside passenger pro- cessing operations with long-distance rail. The Research Team’s review of the long-term site plan accepted the basic assumption that it was not possible to acquire the necessary right-of-way from the United States Department of Defense and Marine Corps to build a taxiway connection to a new terminal/concourse gate area imme- diately adjacent to the ITC. If this institutional hurdle were overcome, the site plan would offer a direct connection to the new concourse/gates without the use of an APM. It could expand overall gate capacity, greatly enhance the phasing and staging of the ITC, and remove dependency of airline gate access on the APM system. Interviews conducted with key leaders in San Diego suggested local skepticism about the concept that the Department of Defense would never allow a land swap with other airport land, or other land. The preferred long-term build-out plan also requires the people-mover investment at some phase of the phased devel- opment; its high cost is likely to be a source of concern in the overall funding scenario that will be required to bring Destina- tion Lindbergh to reality. The existing terminals and expanded terminal now completed will also require significant demoli- tion to eliminate all current processing functions other than boarding gates/aircraft parking positions, and to reconfigure the concourse piers for automated people-mover stations along with passenger conveniences/food services and shops. Challenges to Implementation Challenges facing local, regional, and state efforts to move forward with the long-range development include myriad classic issues associated with any major investment in an existing physical plant to enhance convenience, capacity, and maximize non-auto access to the airport: • Demonstrating “real” demand for non-auto modal access. • Establishing the commitment and timeframe for HSR ser- vice to be fully operational. • Obtaining all necessary agreements among the various jurisdictions, rail providers, and airlines to implement a phased development plan with an agreed upon configura-

119 the northern part of the county only, the RASP assumed that a trip to ONT would cost $52 by HSR, versus $15 for a trip to SAN by low-speed modes; the time to ONT was estimated to take 151 minutes, while the trip to SAN was estimated to take 123 minutes. In its recommendations to the SDCRAA Board of Directors, based on the data presented in Figure 8-9, the Leigh|Fisher consultant team concluded: “High-speed rail connection to Ontario Airport is not an attrac- tive alternate for San Diego County residents and visitors because both access costs and time are substantially higher compared to direct access to SAN. Moreover, Ontario Airport would not pro- vide alternate capacity for San Diego because the airport is pro- jected to be as congested as SAN when mixed mode via HSR is introduced in 2027” (Jacobs Consultancy 2010). A parallel issue concerning air/rail complementarity is whether the trips on HSR from the ONT natural catchment area to SAN mirror these relationships. If the airport did want to widen its catchment area by virtue of the investment by others in HSR, it would be problematic if the trip to SAN from the Ontario geographic area was around $52 for a 151 minute rail trip, versus something around $15 to gain access to the local airport by local modes with lower travel times. The key observation for this case study, and indeed for the central themes explored in this report, is that the RASP pro- cess began the exploration of the possible use of rail either to expand the geographic scale of the SAN catchment area or, alternatively, use ONT as a relief strategy for its unmeetable demand. This study, combined with the fact that major policy decisions must be made about the configuration of the pro- posed rail system and the proposed airport site plan, repre- sents one of the most relevant case studies of the relationship between air and rail in the United States. Chapter 2 notes that a similar analysis of the Copenhagen Airport led to recom- mendations that successfully influenced billions of dollars their planning protocols, and worked to ensure incorporation of the RASP findings with the AMAP and the next update of the RTP. The intent was to maximize the integration of the various planning efforts. Coordination with SANDAG was accomplished via monthly meetings. The RASP was also coordinated to ensure it was consistent with the CHSRA’s plans and other regional rail efforts. Calibration with California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) The forecasts of long-distance rail volumes in the RASP were calibrated to match the CHSRA’s “83% scenario,” in which rail ticket prices were assumed to be set as 83% of the air prices in the same corridor. These common assumptions about overall ridership result in a forecast that HSR will cap- ture 24% of the air plus rail market between San Diego and Northern California, which is somewhat lower than the 31% of the market forecast between Los Angeles and Northern California. Given that the San Diego to Bay Area in-vehicle rail time for the trip is calculated at 4 hours, the 24% diver- sion rate is not inconsistent with the rules of thumb estab- lished in Chapters 4 and 5, in which such a travel time would not be associated with a rail share above 50% of the air plus rail market. The Treatment of Air/Rail Complementarity in the RASP The San Diego RASP study began the exploration of the concept of long-distance rail as a feeder mode to or from SAN. Looking at the treatment of HSR as a feeder mode to airport, the RASP examined the concept that the new rail sys- tem could mitigate over-demand at SAN by encouraging San Diego residents to use ONT instead. Following residents of Figure 8-9. The RASP consultant team concluded HSR to Ontario would not attract many users from San Diego County. Source: Jacobs Consultancy, Presentation #2 Preliminary Findings–Remaining Scenarios, Slide 41, Dec. 9, 2010.

120 increases the available supply of high-quality connections to/ from the region. This also emphasizes the need for a long- term perspective, given the envisioned opening date of 2027 for the rail system. Implication for San Diego Airport Station Location In the RASP analysis, the most important contribution to airport systems planning comes from the ability of HSR to divert intra-California passengers away from flights, which could theoretically open up “slots” for use by aircraft making longer distance flights. As shown on the bottom right corner of Figure 8-10, two scenarios were created for the location of the HSR station in San Diego. The RASP’s conclusion that access to the airport by HSR was not a significant issue, and their con- clusion that maximizing the number of rail riders in the cor- ridor was in the interest of the aviation system, supported their determination that California HSR station may not be located at the airport (as assumed in Destination Lindbergh). Instead, the team concluded that the station could be located at the tourist/business center of San Diego. Looking at both the issue of improved ground access and the issue of diversion to new capacity, the RASP study concluded that, if the HSR station were located at the airport, it would be chosen as the airport ground access mode by 1.1% of departing originating pas- sengers (Jacobs Consultancy 2010, Slide 44). If the HSR were located in the downtown, it would be used by. 1% of depart- ing originating passengers. At the same time, the RASP study concluded that, if the station were located in the downtown, it would divert 4.6% of SAN passengers away from air and over to rail. If the station were located at the airport, it would divert 1.4% of SAN passengers away from air, and over to rail. in local infrastructure investment. Initial work undertaken by New York’s RPA for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is beginning to integrate rail planning policies with aviation policy issues. However, the initial results in the San Diego RASP, taken as an opening observation in a lon- ger term debate, do not immediately support the concept of ONT as a relief strategy for SAN. The Treatment of Air/Rail Competition in the RASP In the work of the RASP, the greatest positive impact upon the airport is through air/rail competition rather than com- plementarity. Given the severe physical and geographic con- straints of the airport, a key evaluation metric in this case is the amount of “suppressed demand” (i.e., demand for travel in the region that is not satisfied by the services of the sys- tem). For example, the study found that the modest amount of diversion away from SAN by the aggressive use of Tijuana International Airport would delay the effect of suppressed demand by 2 years, when compared with the base condition (Jacobs Consultancy 2010, Slide #31). SAN, like Burbank, is unusual in its inability to expand its basic plant to accommodate the kind of demand desired for economic development in the region. Figure 8-10, pre- pared by Leigh|Fisher for the RASP Committee, shows that rising demand will finally bump up against the capacity limit sometime around 2024; the problem of suppressed demand becomes most serious at this point. With the projected arrival of HSR beyond 2030, some of the problem of unmet demand can be alleviated when the diversion of passengers away from flights to Northern California makes possible the use of those “slots” for longer distance flights. Thus, the diversion to rail Figure 8-10. The diversion of some SAN users to HSR is seen in the year 2027. Source: Jacobs Consultancy, Presentation #2 Preliminary Findings–Remaining Scenarios, Slide 40, Dec. 9, 2010.

121 mentation, the differences based on station location would disappear. The summary notes that the, “Downtown station initially attracts more passengers to HSR. But ultimately, both scenarios have similar effects on the region’s suppressed demand” (Jacobs Consultancy 2010, Slide 45). From a policy perspective, SANDAG supports the ITC location at SAN as the HSR terminal point, rather than the existing rail complex at the Santa Fe Depot. Concentrat- ing transit facilities (and transfer movements) at this loca- tion would result in an airport-plus-local service hub that is unusually close to the downtown center for any major air- port. In addition, the relationship with both interstate and regional highway networks is exceptional to support access to the HSR rail terminal. Reportedly, CHSRA plans call for the station to be located at the airport complex, not at the site predicted to gain the highest ridership in the RASP analysis. How HSR Interacts with Other Air Capacity Strategies The RASP analysis offers some valuable insights into the question of how HSR, as an element of a multimodal strat- egy to improve services to the airport’s clientele, might fit in and be merged with other strategies and actions. Again, the fact that rail strategies are on the same summary graphic as aviation-based strategies is itself a significant breakthrough. Figure 8-11, prepared by the RASP consultant team (annota- tions added), shows that in dealing with the issue of suppressed demand, the HSR program would provide high-quality ser- Following the assumption that economic decisions are rational, this implies that a station in the downtown would provide desired transportation services to 4.7% of airport users, while a station at the airport would provide desired transportation services to 2.5% of the riders. The reader is referred to the bottom right corner of Fig- ure 8-10, in which the number of airport passengers diverted to rail in Scenario 3A (the downtown station location scenario) is shown with approximately three times the number of passen- gers diverted to rail in Scenario 3B (which represents the airport location as assumed in Destination Lindbergh). The RASP study suggests that, in the early years of imple- mentation, the downtown station would attract significantly more riders to/from northern California than would a rail station in the intermodal complex adjacent to SAN. The model results show that the downtown rail station location would attract 25% of the air/rail market, while the airport station would attract only 8% of that market (Jacobs Con- sultancy 2010, Slide 42). In interviews, there was very little consensus that the models used for fine-grain ridership analy- sis (particularly facing issues of sub-mode of access to and from a candidate terminal) were appropriate for this level of detailed analysis. The concept that one mode share would be three times the scale of an alternative mode share because of a station location seems worthy of revisiting and refining at later stages of the analysis. For reasons not entirely clear to an outside observer, the RASP analysis suggests that, after the first years of imple- The HSR options have the greatest effect on increasing the demand accommodated of the strategies After HSR, the greatest amount of increase in accommodation comes from improving the fleet Encouraging travelers to Mexico to use an improved Tijuana Airport would also increase demand Figure 8-11. Summary of impacts of strategies examined in the RASP. Source: RASP system.

122 not provide airfield capacity improvements.” However, the SANDAG-based AMAP study reiterated the logic of moving the terminals, noting that: “there are other reasons for full build out of the North side terminal complex as well as construction of the Phase 1 Airport ITC, including regional intermodal transportation connections, alternatives to driving alone to the airport, and congestion relief. The advanced planning and preliminary design for the Airport ITC is currently underway and will include connections from the north side airport development to trolley, commuter rail and local and regional buses” (CH2MHill and HNTB 2012). The study sees two time phases, including: (1) Opening Day to include the rail/local bus/BRT center, pedestrian bridge, CONRAC, parking, and shuttle to terminals; and (2) Build Out—building upon the opening day facilities with the addition of direct access ramps from I-5 and the CHSR station. Interviews with SANDAG and HSR Planners Interviews Interviews conducted by the Research Team reflected a high level of cooperation between the various agencies involved in transportation planning in San Diego. This appeared to be the result of the legislative direction to cooperate on the set of intermodal planning studies; however, it also seemed to reflect a genuine desire on the part of the staff and consultant teams to work together to find solutions to the very difficult regional infrastructure problems. The Airport Viewpoint Having spent considerable time and resources unsuccess- fully to find an acceptable second airport site, the airport staff was extremely focused on developing plans that would per- mit the airport to best accommodate regional demand for air travel within the existing airport boundaries. Their develop- ment of a phased plan in the Destination Lindbergh study for future airport development—by including improved ground access, a consolidated rental car facility, and an ITC with potential air passenger processing on the north side of the airport—meshed well with SANDAG’s goals for a regional multimodal transportation center and future HSR station at the airport. The Airport Authority’s decision to incorpo- rate the SANDAG regional transportation model and the CHSRA’s input into their RASP demand model contrib- uted significantly to the acceptance of their results by their regional planning partners. The RASP demand model used the SANDAG trip-origin zones, local access travel times, and vices to 1.5 million users who would otherwise be associated with suppressed demand conditions. The second-highest level of additional supply (about 1.1 million passengers) would result from up-gauging the aircraft used at SAN, and this strategy would have the highest ratio of improvement to cost. The third greatest improvement in functional capacity would result from encouraging international passengers to the south to utilize the Tijuana Airport, providing good alternatives for about 600,000 passengers. Thus, HSR emerges as but one ele- ment of a total multimodal package that could provide good long-distance travel solutions for more than 3 million passen- gers over the base case scenario in the period of suppressed demand in 2030. After reviewing aviation demand forecasts, current capaci- ties, and future development potential at all of the region’s airports and for HSR, planners from several agencies agreed that the RASP study offered no “silver bullet” to the region’s transportation problems. The RASP identified extensive ground access and airport infrastructure improvements, including: “ . . . (a) funding, policy, and political factors; (b) surface, rail, and cross border initiatives; (c) physical change in airport capa- bility and/or capacity; (d) expansion of an airport’s user base/ market; (e) change to an airport’s fleet mix; (f) federal, state and/or local aviation initiatives; and (g) changes to surface transportation infrastructure” (Jacobs Consultancy 2011). However, it concluded that, although many of the improve- ments considered would contribute to the solution of the region’s air service problems, some potential improvements were very expensive, legally challenging, or impractical to implement in full; in addition, even the most beneficial actions would have a nominal effect on the resolution of the region’s commercial air transportation issues. Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan (AMAP) SANDAG prepared the Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan (AMAP), which evaluates and prioritizes ground access improvements to the regional airports identified as needing improvements in the RASP. The ultimate goal was to incor- porate the results of RASP and AMAP in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. SANDAG has also prepared conceptual studies and cost estimates for the ITC that are consistent with the airport authority’s plans for the phased redevelop- ment of the northern portion of the airport (CH2MHill and HNTB 2012). The AMAP, released in March of 2012, acknowledged that the RASP had questioned the logic of moving the airport ter- minals to the north side of the runway as this “would have no effect on the projected enplanements because it would

123 estimate local travel to airports and the lack of a multi-county corridor modeling capability. They plan to re-model regional access ridership as part of the next update of the Regional Transportation Plan, using their general transportation model, supplemented by input from airport modelers. However, they did state a desire for specialized modeling assistance, perhaps from FAA or FTA, for airport access work spanning several counties in a corridor, stating “Federal guidance on standard- ized corridor modeling would be helpful.” They also expressed a desire to see more effort expended on modeling new estimates of rail ridership to ONT by passengers living in the northern portion of the county and the differences in ridership as a func- tion of the San Diego HSR terminus location at either Santa Fe station, downtown, or at the airport. Common Concerns Most of the planners and managers interviewed agreed that, upon further analysis, the case for moving the pas- senger terminals to the north of the runways was based on the known superior highway access conditions. Access to terminals to the south of the runway will rely on one urban arterial boulevard with many at-grade crossings, an arterial that would have to be widened to accommodate all airport demand. Access to potential terminals to the north of the runway would be provided directly from both the dominant Interstate highway and major state highway in the corridor. This would have significant environmental implications in future scenarios that saw massive investment in local and long-distance rail, and in scenarios that did not. There was somewhat more disagreement among the parties concerning the importance of the public transportation infrastructure; those responsible for regional planning tended to put more emphasis on this aspect of the intermodal plan than those responsible for the management of the airport. Several interviewees were concerned that the Destination Lindbergh plan was highly conceptual and would be sub- jected to ongoing revision over time. They note that as the conceptual plans for the new terminals north of the runway are progressing, the airport is building a double-deck road- way and 10 new gates at the present terminal location—all of which will have functional lives extending throughout the planning period. A concern was that the high-quality APM link between the ITC and passenger terminals on the south side of the airport and the development of passenger process- ing facilities on the north site might not be realized. The airport staff pointed out that the Destination Lindbergh plan was only a concept and, although accepted as a concept, would be subjected to additional refinement in the upcom- ing revision to the master plan. Concerning the connection issue, they noted that the concept plan did provide a dedicated bus route between the ITC and CONRAC in the north, and the CHSRA estimates of rail fares, frequencies, travel times, and station wait times. The airport staff educated the city and regional planners on limitations on the use of airport funds for non-aviation projects, which eliminated potential misunderstandings over the role the airport would play in future funding of the ITC. At the same time, they recognized the importance of the ITC and HSR to the region and shaped their future plans for the north area of the airport so that a future ITC and HSR station could be integrated. The airport staff expressed disappointment that the Cali- fornia HSR plans did not include a direct connection to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). They felt that such a connection would have contributed to substantially raising the demand model’s estimate of diversion from air to HSR. The staff expressed their satisfaction with rail ridership esti- mates made by the CHSRA. They felt the projection that only 1% of originating departing airport passengers would use the HSR service to access the airport was so low that questions about its accuracy were not relevant. They did not question the CHSRA’s plan to price HSR fares at 83% of air fares, and used that pricing as input to the RASP demand model. Their feeling was that the CHSRA was expert in rail fare setting and they were willing to accept their input on fares, pre-board wait times, and travel times. They did state that they would have been more actively involved in efforts to model the diversion of airport traffic to HSR had LAX been included as a destina- tion. However, given that what they saw as a significant mar- ket for HSR to LAX was not viable in the state’s plans, they felt that the relatively low air to rail diversion predicted by the model (e.g., 4.6% of airport passengers) was reasonable. In a situation where airport demand exceeds its capacity, as emerges in Figure 8-11, the single most effective element of a multimodal strategy to deal with the “suppressed demand” is the potential diversion of 4.6% of air passengers. Therefore, further efforts to refine modeling and analysis capability are warranted for use by airports in their long-term planning. SANDAG and HSR Planner Viewpoint Local interviews were conducted at the SANDAG offices. Both planners from SANDAG and planners working for CHSRA expressed disappointment with the low levels of rid- ership projected for HSR, both as a means of access to the air- port and as a substitute for air travel. However, they did not voice serious doubts about the modeling methodology, given the low ridership estimates. They had reservations about the differences in the planning time horizons used by the airport studies—which contain projections to 2030—and the HSR services that are planned to commence in 2027. SANDAG staff expressed reservations about the adequacy of their general-purpose regional travel model to accurately

124 given the limitations on the airside capacity of SAN and the failure to secure Marine Corps approval for land necessary to construct a taxiway, which is essential for aircraft access to passenger terminals on the north portion of the airfield. It is generally less expensive to expand facilities incrementally and, unless long-term forecasts indicate that a radically dif- ferent development plan is required to meet future demand, planners are reluctant to abandon recent terminal invest- ments and move to a wholly different concept. However, the airport planners also realized that: • A CONRAC could only be built on the north site; • Improved airport access to the nation’s second-largest rail corridor, and the regional highway system in the north, associated with an intermodal facility could greatly benefit the airport; and • The incorporation of an ITC to satisfy SANDAG’s plans for an intermodal station adjacent to the airport could be accommodated without major disruption to the airport’s development. The ITC is a natural adjunct to the CONRAC, where pas- sengers will leave their rental cars and proceed to the passen- ger terminals via a high frequency consolidated shuttle bus on a dedicated on-airport roadway. The Destination Lind- berg plan calls for relocation of all passenger processing to the north site, with an APM connection to gates on the south site. It also preserves the existing and short-term future invest- ment in the south. However, the problem of abandoning recently constructed infrastructure to adopt a radically different concept of opera- tions is a difficult one that deserves more study. In some cases, it has been obvious to airport planners that the constraints of an existing facility will become untenable in the future and a dramatically different development concept is needed. This has been the case in Denver, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Kansas City, and among others, where old airports or old termi- nal complexes were deemed inadequate and new greenfield development was chosen. The economic impacts of totally new infrastructure investment—including the departure of Continental from Denver, and US Airways from Pittsburgh— have potentially serious implications. It is unclear how that kind of dramatic decision to invest in a new concept, while abandoning existing infrastructure, can be justified to facili- tate an intermodal development plan, when the incremental development option still remains viable and cost effective. Agreement on Forecasts of Rail Ridership for Competition and Complementarity Much speculation has been made that differences in the estimates of rail ridership between airport and rail planners the passenger terminal in the south, at a relatively early point in the development. All parties seemed to agree that, while an APM would provide a high LOS, a frequent bus shuttle on a dedicated roadway could offer the reliability and frequency that passengers transferring from rail to air would require. This view is consistent with the experience at BWI, BOS, and other airports where a reliable and high frequency bus link seems to provide a satisfactory LOS for rail passengers. Issues Raised in the San Diego Case Study This case study provides a microcosm of the strengths and weaknesses of intermodal air/rail planning practice. Three of these issues are summarized here. The Fragmented Practice of Modal Planning In the case of the San Diego region, as in many other locales, there was not a natural linkage between the airport planning and regional and rail planning. The issue became pressing when the airport plans raised concerns about the impact of traffic on North Harbor Drive from adding passen- ger parking and growth in the existing terminal area. From that time forward, the agencies involved performed an admi- rable integration of their planning processes. The initial lack of coordination is understandable, given the relative isolation of the various planners’ worlds. The lack of plan integration is not surprising given the different models, model inputs, growth assumptions, and understandings of their respective industry results. This often stems from the different cultural and regulatory environments in which the different modal planners operate. As was noted by the SANDAG representa- tive, better support for intermodal corridor planning by FAA and FTA may be a way to improve the quality of intermodal planning. Incremental vs. Greenfield Planning The planning history in San Diego illustrates the chal- lenges associated with making longer term reconfiguration decisions concurrently with continuing capital investments in an airport’s existing physical plant. The airport staff were comfortable that their plans to accommodate future passen- ger growth at the airport by incremental extension of facilities on the south side of the airfield were reasonable and prudent. The CHSRA and SANDAG visions featured a fairly radical change that would, ultimately, move all of the passenger pro- cessing activities to the north site, adjacent to the ITC, and served by superior levels of highway accessibility. The incre- mental approach by the airport planners cannot be ruled out

125 In short, extensive cooperative planning has been dem o- nstrated in San Diego, despite a lack of demand forecasting tools specifically designed to deal with the local issues. It is clear that the modest scale of predicted multimodal volumes allows for the separate modes to continue with their separate modal planning tasks. It is equally clear that when the policy questions focus on micro-scale design details, present tools will not be adequate to support the detailed site planning processes. Site Planning Considerations from the Case Studies Consistent with the typology presented in Chapters 2 and 3, the site planning options at the San Diego International Airport can be reviewed in terms of an international perspec- tive. A review of airport station locations in Europe and the United States suggests three major categories for airport rail station solutions: Site Planning Concept #1: Full Integration at Airport: Reroute the Long-distance Rail Line to Go to a Point from Which the Air Traveler Can Walk from the Train to the Check-in Terminal While this is the “gold standard” option, accomplished in Zurich, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen, site planners in San Diego still have this option open to them in two realistic sce- narios. If the HSR station is built at the site of the ITC, users of the California HSR system could walk from their long-dis- tance train, across the bridge shown in the center of Figure 8-7, and into a centralized check-in location for the entire airport. Assuming that full implementation of the Terminal 7 concept at Chicago O’Hare has been deleted from the O’Hare master plan, San Diego International Airport emerges as the only case in the United States where the long-distance train platform can be connected to the landside passenger processing terminal via walking only. In one future option, airside people-movers would connect to concourses located on the south side of the runway; in another option, the concourses/gates would also be located adjacent to the rail station, to the north of the runway. In such an option, the high-speed rail train could continue on to the CBD, with an additional station. Site Planning Concept #2: Shuttle to 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 kind of connection, as exemplified by the present sta- tion connection at Newark, would result if the operations of Phase 3 of the Destination Lindbergh implementation scheme were, for one reason or another, made permanent by are an important problem in intermodal planning. While this may be correct, in the San Diego case study—and in general— it was not reported as a significant issue among the various planners. The estimates made by either the RASP study or the CHSRA of the extent to which HSR would feed passengers to SAN did vary; however, percentages were in the low single digits. Both the airport planners and SANDAG staff agree that these numbers are disappointing, but they do not seriously dispute them. By way of comparison, Chapter 2 reported that, of originating passengers departing Paris CDG airport, only about 6% accessed the airport by HSR—again, in the single digits. The explanation given is that many passengers in northern San Diego County are currently driving to the Los Angeles area and would not be likely to take HSR to the south to access the airport in San Diego and make that trip by air. The studies did find an appreciable number of north San Diego County travelers who would use HSR to travel directly to the Los Angeles area; however, these were travelers who were mostly driving to Los Angeles today. Similarly, the use of HSR as a complementary mode for local residents turning to adjacent airports in response to the capacity constraint resulted in differing—but still low— estimates, which were not disputed by local planners. Origi- nating passengers, using a HSR station at the SAN to access ONT, were predicted as a miniscule 1,458 passengers in the RASP estimates for the year 2030. In any case, the planners did not seriously dispute those estimates. In terms of air/rail competition, the regional planning pro- cess worked directly with the statewide process and applied the overall mode share data, in which rail gains 24% of the air plus rail market between San Diego and Northern California. By any definition, a diversion of this scale has implications for local planners creating local strategies. The San Diego case study illustrates that the degree of cooperation and sharing of modeling data among the airport, city, HSR, and regional planners was such that there was no serious dispute over the various ridership forecasts. However, that does not mean that planners did not recognize a need for better forecasting tools; instead, this illustrates that many of the relevant estimates were too low to materially affect their plans. Particular attention seems to be appropriate on issues of micro-scale location (such as the difference between the two potential station HSR sites) where issues of sub-mode of access are difficult to model. In addition, it is not clear that planners and managers have adequate tools to understand the potential of HSR to feed airports under conditions where the air service mix at the “distant” airport is superior for the traveler to the air service mix at the “near” airport (even if access “costs” were higher for the distant airport). This was similarly shown in the Northern California case study earlier in this report.

126 course, the HSR train could continue on to a second station, near the present Santa Fe Terminal. The San Diego case study concludes with the observation that the planners and managers in San Diego have a full set of site planning options by which to make the connection between HSR and the airport. Compared to every other airport included in the international review, San Diego managers have the least constrained set of facility and service options of the airports studied. It follows that the planning/analysis tools needed to understand both the macro- and micro-scale behavioral options could be improved before final decisions are made that will impact billions of dollars in transportation investments. Bibliography Jacobs Consultancy. 2009 (March). “Destination Lindbergh Technical Report, San Diego International Airport.” Prepared for San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, San Diego, CA. Jacobs Consultancy. 2010 (December 9). “Presentation #2 Preliminary Findings—Remaining Scenarios.” Presentation to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority RASP Subcommittee on the Regional Aviation Strategic Plan. Jacobs Consultancy. 2011 (March). “Regional Aviation Strategic Plan.” Final Report Prepared for San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, San Diego, CA. CH2MHill and HNTB. 2012 (March). “San Diego Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan.” Prepared for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), San Diego, CA. San Diego International Airport. 2011. “RASP Subcommittee” Avail- able at http://www.san.org/sdcraa/airport_initiatives/rasp/rasp_ committee.aspx. San Diego International Airport. 2011a. Results can be found at http:// www.san.org/documents/rasp/11Jan26/RASP_AMAP_Open_ House.pdf. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2012. “San Diego Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan.” Available at http://www. sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1644_14238.pdf. a lack of implementation of the “full build-out” scheme. For at least some terminals, auto access would be direct to the ter- minals, while transit access would be by people-mover con- nection from the ITC and CONRAC facilities in the north. In these schemes, those who come by personal auto have direct access to the passenger processing terminal, while those who come by other modes must be shuttled from the transfer facility to the air terminal some distance away. Site Planning Concept #3: Connect to Network at a Central Place: Connect with the Best Consolidated Rail Transfer Point Possible Conceptually, this is like a new solution being considered in Newark, in which a new guideway facility might be built from the three separate air terminal structures to the largest connect- ing rail terminal possible, Newark Penn Station. This maximizes the number of trains that will actually stop at the designated air- port station. If the logic put forward in the RASP were accepted, a downtown location for California HSR would be seen as in the best interest of the airport and the city as a whole. The RASP put forward a concept in which some “trolleys” were dedicated to serve as a shuttle between the downtown train station and the airport ITC/CONRAC. Under this logic, the “Santa Fe” site is seen as in the best interest of the HSR system, and the “trolleys” would shuttle to and from the airport. In an alternative interpretation of the same situation, the ITC itself would be seen as the “best” central place for the airport service to connect to—the logical location under Site Planning Concept #3. In this vision, the maximum number of trains, trams, buses, bus-rapid-transit services, etc., would be located at the ITC–not at the Santa Fe Depot. This would be true for all modes that must gain access over the Interstate systems, which does not serve the downtown site well. And, of