 |
|
|
|
Airport Ground Access Planning Guide
PREFACE
TO THE READER
This report presents the results of the first phase of a project
jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and the
Federal Aviation Administration. It outlines the process for planning
ground access to airports within the context of current laws,
regulations, and procedures. This report identifies the key
components of an airport access work program, discusses performance
measures, and provides extensive information on alternative strategies
for improving airport access conditions.
Phase II of this project will complete the sections listed in the
table of contents, including data collection and surveys, forecasting
patterns and demand, evaluation, and implementation.
Comments regarding the content of this report, or any recommendations
for additional guidance or available information/data that might
appropriately be included in this report should be forwarded to:
Mr. Lee Chimini
Federal Highway Administration
Intermodal Division, HEP-50
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TO BE SUPPLIED IN FY 1996
CHAPTER TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
OVERVIEW OF AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS PLANNING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS PLANNING
PROCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND POLICY CONTEXT. . . . . . . . . . . 5
Defining the Issues -- Examples from American
Airports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Poor Accessibility and Economic Consequences. . . . . 5
Accommodation of Economic Growth. . . . . . . . . . . 8
Localized Air Quality Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Guaranteed Service Availability for Airport
Passengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Environmental Mitigation for Surrounding
Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Problem Definition -- A Summary of Experience . . . . 9
2.3 AGENCIES, ROLES AND REGULATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
FAA Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Master Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
FAA s Planning and Design Guidelines for
Airport Terminal Facilities. . . . . . . . . . 11
State and MPO Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Transportation Planning and Programming
Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Management Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Congestion Management System (CMS) . . . . 14
The Intermodal Management System (IMS) . . . . 15
Role of The Major Investment Study (MIS). . . . . . 16
Relationship Between Airport Access and the Clean
Air Act Conformity Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Programming Highway and Transit Projects for
Airport Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Determining Conformity under the General
Conformity Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
FAA Funding under the General Conformity
Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 PREPARING THE WORK PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
CHAPTER THREE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
PERFORMANCE MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1 THE LOGIC OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MEASURES FROM TWO
STATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Oregon Intermodal Management Systems Work Program . . . 26
The Development of a New Performance Measure at
Boston Logan International Airport. . . . . . . . . 32
3.3 AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS PERFORMANCE MEASURES -- AT THE
FACILITY LEVEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
CHAPTER FOUR DATA COLLECTION AND SURVEYS . . . . . . . . . . . 39
TO BE SUPPLIED IN FY 1996
CHAPTER FIVE PATTERNS AND DEMANDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
TO BE SUPPLIED IN FY 1996
CHAPTER SIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPROVING AIRPORT ACCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.1 ACCESS ROADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Considerations Related to Access Roads Off Airport . . . 44
Geometric Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Traffic Operations Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . 47
Considerations Related to Access Roads Near Airports . . 47
Geometric Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Traffic Operations Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . 49
Considerations Related to On-Airport Roads
(Excluding Terminal Curbside Areas) . . . . . . . . 50
Airport Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Principles for Design and Operation of Airport
Roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Roadway Design to Accommodate Airport Taxi Cabs . . 57
Geometric Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Traffic Operations Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . 59
Transportation Enhancement Alternatives . . . . . . 61
Management of Traffic During Construction . . . . . 62
6.2 Parking Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Reallocation of spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Methods Of Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Parking Rates and Pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Alternative Types of Parking Facilities. . . . . . . . . 69
Structured Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Off-Airport Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Remote Employee Parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.3 Curbside Capacity Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Curbside Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Private Vehicle Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Taxicab Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Scheduled Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Nonscheduled Limousine and Charter Bus
Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Courtesy Vehicle Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Curbside Management Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Objectives of Curbside Management . . . . . . . . . 74
Curbside Enforcement and Traffic Control. . . . . . 75
Curbside Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Horizontal Curbside Separation. . . . . . . . . . . 78
Vertical Curbside Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Supplemental Curbside Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.4 HIGH OCCUPANCY (HOV) MODES OF GROUND ACCESS. . . . . . . 83
General Planning and Design Considerations . . . . . . . 83
Market Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Characteristics of Successful Airport Access
Modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Rubber-Tired Transit Service Options . . . . . . . . . . 87
Publicly Sponsored and Airport Sponsored
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Traditional Public Bus Services. . . . . . . . 87
On-Airport Shuttle Services. . . . . . . . . . 88
Shuttles to Other Locations. . . . . . . . . . 88
Privately Sponsored Services. . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Taxicabs (includes medallion taxicabs,
radio cabs, or metro cars). . . . . . . . 91
Door-to-door, shared-ride vans . . . . . . . . 93
Fixed-Route, Scheduled Services. . . . . . . . 93
Prearranged Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Chauffeured Limousine Services . . . . . . . . 93
Charter Vans and Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Courtesy Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Airport Rail Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Desirable Characteristics of Rail Service . . . . . 95
Desirable Characteristics of Airport Rail
Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Access Characteristics of US Airports. . . . . . . . . . 98
Forecasting Use of New Access Modes . . . . . . . . 99
Access to Airports Served by Rubber Tired
Transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Airports With Rail Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.5 Intermodal Transportation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . 111
On-airport Intermodal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Mini-Terminals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Mega-Terminals/Ground Transportation Centers
(GTCS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Intermodal Terminal Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Planning Issues to be Considered in Designing
On-Airport Intermodal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Off-airport Intermodal Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Limited Service Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Full Service Terminals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Planning Issues to be Considered in Designing
Off-Airport Intermodal Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.6 Transportation Demand Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Management of Employee Trips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Management of Passenger Trips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Management of Commercial Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . 120
TDM Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
High Occupancy Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Financial Incentives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Information and Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Parking Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
TO BE SUPPLIED IN FY 1996
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER TWO
OVERVIEW OF AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS PLANNING PROCESS
In this chapter several major planning issues related to
airport ground access improvements will be examined. Some of
these concerns are driven by issues central to airport
managers and operators themselves. Examples of these concerns
are the need to plan for expansion of airport capacity, need
to provide accessibility and support economic development in
key areas, and need to minimize environmental damage to
neighboring communities. Other issues are primarily of concern
to those with responsibility for transportation planning at
both the state and metropolitan level. Still other issues are
driven by the existence of various federal laws and
regulations. This chapter will review these key considerations
that evolve from the facility level, the metropolitan level,
the state level and the federal level.
This chapter is presented in two sections. First, a quick
overview of the proposed Airport Ground Access Planning
Process is presented. This overview establishes a seven step
planning process, each step related to succeeding chapters in
this Guide. Next, a summary of factors and concerns critical
in the undertaking of the first of these seven steps, Problem
Definition and Policy Context is presented. This section of
Chapter Two includes a review of various legal, regulatory and
institutional considerations that are necessary to understand
in the initial development of a work plan for an airport
ground access planning process.
2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process presented in this Guide has been designed
to encourage development of site specific analyses to be
carried out by regional and local planners in a manner
consistent with the planning process required for statewide
and system wide management systems. The planning process
described in this Guide has been designed to maximize
cooperation and collaboration between the airport-based
planning process and the state and metropolitan area
responsibilities for the preparation of the Congestion
Management System and the Intermodal Management System. The
chapters of this Guide have been organized to reflect the
steps of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 (ISTEA) planning process, as applied to the
development of airport ground access strategies and projects.
The seven steps of the process can be summarized as:
1. Define the problem: what is the policy issue being
addressed?
2. Given the understanding of the policy issue, establish
performance measures to be used in the program of monitoring
and evaluation.
3. Collect data needed to support the application of the
performance measures.
4. Understand existing and future conditions and
performance of the system.
5. Develop candidate strategies and actions.
6. Assess effectiveness of alternative strategies and
actions, and select cost-effective actions.
7. Implement, monitor and feedback using the established
performance measures.
The re-iterative nature of this program is illustrated in
Figure 2.1-1, which shows how program monitoring and feedback
is used throughout the process. Table 2.1-1 presents a brief
summary of each of the seven steps. The table provides a
description of the key aspects of each step, its basis in
federal regulations, and a list of examples of airport access
planning that illustrate the key issues in each phase. This
tabular summary gives particular attention to those steps in
the process that have been given new or heightened roles by
the ISTEA planning process, such as the importance of
performance measurement.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 2.1-1 - The Seven Steps of the Ground Access Planning
Process
2.2 PROBLEM DEFINITION AND POLICY CONTEXT
The earliest steps in the airport ground access planning
process must be based on an understanding of existing
requirements concerning the planning of airports and the
regional transportation system, coupled with a sensitivity to
the policy issues of local importance. Each of the following
chapters of this Guide is designed to help the transportation
planning practitioner understand a specific step in the
airport ground transportation planning process. In the first
step, an understanding is developed of the purpose and need
for improvements in airport ground access. This key step of
problem definition must be undertaken in the context of, and
with the understanding of, a wide variety of legislative,
regulatory and institutional concerns. Some of these
concerns are airport driven, -- driven by the needs of the
airport itself, while others are based in the need to deal
with factors that exist off the airport, including the need to
participate in the region s comprehensive transportation
planning and programming process.
Defining the Issues -- Examples from American Airports
One key to a successful airport ground access program is the
need to understand from the beginning the policy issues being
addressed in the development of the program. The ISTEA
planning process places a great emphasis on the early
development of performance measures, which aid in monitoring
of existing conditions, and in the prediction of changes in
performance as a result of the policy interventions under
examination. The derivation of these performance measures,
and examples of their use is discussed in Chapter Three of
this Guide. The key to successful selection of performance
measures is the clear understanding of the public policy
issues that are to be observed through the mechanisms of those
performance measures.
Separate American airports have developed ground access
strategies in response to highly differing policy concerns.
Those policy concerns range from a perception that lack of
access is constraining economic growth, in one case, to
concerns that too much traffic stemming from rapid growth is
causing environmental damage in another case. The breadth of
policy issues that lead to the adoption of an airport ground
access strategy can be seen in the following examples from
American airports.
Poor Accessibility and Economic Consequences
Perceived lack of accessibility is a key policy issue driving
many efforts to improve ground access conditions. One example
is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey which has
calculated that more than $20 million per year are lost to
congestion induced delays for JFK alone, a calculation that
includes lost income to air travelers, automobile, limousine
and taxi drivers and airport employees. This kind of
inaccessibility has direct spin off implications for the
region s economy: the Authority reports that for firms leaving
the greater New York City area, poor access to the airports is
the second most mentioned reason for dissatisfaction with the
area. The Authority notes that growth at the New York
airports has
| TABLE 2.1-1 SEVEN-STEP AIRPORT PLANNING
PROCESS |
| Step |
Basis in Regulations |
Purpose |
Examples in Airport Access |
One:
Definition Problem and Policy context |
"The IMS shall identify intermodal facilities and
intermodal transportation systems and establish the demands
placed upon them to accommodate intrastate, interstate, and/or
international movements of people and goods." |
Careful determination of central policy issues faced by the
airport, its unique characteristic and setting defines what kinds
of "performance" it is important to monitor. |
An airport in a non-attainment area must lower total VMT
associated with airport access. Isolation of a rural airport
without adequate connection to the regions controlled access
highway system. |
Two:
Define Performance Measures |
"Parameters shall be identified that are suitable to
measure and evaluate the efficiency of intermodal facilities and
systems in moving people and goods from origin to destination.
Parameters may include total travel time, cost and volumes for
moving cargo and passengers, origins and destinations, capacity,
accidents, ease of access, perceived quality and the average time
to transfer people or freight from one mode to
another." |
Early establishment of "the rules of the game",
(i.e., the measures which will be used in the determination of
the success or failure of the system performance). However, the
selection of measures is undertaken only after agreement on the
nature of challenge faced in and around the subject airport. |
Quality of traffic flow on the access roads near and on the
airport. Amount of choice offered to arriving passenger. Is there
adequate taxi, shared ride van, and scheduled bus service?
Percentage of region served by shared ride services? Percent of
passengers that arrive by other than private vehicle or single
ride taxi? Percent of passengers that arrive in vehicle with
low emissions propulsion? |
Three:
Collect the Data Needed to Apply
Performance Measures. |
"The IMS shall include a continuing data collection and
system monitoring program. It shall include a base year
inventory consisting of physical and operational characteristics
of intermodal facilities and systems, and surveys of the
operational and physical characteristics of intermodal facilities
and systems based on performance measures established by State
and local transportation agencies." |
Data collection efforts should document both asset condition
and level of performance. Airport access patterns are usually
understood by examining a variety of data sources including:
periodic ground access surveys, ridership and revenue data, and
regional trip tables based on a simulated process. Operational
characteristics may include time, cost capacity and usage. |
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey program monitoring
ground access patterns to JFK, LaGuardia and Newark airports in
continuous operation for several decades. Highly valuable time
series data in a consistent format is available for a wide
variety of data categories. Changes in ground access market
share by geographic area and travel market segment can be traced
over several decades. |
Four:
Understand Patterns and Demands |
"Data collection and system monitoring shall be used by
the States and local agencies to evaluate the performance of
intermodal facilities and systems to determine the efficiency of
the movement of people and goods." |
Ground access problem can be identified, based on an
understanding of existing and projected conditions and existing
performance. Is demand skewed toward CBD, or focussed on some
other concentrated district? Is congestion better or worse than
it was five years ago? At times of greatest congestion, is the
airport serving primarily resident non-business travelers, or
nonresident business travelers? What will conditions be like 5,
10 or 20 years from now? |
Pathbreaking work has been undertaken at the San Francisco
airport to understand, and to model, existing conditions and
patterns in ground access (e.g.,nature of elasticities with
relation to price of parking, evaluation of policy options for
managing and regulating shared ride van operators) for
application to near and long term policy issues. The Washington,
D.C. MPO has prepared an Airport Ground Access Element of their
Airport System Plan. |
Five:
Develop Alternative Strategies and Actions
|
"Statewide and local strategies and actions that improve
the intermodal efficiency for the movement of people and goods
shall be developed and evaluated. Methods for increasing
productivity and the use of advanced technologies . . . shall
be evaluated where appropriate. The evaluation program shall
determine what project or combination of projects and actions
would most effectively improve the intermodal productivity of
transportation systems, in terms of the established performance
measures, for both the short and long term." |
Deficiencies of system have been established at a detail that
should help to define a reasonable range of alternatives for
testing and evaluation. It is critical that the options
considered include a full range of possible solutions, beyond the
initial concepts of highway and rail. In San Francisco the
private sector has developed an elaborate shared ride van system,
with the public sector examining major options to provide the
appropriate level of regulation to those services. Water
transportation services are a part of overall strategies in
Boston and New York, and are under discussion in San Francisco.
|
Policies range from striping at curb that encourages non-SOV
airport access to the creation of exclusive right-of-way
service, such as at Cleveland, Chicago, and Atlanta. Physical
examples include careful placement of public mode services at
closer curb of main baggage claim area In New Orleans.
Institutional examples include design of the franchise for ground
access services at Charlotte or New Orleans, or the creation of
new taxi cab system at Dulles. The creation of a two-tiered
service level concept at Toronto Pearson airport responds to
sudden growth of unregulated limo and black car services around
the world. |
Six:
Analyze and Evaluate Alternative Strategies and
Actions |
"The evaluation program shall determine what project or
combination of projects and actions would most effectively
improve the intermodal productivity of transportation systems, in
terms of the established performance measures, for both the short
and long term."
|
Performance measures established early in the process are
used to evaluate alternative actions and policies. Chapter
Seven of this Guide examines a cross section of evaluation tools.
The evaluation of alternative strategies can be based on indices
that go beyond the analysis of vehicle flows, and include such
concepts as the mobility of people and goods, and accessibility
to various activities and land uses. |
In New York Area, the airport access project is the subject
of full major investment analysis, including preparation of a
final environmental impact statement. In Salt Lake City analysis
of alternatives focussed on near term options to deal with
serious air quality non-attainment situation. In Boston,
evaluation of alternatives shifted from an initial focus on
availability of modes to an analysis of the total vehicle miles
of travel implications of all modal options. |
Seven:
Implement and Monitor Selected Policy
Interventions |
"A process for periodic assessment of the effectiveness
of implemented strategies, in terms of the area's established
performance measures, shall be implemented. The results of this
evaluation shall be provided to decision makers to provide
guidance on selection of effective strategies for future
implementation." |
Strategies implemented are influenced by goals, objectives
and performance measures of specific cases under consideration.
In Salt Lake, the dominant policy issue was air quality, not
service quality; thus selected strategy changed the level of
pollution from shuttle vans, rather than changing travel time.
Salt Lake and Washington National provide space for all
on-airport rental car operations in garage near terminal
eliminating VMT caused by multiple courtesy vehicles by separate
rental car companies. |
Massachusetts Port Authority is monitoring and periodically
reassessing its overall ground access strategy. The agency has
monitored the air quality implications of its actions ranging
from parking pricing policies to the monthly variations in
ridership on its express bus services. A series of comprehensive
ground access surveys are taken every five years, which make it
possible to observe change in the travel behavior of different
market segments of users. |
been stagnant recently. In a recent newsletter, they compare
this lack of growth with the experience of Zurich, Frankfurt,
and Washington, which have had continued air traffic growth in
spite of poor economic conditions for the host economies. In
fact, much of the growth in international travel has shifted
across the Hudson River to Newark, which has better travel
times to the traditional financial districts and other
adjacent markets.
Accommodation of Economic Growth
A desire to accommodate growth, with better service to the
airport user, is a common motivation for investment in airport
access. The total reconfiguration of the Pittsburgh airport
from a multi-finger-pier airport to a modern mid-field airside
terminal configuration caused the need for new state highway
investment to the new landside terminal area, much the same as
Atlanta had done a decade before. A major partnership was
born between the airport agency and the state highway agency
to reconfigure the airport, and prepare for its growth as a
hub. Similarly, to provide infrastructure for continued
growth, Las Vegas has now assembled an innovative financial
proposal that calls for aviation funds to be used within the
airport boundaries, and for National Highway System funding
outside of the airport boundaries. Other airports facing
rapid growth, such as Manchester New Hampshire, are working
with state highway departments to plan and implement totally
new access routes.
Localized Air Quality Problems
The desire to contribute to regional air quality concerns has
motivated the Salt Lake City airport to undertake a program to
minimize particulate pollutants both on and off of the
airport. Meteorologically, the Salt Lake City airport is
located in a different air basin from the downtown area of the
city, and the airport is the chief activity center for this
area. Thus, for given policy intervention under consideration
in Salt Lake, the policy issue at hand is not the improvement
of travel times to the airport, (as is the case in the New
York City project), but rather the particulates being created
due to airport related activities. Thus, while developing a
program to replace all diesel equipment on the airside with
electric or compressed natural gas, the airport began a
program to purchase natural gas vans for private operators of
ground access services. By a creative use of on-airport user
fee structures, the expense borne by the operator is returned
by a lower fee structure. Note that this policy intervention
neither increases the number of persons using the high
occupancy vans, decreases travel time nor changes roadway
congestion levels. Rather, it deals with the issue of
particulate pollution, which is the specific environmental
problem being faced.
Guaranteed Service Availability for Airport Passengers
Dealing with the ground transportation needs of the air
passenger is a continuing reason to develop innovative
programs in airport ground access. In Charlotte, North
Carolina an exclusive franchise to sell tickets for shared
ride services has been granted to one company. In turn, this
company must agree to provide at least two vans waiting at the
baggage pick up curb at all times from 6:00 a.m. to midnight -
-whether or not there is any demand for the services. As part
of the contract with the city, no one will wait for an on-
demand service for more than 15 minutes. Similar institutional
arrangements were established in 1991 in New Orleans, when one
shuttle van firm was given exclusive rights to sell tickets at
the airport. As a result of this regulatory structure, the
operators of this service have attained a load factor of 7.5
passengers per trip, which is exceptional for a small van
operation. These two cities experience follows the
development of a similar franchise concept at Washington s
Dulles International airport, which applies to all outgoing
taxis as well as shared ride services. At Dulles a holding
company has been granted an exclusive right to pick up taxi
patrons at the airport. That company, in turn, provides
services through 285 owner-operated cabs. Each of these cabs
can be no more than four years old, and must meet strict
standards of performance.
Environmental Mitigation for Surrounding Communities
The aggressive program to improve ground access services at
Boston s Logan International Airport was developed based on a
concern to lower the environmental damage being experienced by
adjacent communities, most noticeably East Boston. For this
reason, the alternative policies and scenarios examined for
Massport have focussed on the minimization of vehicle trips
through the impacted neighborhoods as the prime concern. This
concern has led to a focusing on the number of ground
transportation trips caused by a given number of air traveler
trips. In this evaluative system, a wide variety of strategies
are examined for their impact on vehicle mile traveled (VMT)
generation: Massport planners have focused on strategies that
can lower VMT experienced in the adjacent neighborhoods.
Using a performance measure described in Chapter Three of this
Guide, Massport planners looked at public policy interventions
in terms of their ability to effectively minimize VMT. In a
given case, that policy might seek to encourage the pick-
up/drop-off trip to become a drive alone/park trip. These
concept challenges some of the most fundamental performance
measures used in areas other than airport ground access
planning. A vehicle with two persons -- one of whom will then
return home after dropping off the air passenger-- is not
considered to be more efficient that a vehicle with one
passenger going directly to the parking garage. This
performance measure was developed in response to an
understanding of the policy issue defined for this particular
airport-- that of environmental disruption of adjacent
communities.
Problem Definition -- A Summary of Experience
For a rural airport experiencing sudden growth and severe
isolation, the principal problem of airport ground access can
often be quickly defined as a lack of high quality roadway
capacity. For an airport in an older metropolitan area
suffering from non-attainment of air quality standards, such
as Boston s Logan airport, the problem of airport ground
access is one of lowering VMT-- even to the point of
subsidizing services to accomplish this. For Charlotte North
Carolina, the ground access problem was concerned with the
lack of available services for air passengers. For Salt Lake
City, the ground access problem was not travel time, but
rather the emissions of particulates. In each of these
examples from American airports, the nature of the problem
being addressed is first carefully defined. Based on this
understanding of the unique circumstances of the individual
airport, a program of ground access improvements can be
developed.
This review of experience in problem definition among American
airports suggests that there are essentially two major
categories of concerns leading to improvements in airport
ground transportation: those for airports that have air
quality attainment and congestion issues, and those that do
not. For the airport manager in a region that has attained
the national air quality standards, and that does not suffer
from significant levels of congestion, the ground access issue
turns to the standards of accessibility experienced by the
user. For the airport manager in a region that must alter the
emissions generation of all mobile sources, the issue of
airport ground access quickly turns to the task of becoming
part of a larger region-wide strategy to deal with mobile
source emissions. This will affect the formulations of goals
and objective for the program, and will affect the nature of
the implementation strategies that must precede funding for a
successful program. In the following sections of this Chapter
of the Guide, the roles of various agencies having a role in
the definition of relevant policy considerations will be
reviewed.
2.3 AGENCIES, ROLES AND REGULATIONS
FAA Planning
The Master Planning Process
The establishment of basic policy direction concerning airport
planning comes from the several phases of the existing
planning process; for the metropolitan area, establishment of
basic goals and objectives occurs in the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan. The airport, too, should have its basic
program for growth and development established in its own
airport master planning process. The concept of including
ground access consideration into that master planning process
is not new, and is well established in existing Federal
Aviation Administration guidance for the airport planning
process. Concerning the preparation of Airport Master Plans,
Advisory Circular 150/5050-6a says this about Airport Access
Plans:
This element of the airport master plan should indicate
proposed or existing routes from the airport to central
business districts and to points of connection with existing
or planned ground transportation arteries and beltways. All
modes of access should be considered including highways, rapid
transit, and access by helicopters. The airport access plan
should be of a general nature since detailed plans of access
outside the boundaries of the airport will be developed by the
highway departments, transit authorities, and comprehensive
planning bodies. Special studies of access systems beyond the
airport boundary will normally not be included in a master
plan effort.
FAA s Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal
Facilities
The concept that the details of the airport access plan must
be developed with agencies outside of the airport boundaries
is further developed in Advisory Circular 150/5360-13:
Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal
Facilities, which states:
Circulation systems within the airport boundaries should
minimize congestion and support efficient access to the
passenger terminal. Ground access systems extend beyond the
airport boundaries and a thorough analysis of motor vehicle
traffic flows associated with current and projected future air
passenger demand is essential to assure that ground congestion
does not become an unanticipated constraint on a passenger
terminal s performance.
Given that this thorough analysis of motor vehicle traffic
flows should occur, and that these flows will happen
primarily on facilities outside of the airport boundaries, the
Circular emphasizes that local and regional transportation
authorities as well as public operators of ground transport
services, should be included in the planning and design
process. The Planning and Design circular also emphasizes
that the ground access system should include more than highway
access, and incorporate public modes where appropriate:
Public transit system service ground access to the airport,
preferably the airport terminal area, should be considered.
High quality public transit service, as provided by rail
systems or express bus operations can attract significant
ridership and help alleviate vehicular congestion in the
terminal area. Easy direct access to terminal buildings, as
well as baggage transport and security, are essential to
encourage substantial passenger use.
The FAA documents make clear that airport ground access is at
once an essential part of the airport s master planning and
design responsibilities, and, at the same time must function
within the context of regional transportation systems and the
policies of government agencies typically unrelated to the
airports operation. A main purpose of this Guide is to
document the nature of the planning process, and to aid
practitioners in building partnerships between on-airport
planning and activities and those managed off of the airport.
State and MPO Planning
The Transportation Planning and Programming Process
Both states and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
are involved in airport ground access issues at two levels,
planning and programming. When an airport access project has
been defined and its costs have become understood, the
proponent must be skilled at the task of obtaining funding
through the programming process. But, long before the stage of
clear project definition, the subject of airport ground access
is developed and analyzed in the planning process undertaken
at both the state and MPO level. The proponent of airport
access improvements needs to develop an understanding of both
these critical areas. The major steps of the planning and
programming processes are summarized in Figure 2.3-1. The key
steps in that process are summarized in this section of Chapter Two.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 2.301
The (FHWA) Planning and Programming Process
Source 6
The Transportation Planning Process is represented in Figure
2.3-1 as a multi-layered process, expressed in the diagram in
three dimensions. The time orientation in this planning
process is long term, at twenty years or longer. This time
frame allows the thoughtful analysis of such issues as land
use change and land use policy, that require the longer time
orientation. In the words of the Joint Planning Regulations,
addressing at least a twenty year planning horizon, the plan
shall include both long-range and short range
strategies/actions that lead to the development of an
integrated transportation system that facilitates the
efficient movement of people and goods. The plan must be
updated at least every three years in air quality non-
attainment areas, and every five years in attainment areas.
Included within this transportation planning process are
dimensions such as energy policy, freight planning, and system
preservation. One of the key layers in this transportation
planning process is the management systems. As described
later, management systems represent a major tool for the
analysis of the success or failure of access to intermodal
facilities, such as airports. Within this multifaceted
planning process revealed needs are analyzed and from this
analysis stems the development of proposed projects for
implementation. During the planning phase, the process is not
driven by the image of the desired facility, but rather by the
analysis of need. In the planning process, solutions that are
based on policies -- such as change in pricing, change in
regulation, or change in management strategy-- are given equal
level of attention with solutions that involve traditional
capital investment concepts. These projects and policies are
assembled into the long range Transportation Plan, as
illustrated by the arrow feeding from the planning process to
the Transportation Plan. From the longer list of projects in
the Transportation Plan, a shorter range Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) is created. The TIP shall cover a
period of not less than 3 years, but may cover a longer period
. . . the priority list shall group the projects that are to
be undertaken in each of the years . . . Beyond the three
years, the priorities can be more loosely defined. A project
that appears on the first years priority list (often referred
to as the annual element of the TIP) is eligible for federal
funding in that year.
========================================
Section 1024 of ISTEA requires that metropolitan planning incorporate
15 factors, one that covers:
International border crossings and access to ports, airports,
intermodal transportation facilities, major freight distribution
routes, national parks, recreation areas, monuments, historic sites
and military installations.
========================================
The ISTEA process of planning and evaluation continues with
the monitoring and feedback of the actual performance
resulting from the projects and strategies implemented. This
performance information serves as input to the continuing
transportation planning process. It should be noted that this
process applies to both metropolitan based, and state based
planning and programming. For most issues of airport access,
the primary location for programming activities will lie with
the MPO. For that reason, the discussion that follows focuses
on the planning and programming activities at the MPO level.
In most cases, as projects are developed at the regional
level, the statewide programming functions incorporate the
results of regional decisions with a process the parallels
that of regional approvals.
The Management Systems
As illustrated in Figure 2.3-1, within the layers of tools
and considerations contained within the Transportation
Planning Process, the management systems are a key element in
the development of the understanding of transportation needs,
and the analysis of potential strategies to deal with those
needs. For the proponent of airport ground access
improvements, two of the six management systems noted on
Figure 2.3-1 are the most important: the Congestion Management
System, (CMS), and the Intermodal Management System, (IMS).
The passage of ISTEA has mandated certain major shifts of
emphasis in the transportation planning process. Some of these
changes are designed to better support the relationship
between planning and the implementation of the Clean Air Act
as amended. Others are related to a major theme of the ISTEA
legislation, that of accountability, which brings about a new
emphasis on the monitoring and continued evaluation of the
implications, strategies and actions undertaken. Both the CMS
and IMS have been developed to both monitor the status of the
system, and to allow for the quick evaluation of conceptual
level plans and strategies to deal with the problems of the
system revealed through the program of monitoring and
feedback.
The Congestion Management System (CMS)
========================================
The CMS is a systematic process of: identifying and implementing
strategies that provide the most efficient use of existing and future
transportation facilities in all areas of a State.. . where congestion
is occurring or expected to occur; Considering strategies that reduce
single occupant vehicle travel and improve existing transportation
system efficiency
========================================
The planner of airport access improvement has to be aware of
the importance of incorporating non-Single Occupant Vehicle
(SOV) elements into the access program whenever possible.
This will maximize the chances of funding proposed
improvements that may increase general purpose travel
capacity. Importantly, strategies to deal with the increased
highway capacity are not limited to the actual roadways under
consideration for funding. Once a decision has been made to
include a highway that expands capacity, the CMS program is
expected to provide for programs throughout the corridor in
which the new facility is located:
"The CMS shall provide an appropriate analysis of all
reasonable (including multimodal) travel demand reduction and
operational management strategies for the corridor in which a
project that will result in a significant increase in capacity
for SOVs (adding general purpose lanes to an existing highway
or constructing a new highway) is proposed."
The legislation is specific concerning the range of strategies
to be considered within a CMS. The regulations call for
"considering strategies that reduce single occupant vehicle
travel and improve existing transportation system efficiency."
The CMS plays a major role in determining the eligibility of
major improvements, such as the creation of a new highway to
serve an airport. Of particular importance to the development
of airport access plans and strategies is the policy mandate
established by ISTEA concerning the construction of general
purpose roadways, or roadway facilities without provisions for
priority to high occupancy vehicles. Section 450.320 (b) of
the State and Metropolitan planning regulations state that in
areas
"...designated as non-attainment for ozone or carbon dioxide.
Federal funds may not be programmed for any project that will
result in a significant increase in carrying capacity for
single occupant vehicle (a new general purpose highway on a
new location, or adding general purpose lanes, with the
exception of safety improvements or the elimination of
bottlenecks) unless the project results from congestion
management system (CMS)...
========================================
Strategies That must Be Considered for
Congestion Management System
o Transportation Demand Management
o Traffic operation improvement
o High occupancy vehicles
o Public transit capital and operation improvements
o Nontraditional modes (e.g., bicycles and pedestrian facilities)
o Congestion pricing
o Growth management and activity center strategies
o Access management techniques
o Incident management
o Intelligent Transportation system technologies, and, (lastly,)
o Addition of general purpose lanes.
========================================
The Intermodal Management System (IMS)
The purpose of the IMS is summarized in the ISTEA planning
regulations that call for the state to develop an IMS that
provides efficient, safe and convenient movement of people and
goods through integration of transportation facilities and
systems and that improves the coordination in planning and
implementation of facilities for air, water, and the various
land-based systems. The IMS was developed to help focus
policy attention on issues such as airport ground access,
where the planning of one mode should become better integrated
with the planning of other modes. Airports are clearly one of
the intermodal facilities for which the system is designed.
An intermodal facility is defined in the regulations as
highway elements providing terminal access, coastal, inland
and Great Lake ports, canals, pipeline farms, airports, marine
and/or rail terminals, major truck terminals, transit
terminals including park and ride facilities, and intercity
bus terminals."
========================================
The Intermodal Management System is a "systematic process which:
identifies key linkages between one or more modes of transportation
where the performance of use of one mode will affect another, defines
strategies for improving the effectiveness of these modal
interactions, and evaluates and implements these strategies."
========================================
For many airport access issues, the IMS can be seen as a
highly specialized subset of the CMS, which calls for policy
attention at specific sub elements of the system. While the
CMS examines the quality of mobility of people and goods for
large scale systems (in all areas where congestion exists or
can reasonably be expected) the IMS focuses on the relatively
smaller set of facilities and services, generally referred to
as intermodal facilities. Once the problems of this subset
of the transportation system are defined, the intended goals
of the policy interventions are essentially the same as those
goals defined by the CMS: to improve the mobility of people
and goods, and to make most efficient use of the existing
system.
The CMS plays a major role in determining the eligibility of
major improvements, such as the creation of a new highway to
serve an airport. Of particular importance to the development
of airport access plans and strategies is the policy mandate
established by ISTEA concerning the construction of general
purpose roadways, or roadway facilities without provisions for
priority to high occupancy vehicles. Section 450.320 (b) of
the State and Metropolitan planning regulations state that in
areas
"...designated as non-attainment for ozone or carbon dioxide,
Federal funds may not be programmed for any project that will
result in a significant increase in carrying capacity for
single occupant vehicle (a new general purpose highway on a
new location, or adding general purpose lanes, with the
exception of safety improvements or the elimination of
bottlenecks) unless the project results from congestion
management system (CMS) . . . "
The IMS process is inherently different from the CMS process
in several ways. First, while the CMS process will often be
developed and managed at a metropolitan level, under the
general supervision of the state, the IMS is clearly a
statewide function. Second, the IMS process is less closely
linked to sanctions than the CMS. Failure to include a
proposed airport access road in the CMS process could make
federal funding impossible. The IMS, by contrast, is an
opportunity for the airport ground access planner to bring the
problem of inadequate access to the state programming process,
where it must be at least addressed at the level of detail
appropriate for the management systems. In many ways the IMS
process serves as something of a warning flag that signals the
existence of a problem in the overall performance of the
system.
Role of The Major Investment Study (MIS)
A key element in the transportation planning process for
airport ground access solutions is the development of specific
projects that require significant capital investment. Within
the derivation of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan,
planning is first undertaken at a regional systems level that
involves analysis of the entire geographic area, and the
understanding of the full system. Corridors and subareas are
then defined for more detailed development of projects and
policies. The process by which the data describing need for
transportation improvements is transformed into specific
projects, policies and actions for corridors and subareas is
called the Major Investment Study.
To define a corridor or subarea the MIS planning regulations
refer to a set of travel markets affected by mobility
problems/needs and possible transportation improvements,
based on the understanding of specific set of origins and
destinations. The travel market affected by mobility
problems for a MIS could be defined as all trips to and from
the airport. The MIS must be undertaken in a metropolitan area
when the need to consider a major transportation investment
has been identified by the planning process, and where federal
funds might become involved, even at a later date.
Figure 2.3-2 shows the five steps in the conduct of a Major
Investment Study, which include:
o Initiation;
o Development of Initial Set of Alternatives;
o Screening and Decisions on Detailed Set of
Alternatives;
o Analysis, Refinement and Evaluation of the
Alternatives; and
o Selection of the Preferred Investment Strategy.
At the end of the MIS, the project as been defined in terms of
mode, and in terms of scope (e.g. number of through lanes.)
The project development phase then follows, in which design
options within the established concept and scope then are
examined. The purpose of project development is to examine
alternatives within that established design concept and scope.
This can only happen to a project which has been accepted on
the TIP ( and on the revised plan if needed). From this point
serious design options like the location of stations, and
specific right of way can be analyzed.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 2.3-2, Major Investment Study Process
Source 8
For some projects, the filing of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) will come at the completion of the MIS,
while, for others, the draft EIS will wait until the
development of design alternatives, and will array the
possible design alternatives. The Final EIS then documents
the design alternative proposed for implementation. As
always, the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
process is not completed until the acceptance of the Final
EIS, through the record of decision.
Relationship Between Airport Access and the Clean Air Act
Conformity Regulations
With the completion of the MIS phase, the proposed airport
ground access project has been defined in terms of Design
Concept and Scope (e.g., the project has been determined to be
a freeway of six lanes.) With this new level of detail, the
relationship of the proposed project to regional air quality
attainment can be calculated. For a project seeking highway or
transit funding (as opposed to FAA funding) the project must
be reviewed for its conformity with the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for attainment of clean air standards under the
transportation conformity rules. With the new information
about the design concept and scope of the project emerging
from the MIS process, the project must be added to the
existing Metropolitan Transportation Plan to ensure that the
Plan still conforms to the SIP.
For areas that are suffering from non-attainment of certain
air quality standards, the state is required to prepare a
State Implementation Plan that commits to a plan that brings
the region s air quality in compliance with national
standards. According to the regulations, the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan can only be approved if it is consistent
with the SIP. As new projects are developed, they must first
be added to the Transportation Plan, the plan is then checked
for conformity with the SIP, and projects from the plan added
to the TIP. The TIP is then reexamined for its conformity
with the SIP. In making this determination, the managers of
the SIP must determine that these projects will not cause or
contribute to new violations of air quality standards,
exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with timely
attainment or required interim emission reductions towards
attainment.
Programming Highway and Transit Projects for Airport Access
For airport access projects that require either highway or
transit funding, and are located in a region with non-
attainment status there are three separate steps in which the
candidate project will be reviewed for conformity with air
quality requirements. The upper third of Figure 2.3-3 shows
that the entire Metropolitan Plan is tested against the no-
build base case to determine whether the implementation of the
entire plan would bring about conformity with the air quality
improvements required in the SIP. If it does not bring about
the desired improvements, then either (a) the plan has to be
revised or (b) the SIP has to be revised. If it does attain
conformity, the projects contained therein can be inserted
into the three-year program of priority projects known as the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). No project outside
of the Plan can be added to the TIP.
Even if an access project is not expected to use federal
highway or transit funds, certain provisions of the
transportation conformity rule may apply to the project. All
regionally significant nonfederal projects (any facility
serving major activity centers and other regional needs), must
be included in the regional emissions analysis for a
transportation plan or TIP (40 CFR 93.103/40 CFR 51.452). In
addition, no agency that receives Federal highway or transit
funds may approve a regionally significant highway or transit
project, regardless of the funding source, unless it comes
from a conforming plan and TIP, or it is in the regional
emissions analysis supporting the currently conforming TIP, or
it meets other tests (40 CFR 93.129/40 CFR 51.450).
It is important to note that at this early stage of project
definition and development, the candidate project may not be
defined to the level of Design Concept and Scope necessary to
understand its particular impact on regional emissions.
(Design Concept refers to the nature of the facility, such as
freeway, or rail line, while Scope refers to the number of
lanes or tracks.) If the required MIS for the candidate
project is not completed, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan
can proceed with a place keeper element that can take two
forms. The Plan can contain a best guess of the outcome of
the MIS, or the plan can contain the no-build case for the
candidate project. At such time as the MIS has defined the
design concept and scope for the project, the Plan must again
be examined for conformity with the project included in order
for the candidate project to be carried into the TIP.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 2.3-3 Transportation Conformity Process
Source 10
Assuming that the plan achieved conformity status with the
SIP, the selected projects of the TIP are now examined for
their collective impact on conformity with the requirements of
the SIP. As shown in the of Figure 2.3-3, if the TIP is found
not to conform, changes must be made in either the TIP, the
Plan, or the SIP to achieve conformity.
As the TIP-approved project continues its project-based EIS,
the third check for conformity occurs, as shown on the bottom
third of Figure 2.3-3. By this time, the proposed alternative
within the established Design Concept and Scope have been
selected, and the project has sufficient detail to forecast
its impacts on relevant intersections and Hot Spots for
Carbon Monoxide. Armed with this data, the project itself is
tested for its conformity with the requirements of the SIP.
Determining Conformity under the General Conformity
Regulations
The process summarized in Figure 2.3-3 is required for those
projects funded through the various sources available to fund
highway and transit improvements. Funds from the FAA, on the
other hand, are covered under the general conformity
regulations that cover most other Federal expenditures. As
the final rulemaking notes, the general conformity rule
covers all other Federal actions, including those associated
with railroads, airports, and ports." In overall intent, the
process is similar. In order to be found in conformity with
the SIP, a given project, such as a new airport parking garage
for example, has to be found not to cause a new violation,
worsen existing violations, or slow down the schedule for
attainment established in the SIP.
========================================
To fully understand the implications of the general conformity
regulations for airport ground access, it is important to examine the
kind of air quality impacts for which the airport must develop a
mitigation program. The Environmental Protection Agency has
made it clear that the general conformity rule will cover the indirect
emissions caused by vehicles coming to and going from the new facility.
========================================
It is important to understand the type of air quality impacts
that an airport must examine. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has made it clear that the general conformity
rule will cover new emissions, both direct and indirect, which
the airport agency can practicably control, and which it will
maintain control over due to a continuing operational
responsibility. Therefore airports should check with the
appropriate FAA Airports District Office to determine the need
for determining air quality impacts under the general
conformity rule.
This clarification has considerable impact on the study of
access to intermodal facilities, and to airports in specific.
The regulation establishes that when an airport operator
intends to spend federal funds on a project within the
boundaries of the airport, the air pollution emissions impacts
experienced off the facility must be documented to the
standards required by the SIP. In short, this means that
airport operators must become involved in the development of
mitigation measures that minimize the growth of SOV travel,
(i.e., that list of policy options which is the focus of the
Congestion Management System). For the airport operator the
general conformity determination will require the examination
of the air quality implications of the proposed investment in
two situations: first, general conformity determination will
be necessary for investments affecting patterns of ground
access directly, such as the investment in a new or widened
airport access road on airport property. Second, conformity
determination will be necessary when seeking federal funds for
airport improvements not primarily associated with access, but
which for one reason or another increase the number of
vehicles coming to the airport. In both situations, the
airport operator must become a partner in the development of
the region s CMS, and other actions to bring the region into
attainment status for air quality.
FAA Funding under the General Conformity Regulations
An airport operator who intends to spend FAA funds on a
project to improve airport ground access within the borders of
the airport must follow the procedures defined for general
conformity determination. However, the general regulations
allow for the transportation investment to use procedures
established under the transportation regulations if the
proponent succeeds in having the MPO place the project on the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan. If included in the plan,
the project can attain approvals under the process described
in Figure 2.3-3 above.
At local discretion, the airport operator can proceed under
the provisions of the general conformity regulations, which
require that more work is done by the proponent and less by
the MPO process. The advantages of this option stem from the
fact that the proponent can proceed independently of the MPO,
and its cycle of SIP approvals and revisions. However, the
subject of airport ground access usually involves considerable
intervention off of the airport property, and will, by its
nature, require assertive cooperation with the state and MPO
planners. Given these considerations, the adoption of the
transportation conformity regulations for programs of
airport access improvements often represents the most prudent
and cautious approach to conformity determination.
Further, since an airport access improvement is likely to be
subject to the nonfederal project requirements of the
transportation rule, it must be included in a regional
transportation emissions analysis. This also argues for
utilizing the MPO process for completing conformity.
2.4 PREPARING THE WORK PROGRAM
After the successful completion of the process of examining
both the policy context and problem definition, a technical
work program needs to be established to guide the following
six steps in the Airport Ground Access Planning Process. As
an example, Figure 2-4 shows the structure of a technical work
program, the Key components of each step, and the chapters of
this Guide that discuss them.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 2.4-1 Technical Approach to Airport Access Planning
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 2.4(cont.) Technical Approach to Airport Access Planning
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER THREE
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
3.1 THE LOGIC OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
It is a characteristic of the planning process mandated by
ISTEA that the rules for program monitoring and evaluation be
established early in the cycle. The planner is asked to
determine at an early juncture what measures of performance
and effectiveness will be utilized in the program of
monitoring and evaluation. It is particularly important that
the key issues for monitoring be well established and agreed
upon before commencement of major, and possibly expensive,
data collection efforts are begun.
This Chapter of the Guide has been prepared to help local
planners and administrators develop goals, objectives, and
performance measurements that are relevant to the needs of the
local community. Efforts at developing performance measures in
Oregon and Boston are summarized in this section. Finally,
Chapter Three ends with a proposed basic list of areas for
performance evaluation by those just starting the process of
ISTEA-based planning for airport access improvements.
In this Guide , the concept of performance measurement is
presented for application in two different contexts. First,
performance measurement at the systems level is a key concept
in two of the ISTEA mandated procedures, the Congestion
Management System (CMS) and the Intermodal Management System
(IMS) discussed in Chapter two. In these two important
procedures, the effectiveness of strategies to improve airport
ground access is examined at a systems level. In any given
state, the statewide IMS might make observations concerning
the characteristics of ground access for ten separate
airports. Thus, the performance measures used in statewide
planning will focus on the overall adequacy of the system,
rather than on the details of any given airport. Often, this
regionally oriented, or statewide oriented, process serves as
an early warning alarm that access problems exist,
particularly when compared with the same aggregate level
observations for other facilities.
The detailed programs to deal with deficiencies observed using
the two management systems (IMS and CMS) are often developed
at the facility level, which is managed in most cases by the
airport owner/operator. In many cases, the goals, objectives
and measures developed and applied at a region wide, or
statewide scale will differ qualitatively from the goals,
objectives and measures developed and applied on a site
specific basis. This is because their functions are somewhat
different. In a hypothetical example, back up queues extending
into the arterial road system might be documented in a
statewide or region wide management system. In the statewide
analysis, the measures might focus on the impacts experienced
on the state highway. The measures established would be
appropriate for this scale of observation. The facility
manager, on the other hand, looking at the same problem, might
want to study curb dwell times, or alternative curb management
strategies. This Guide has been designed to be of value to
both those charged with observing the performance of the
system at the statewide or region wide level, and those
charged with dealing with performance at the facility level.
3.2 EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MEASURES FROM TWO
STATES
Oregon Intermodal Management Systems Work Program
An excellent example of the kinds of considerations
appropriate at the statewide level is provided in the Oregon
Intermodal Management System, one of the most respected
management system efforts in the county. The list of goals
and objectives and performance measures summarized in Table
3.1-1 shows a classic formulation of a system level
observation.
Goal: Accessibility/Availability. Within the general policy
goal of improving accessibility and availability, the Oregon
work program defined three specific objectives:
1. Minimize travel time to service. To measure performance
relative to this objective, base case travel times are
collected to major activity centers, or to the major
connecting highway. With the creation of alternative
strategies and actions for testing, various strategies are
then evaluated in terms of their effects on travel time. In
theory, this performance measure should be modally unbiased,
and can be used to measure the impacts of a wide variety of
strategies, from changes in regulation of taxicabs to the
creation of new transportation facility capacity. The use of
this measure requires the existence of some method of
calculating change in door to door times. A fully operational
network simulation can be used for developing this measure.
2. Optimize access for disabled for connecting services.
The issue of ADA compliance within the IMS is a sensitive one.
In general, the IMS is considered to be a relatively
ineffective mechanism for the enforcement of the provisions of
the ADA. However, the field surveys associated with the IMS
represent an opportunity for recording and assessing the
quality of access for all persons, including those with
disabilities. In the examination of the quality of airport
ground access, the focus of the analysis would be more toward
the ability to make connections at the terminal facility,
rather than with the architectural details within the
facility. However important these may be, they have more
effective mechanisms of enforcement that through the systems-
oriented vantage point of the IMS.
3. Provide capacity for peak hour loads. It is under the
objectives of Accessibility /Availability that the Oregon
system places the observation of level of service, and the
queuing of vehicles -- perhaps the most common of the measures
of the quality of airport access. In terms of monitoring, the
expedient of observing the characteristics of back up queues
can be used, providing it is done in a systematic manner.
Level of service observations at the terminal area are
discussed in Chapter Five of this Guide. This measure is
oriented to capacity observations, such as V/C -LOS, rather
than user-based travel times.
Goal: Affordability/Cost Minimization. To carry out the
general goal of improving affordability in airport ground
access, the Oregon program called for two specific objectives:
1. Minimize external and direct social costs. The external
costs of airport ground access should be carefully broken out
from the external costs of the airport operation itself. Thus,
the burden of noise from airplanes experienced by a
neighboring community would not be included in an IMS, while
the burden of increased noise and pollution stemming from
airport-generated traffic in a community would be appropriate
for inclusion in the IMS. Measurements here include the
classic issues for roadway external impacts, air, noise,
community disruption, impact on historic sites etc. Under this
objective, the Oregon work program also makes reference to
subsidization -- are the cost of airport ground services being
borne by groups other than the airport users?
2. Minimize capital costs. Under this potential
performance measure, the capital cost implications of
candidate strategies and actions must be noted and evaluated.
The extent to which this is measure of the performance of a
system can be debated; alternatively cost can be seen as a
constraint within which various levels of performance are
examined. However, if a policy goal minimize cost is
established, then saving expenses can be seen as measurable
level of performance.
Goal: Connectivity Between Modes. To carry out the general
policy goal of improving connectivity between modes, the
Oregon program established three specific objectives:
1. Connect major routes to local modes. The quality of
connection between modes is the major focus of attention of
the IMS. In order to measure this aspect of quality, a useful
surrogate is the wait time (or layover time) between modes.
The schedules of the connecting carriers can be used to build
the base case data description. Thus, service to a given town
center by limousine might be every two hours in the base case,
and every 70 minutes in the proposed candidate strategy. A
logical composite would look at service intervals for all
modes combined. Thus, combining scheduled bus and airport
limos, the town received service every 90 minutes.
| Table 3.1-1 An Example of Goals, Objectives and Measures
at the Systems Planning Level: From Oregon Intermodal
Management System |
| Goals |
Objectives |
Performance Measures |
Data Needed |
Source of Data |
| Accessibility Availability |
Minimize Travel Time |
Travel Time to Major Destinations |
Airport and State Transportation Facility Information,
Population and Employment data. Regional Transportation
Simulations. |
Should be available. |
| Optimize ADA Access |
Extent of Attainment of ADA Compliance |
Airport Compliance Schedules |
On Site Inventory of Compliance |
| Provide Peak Capacity |
Extent of Vehicle Queuing, and Overall Delay |
Quantification of Observed Delay and Back up |
Review Carrier Logs for On-time Performance |
| Affordability/ Cost Minimization |
Minimize Social Costs |
Subsidies and Environmental Costs |
Revenue Recovery, Quantified Pollution Costs |
FAA Summaries, Including Subsidies, Environmental Models |
| Minimize Capital Costs |
Maximized Use of Existing Capacity |
Cost Models, Condition Ratings |
Master Plans, Construction Cost Data; Inventory |
| Connectivity Between Modes |
Connect to Major Routes |
Service Availability Layover Times Between Modes. Travel
Times. |
Schedules, Limo/bus Timetables |
Review Plans, Conduct On-site Inventory |
| Provide Access Between Modes |
Parking Space per Passenger; Limo Space per Passenger;
Loading Area per Passenger |
Passenger Counts Parking/loading Areas |
Review Plans, Conduct On-site Inventory |
| Promote Easy Transfer Between Modes |
Time and Distance of Transfer Between Modes less than N
Minutes and N Feet |
Facility Plans and Specifications, surveys, field |
Inventory; Survey Customers On Quality of Transfer |
| Convenience/ Benefit Maximization |
Make Transit as Convenient as Possible |
Availability of Remote Intermodal Ticketing and Luggage
Support |
Existing Ticketing Choices |
Inventory Existing Services and Timetables |
| Promote Info on Intermodal Service Available |
Level of Dissemination of Information on Options |
Existing Information/Knowledge of Intermodal services. |
Inventory Existing Information Strategies; Consumer
Surveys |
| Flexibility |
Have Options Available for Bus, Limo and Shared Rider
Services |
Availability of Ground Access Options |
Inventory of Services Available |
Conduct Inventory of Existing Choices |
| Maximize Schedules |
Three Round Trips/day between Commercial Airports |
Schedules |
Review timetables |
| Provide Frequent HOV Service to Airports |
Set Classification System by Market Density |
Schedules |
Review timetables |
| Mobility |
Make Airport Limo/bus Competitive with Autos |
Ratio of Travel Times |
Travel Times and Speeds |
Travel time studies, schedules |
| Reliability |
Improve on Time Performance at Terminals |
Percent of Aircraft and Surface Transport Departures Outside
of 15 Minute Schedule |
On-time performance |
Internal Logs of Carries |
| Safety |
Improve Safety in Motion Both Air and Connecting Modes |
Accidents per Passenger Mile |
Accident Frequency and Severity Data |
Collect Data from Police and FAA |
| Legal/ Regulatory |
Reduce Obstacles to Service Provision |
Minimized Limitations to Use of Facilities by HOV Modes |
Synopsis of Current Regulations |
Survey Users and Service Providers |
| Encourage Innovative Service |
Extent of Innovative Management |
Synopsis of Current Regulations |
Survey Users and Providers |
2. Provide access between modes. This is a capacity
measure, looking at facility capacity, including such
observations as number of spaces per bus, spaces per
limousine, and parking spaces per user. This could be a very
important measure during periods of transition, such as that
currently experienced by many airports that do not have
facilities to deal with the sudden growth of prearranged
private limousines, also known as black cars. This data would
provide a quantitative base to deal with the difficult issue
of allocating curb space between vehicle categories. For areas
with no air pollution issue, more parking spaces per user
would be considered desirable; for areas facing travel demand
management strategies, maximization of available parking
spaces may or not be considered a good policy goal.
3. Promote easy transfer between modes. This measure would
observe both the time and distance of transfer perhaps
expressed as percent of transfers which take place under x
minutes, or y feet. Unlike many operations oriented measures,
this largely aids in the critique of design of existing
facilities, and the development of designs for new or altered
facilities. It could also be seen as a design standard, which
is somewhat different from a performance measure.
Goal: Convenience/Benefit Maximization: To carry out the
policy goal of improving convenience and maximizing benefit to
the users, the Oregon work program defined two objectives:
1. Make public modes convenient. Under this category, a
review would be undertaken of strategies available to the user
to encourage the use of higher occupancy vehicle modes.
Included in such possible strategies are the use of off site
check in facilities, and various schemes to aid with baggage.
When seen as a performance measure, a simple check off of the
existence or nonexistence of such strategies would serve as
the tool of measurement. In the base case condition, for
example, none of the possible strategies would be recorded as
in place; in the candidate strategy, one airport might offer
free sky cap service to the bus plaza, or ensure no-cost
baggage carts between drop off points and the interior check-
in area. The description of this review as a performance
measure could be debated.
2. Promote information on service availability. An
important measure of the quality of airport access is
the availability of information to the public concerning
airport access options, particularly those which utilize
higher occupancy vehicle services. Thus, one measure of the
performance of the system is the review of existing
strategies and their effectiveness. The most desirable tool
for this measurement would be a home interview survey, which
gauges the extent of knowledge of access options for the
frequent users and seldom users alike. Lesser cost data
collection would be a subjective review of the available
public information mechanisms, including the extent of
distribution of schedules.
Goal: Flexibility: To implement the policy goal of maximizing
flexibility for the users of airports in Oregon the work
program defined two objectives:
1. Have modal choices to/from airport. One of the most
basic categories of data to collect in the study of airport
access is the existence, or lack of existence, of alternatives
to the private automobile. Thus, upon commencing an
examination of ground access conditions, the very first piece
of data would be the simple presence of various modes, while
the attributes of the modes, and the quality of their services
would be analyzed at a later step. In addition to observing
the attributes, the program must also record the performance
of the system, often measured in terms of the number of riders
choosing higher occupancy vehicle modes. The performance of
these various modes is analyzed most directly by examining
their mode share. Mode share to non-single occupant modes is
one of the most effective measures of the performance of the
system, in terms of its contribution to CMS and IMS strategies
of the region.
2. Maximize schedules. In the Oregon Transportation Plan,
specific service standards are established for air service
within the state. This measure is more appropriate for the
discussion of a statewide systems plan than for a discussion
of ground access.
3. Provide frequent HOV services to airport. This measure
would document frequency of service, and is largely overlapped
with earlier measures which observed waiting time (or layover
time) between services.
Concerning the policy goals of increasing mobility,
reliability and safety for users of ground access systems,
the Oregon work program defined these objectives:
Goal: Mobility.
Make HOV modes competitive with auto. Mobility for non-SOV
mode options is best documented by overall travel times
experienced by the user. Surveys of the actual experiences of
the user, (including delays associated with the shared ride
concept) should be undertaken. Other measures of comparative
mobility include comparative speeds; this same data can be
expressed as comparative average speeds, or comparative
average travel times over a specified distance. In California,
a mobility index has been created that calculates (in
effect) vehicle speed times vehicle occupancy to create an
index of the mobility provided by a given facility.
Goal: Reliability.
Improve on time performance for connecting mode. The extent to
which service providers actually produce services on time is
important to document, particularly when the user may be
waiting outside at the curb area. Collecting this data will
require some level of self reporting form the service
providers. Percentage of service which leaves more than 15
minutes behind schedule is recommended as a performance
measure in the Oregon work program.
Goal: Safety.
Improve safety on modes and in terminals. Accidents per 1000
passenger miles can be obtained from police or public utility
commissions. Crime reports and accidents in the parking lots
can be recorded. In the Minnesota IMS work program, for
example, the first performance measure established concerned
the perception of safety from crime experienced by the
customer. The second measure was the empirical data on
reported crime.
Goal: Legal / Regulatory.
Two objectives are noted under the broadly defined goal of
regal and regulatory reform:
1. Reduce obstacles to service provision. While finding
measures of performance in this area may be difficult, it is
clear that the extent to which service improvements are being
constrained by regulatory constraints should be documented.
Forming a measure of regulatory user friendliness is
probably unnecessary. The Oregon document suggests a synopsis
of current regs.
2. Encourage innovative service. The extent to which
existing legal and regulatory mechanisms facilitate
public private partnerships is noted in this category. Again,
what is proposed is less a measure of performance than a
survey of existing conditions which could be improved.
The Development of a New Performance Measure at Boston Logan
International Airport
While the Oregon Statewide Intermodal Management System serves
as an example of the integration of policy issues established
on a statewide basis with the observation of performance in
airport access, Boston s Logan Airport can be used as an
example for the development of a facility-based program of
performance measurement. As noted in Chapter Two, a key
question in the definition of policy objectives concerns the
attainment status of the region in terms of the Clean Air Act.
Boston has a serious air pollution problem, which is
particularly intense in many neighborhoods surrounding Logan
Airport. Thus, great emphasis has been placed on the
development of strategies which will minimize the
environmental implications on the adjacent neighborhoods.
In the 1970's, one commonly used measure of success of the
ground access strategy was the mode split to rail transit.
During the late 1960's a variety of possible investments in
rail transit to Logan were examined, with a prediction of the
change in mode split to rail as a principal evaluative
measure. During the 1970's the percentage of air passengers
arriving by car fell sharply, with a growth in higher
occupancy vehicle modes. Importantly, over a 20 year period
the mode split to rail transit grew from 6%, to 8% while the
mode split to buses and limos grew from 4% to 16%. Thus, with
the conscious development of a ground access strategy in the
1970's and 1980's, mode split to all HOV modes (including rail
transit) received considerable policy emphasis.
With the passage of the Clean Air Act, the analysis of ground
access patterns to Logan had to examine all of the policy
options available to control the growth of VMT to the airport.
It became clear to policy makers that not only was it
important to examine the percentage of passengers coming by
non-auto modes, but also to examine significant variations
within the auto mode. Early in the 1990's Massport policy
analysts developed a new tool, based on a very robust
performance measure. Table 3.2-1 shows the relationship
between the major mode choices and the actual number of
vehicle trips using the roadways near the airport. Table 3.2-1
shows, for example, that in the common pick up/drop off
mode, 1.29 vehicle trips are generated for each one way air
passenger trip. For the drive/park mode, only .74 vehicle
trips are generated per air passenger trip.
In a region with significant Clean Air Attainment problems,
planners must expect to use a full calculation of regional VMT
change as a principal performance measure for the evaluation
of projects, strategies and actions under consideration.
Table 3.2-1 Ground Access Vehicle
Trips per Air Passenger Trip
Mode VT/PT
Pick-Up/Drop-Off 1.29
Taxi 1.09
Parking .74
Rental Car .69
Door to Door Shuttle .33
Scheduled Bus .10
Rapid Transit 0
However, the use of regional VMT involves a relatively
cumbersome process of modeling to have much validity. Massport
policy analysts were seeking a shortcut measure with which
to rapidly review a wide variety of policy options. The most
effective of these quick turn around methods is the use of the
basic performance measure, Vehicle trips per passenger trip.
In this innovative evaluative method, any policy action that
has the effect of moving the passenger to a lower ranking on
the levels shown in Table 3.2-1 is considered to be positive.
Any policy action which has the effect of moving the passenger
up the list is considered to be negative. In the world of
developing multimodal planning techniques, this method is
exemplary in that it is modally blind and can be applied to
a wide variety of possible policy interventions. An investment
in a rail transit facility, for example, can be compared with
the alteration of a parking pricing policy, using the same
metric of evaluation. With the utilization of appropriate
elasticity factors, policy options that attempt to bring about
change in travel behavior within the private-auto mode can be
compared with options which attempt to move the passenger away
from private to public modes.
The policy implications of the data on Table 3.2-1 are
extremely important; for the data shows that influencing modal
choices within the auto mode must be part of comprehensive
access strategy, in addition to the traditional study of
shifting passengers from automobiles to transit. Table 3.2-1
shows that, for every 100 air passenger trips shifting from
bus to rapid transit would decrease vehicle trips by 10.
Looking at an entirely different kind of policy initiative,
moving 100 passengers from drop-off mode to park-alone mode
would decrease vehicle trips by 55. (Similarly, moving 100
passengers from taxi to door to door shuttle would decrease
vehicle trips by 41.) This analysis led Massport policy
planners to focus their attention on the role of parking
supply and parking pricing, in an effort to deal with the
serious problem of the pick-up/drop-off trip. The analysis
suggested that it would be cost effective to invest in a major
advertising campaign to discourage the pick-up/drop-off trip.
For regions that do not have to examine a wide variety of
policies to deal with congestion and air quality issues, the
performance measure vehicle trips per passenger trip may
require a more detailed level of analysis than is warranted.
However, for airports and regions where the cost-effective
analysis of a wide variety of strategies is mandated, the use
of Massport s new performance evaluation metric can provide
the policy maker with a sense of how candidate strategies may
affect separate market segments, and of the likelihood of
their success.
3.3 AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS PERFORMANCE MEASURES -- AT THE
FACILITY LEVEL
In this chapter of the Guide , a wide variety of experiences
with performance measurement for airport ground access has
been reviewed. It is important at this juncture to emphasize
the fact that the science, or the art, of performance
measurement in a specialized field like airport ground access
is in its infancy. Thus, it is reasonable to explore what
could be considered the basic essential measures to be used in
the early years of application of performance measurement.
This chapter of the Guide concludes with a review of some of
the basic information appropriate for performance measurement
in the area or airport ground access: a short list of basic
data elements for inclusion in performance evaluation is
presented, and are also summarized in Table 3.3-1.
1. Level of Service on Connecting Link. The most commonly
used measure of the quality of airport access, and perhaps the
first element of data to be collected, will be the level of
service on the access road between the airport and the major
expressway system. The level of service on that road (or
collection of roads) often serves as an early warning system
for other, more difficult to measure aspects of airport ground
access quality. For those systems with dedicated transit
rights of way, similar observations can be made about the
quality of service on the transit facilities as well.
2. Quality of Condition on Connecting Link. Separate from
the performance of the transportation system over the road is
the question of the physical quality of the facility itself.
Substandard curves, radius, or structural conditions can
signal major issues that must be addressed. In addition, many
areas are concerned about the general aesthetic conditions of
the connection between the airport and the major areas served.
It is common to call for a parkway. For those American
airports with dedicated right of way transit, this category
would include a review of the conditions of that facility.
3. Choices for Access. After the observation of the basic
characteristics of the connecting linkage, the next question
concerns the existence of a variety of modes to provide
services. Is there taxi service? Is there guaranteed taxi
service for each airplane arrival? Are there rental cars? Is
pedestrian access good? Can the facility be accessed by
bicycle? Are there limousines? Is there connection to the
local public transportation system, i.e., a local bus? Before
the issue of quality of service is raised, and before the
issue of use of separate modes is raised, this inventory of
options can be very effective in the analysis of deficiencies.
4. Quality of Non-SOV Service Options. Having undertaken
the inventory of ground access service options, the next
question concerns the adequacy of those services. Are
limousines available to major destinations every hour or less?
Are shared ride services available with less than a «-hour
wait to form the group? Do taxi regulations insist on clean,
well-maintained vehicles? Do illegal operators form a threat
to public safety?
5. Mode Split to Non-SOV Service Options. Over time the
quickest, and most statistically relevant manner in which to
observe the success or failure of airport access services as
part of regional transportation policy is the careful tracking
of the mode splits for all of the access modes. This implies
the implementation of a program of surveying on a regular
basis, every two or five years, for example. The survey can
then be updated by anecdotal observation of changes in volumes
on any particular mode; however it is essential that a
systematic effort be undertaken on a predefined interval in
order to have a statistically valid basis for observation.
6. Air Quality/Congestion Relief Characteristics of Access.
For airports located in areas found to be in non-attainment
for Clean Air Act compliance, the simple observation of modes
utilized may not be adequate to support necessary
documentation and analysis. Performance indices may need to be
created that record the actual occupancy of airport users for
each mode, as well as rudimentary characteristics of the air
pollution generating characteristics of the vehicle itself.
Thus, a 40-passenger bus carrying five persons may show poorer
performance that an 8-passenger van carrying four passengers,
for example. Also, the monitoring system should pay particular
attention to the problem of pick-up/drop-off trips, which have
exceptionally negative VMT implications. The level of detail
required for this analysis will be determined in the
Environmental Scoping Process with the relevant air quality
agencies; attention should be directed to the use of cost-
effective surrogates to the full scale air quality modeling
process. Massport s performance measure, vehicle trips per
passenger trip, is an example of a measure designed to
evaluate congestion relief strategies.
7. Safety. In this area, it is possible to spend valuable,
scarce resource organizing data that most logically belongs in
other jurisdictions, including the Safety Management Plan.
However, to the extent that data organized by others reveals
statistically significant patterns, or to the extent that user
surveys reveal that perception of unsafe conditions is
affecting travel patterns, safety characteristics should be
noted in the overall review of the quality of airport access
services. Examples include the inadequate regulation and
supervision of taxi and limousine services, which might be
particularly relevant at airports, serving persons with no
knowledge of the area.
8. Public Information / Community Acceptance. Community
perceptions of conditions and services play a major role in
influencing travel behavior. At the facility level, a survey
of the adequacy of public information services for ground
access will make possible an assessment of the performance of
the system in terms of information and direction. At the
community level, a quick canvass of activities can determine
the extent to which business and community leaders are
involved in encouraging high quality access to the local
airport facility, as a function of civic pride. At the
neighborhood level, it should be determined if communities
impacted by vehicles going to and from the airport are aware
of, or involved in, efforts to minimize external impacts of
successful airport operations.
Table 3.3-1
Performance Measures at the Facility
Level: A Startup List |
| Policy Concern |
Performance Measure |
Data Source |
| 1 . Quality of Service on Access Facility |
Level of service
V/C Crowding conditions on transit if
relevant |
Seasonal traffic counts
Seasonal ridership counts
Basic capacity data |
| 2 . Condition of Access Facility |
Structural condition
Design standards
Ride
quality |
Maintenance records
Field examinations |
| 3 . Existence of Choices for Ground Access |
Number of modes, by functional category |
Schedules
Operating agreements
Permits etc. |
| 4 . Quality of Non-SOV Services |
Headways
Waiting times
Vehicle cleanliness
Quality |
Inspections
User surveys
Application of service
standards |
| 5 . Mode Split to Non- SOV Modes |
Percent of total airport users to shared ride services |
User surveys, as updated with mode specific ridership reports
|
| 6 . Role in Air Quality, Congestion Relief Strategies |
Total VMT from airport ground access
Surrogate
calculations for total emissions |
Trip length data, by mode
Emissions, by mode |
| 7 . Public Safety |
Statistically valid patterns
Community concerns |
Police records,
Accident statistics |
8 . Public Information
Community Acceptance |
Adequacy of signage
Public information on modes
Community involvement |
Canvas of facilities
Inventory of services available |
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA COLLECTION AND SURVEYS
TO BE SUPPLIED IN FY 1996
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER FIVE
PATTERNS AND DEMANDS
TO BE SUPPLIED IN FY 1996
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER SIX
ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPROVING AIRPORT ACCESS
Once the nature of the current airport access situation is
understood and future conditions have been forecasted and
assessed, it is necessary to consider access improvements that
will provide the desired existing and future level of service
to passengers accessing the airport. Alternative strategies
for improving airport access conditions are available. No
single type of improvement is appropriate for every airport
access situation and airport environment. Alternative
approaches should be considered. This could include capital
intensive improvements such as a new highway or rail transit
link and operational improvements such as improved express bus
service. In many cases there is not a single solution, but a
combination, that comes closest to meeting the needs of a
given airport. The appropriate solution is often defined by
community and airport goals, environmental considerations, and
fiscal constraints. Alternatives should be carefully
evaluated for their effectiveness at a given airport and how
well they satisfy the performance goals and evaluation
criteria that have been established.
This chapter of the guide reviews alternative types of airport
access improvements, and specific examples and characteristics
where available. Included are improvements related to:
o Access Roads
o Parking
o Terminal Curbside
o Rubber-tired and rail transit options
o Intermodal facilities, and
o Demand management techniques such as travel demand
management strategies and the application of Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) technology.
6.1 ACCESS ROADS
The discussion of access roads to airports is stratified into
the following topic areas: off-airport, near-airport, and on-
airport. Traffic and access road considerations vary,
depending on proximity to the airport and the relative size
and activity level of the airport. Improve vehicular access
to airports can be achieved through physical and operational
changes implemented on roads in the region that are far
removed from the airport as well as on roads that are in close
proximity to the airport, including those that provide direct
access to the airport. In addition, improved traffic flow can
be achieved from the improvements to circulation roads and
other roads that are on airport property.
Considerations Related to Access Roads Off Airport
Major airports are special trip generators that attract a
variety of person trips. Airports attract home-based work
trips, home-based non-work trips, non-home based trips, truck
trips and a variety of other trip types. From a regional
perspective, a highway network should be established that
provides safe and efficient access to airports and serves the
variety of trips. All routes that serve the major airports
and key links in the region's highway network should be
included in the regional perspective. Adequate navigational
information should be provided to motorists on highway guide
signs in advance of and at key route choice decision points.
For example, proper signing should be provided on all
appropriate interstate highways, other freeways and
expressways, and selected principal arterial highways to
direct motorists to major airports. Transportation planners
can use travel forecasting models to identify the shortest
routes from all origin zones to the zone containing an
airport. Plots of the paths produced by these regional
transportation planning models can be used to identify routes
where navigational information to airports should be provided.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.1 MUTCD General Information Symbol Sign
Guidelines are provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices on the use of a general informational symbol
sign which may be used to identify a route leading to an
airport. This sign, which is shown in Figure 6.1, features
white letters on a green background. With respect to guide
signs that display the name of the airport and direction
information, some states have developed and employed
application criteria. As cited in a 1980 NCHRP Synthesis of
Highway Practice, both Florida and South Carolina have
criteria for providing supplemental signing on freeways for
airports, as summarized in Table 6.1-1.
As indicated in Table 6.1-1, Florida recommends that signs be
placed on facilities within 10 miles of a major metropolitan
airport with 40 or more flights per day.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has developed
guidelines for airport roadway signs entitled, Airport Roadway
Guide Signs A Proposed Recommended Practice, which offers the
following:
Generally, there are one or two major feeder roads to an
airport. All of the major roads which intersect these feeders
within a radius of 10-25 miles from the airport should carry
the airport message as an integral part of their highway
destination signs, including overhead signs.
Table 6.1-1 Guideline Criteria for Airport Signing
Florida South Carolina
Type of Area Number of
Number of Regularly
Regularly Scheduled
Scheduled Flights Distance
Movements Distance from (One-way from
(one-way) Airport Departures) Airport
per day (in miles) per day (in miles)
Major Metropolitan >= 40 <= 10 >= 20 <= 8
Areas
Urban Areas >= 30 <= 10 >= 10 <= 8
Rural Areas >= 20 <= 10 >= 10 <= 8
In addition, special logos for specific airports have been
developed and integrated into guide signs on freeways.
Figure 6.1-2 depicts a sign that shows a specialized airport
logo, which is located on Interstate 95 northbound
approximately 10 miles from BWI airport.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.1-2 Specialized Airport Logo
ISTEA called for the development of a National Highway System
(NHS) that would, among other things, provide improved access
to airports and ports, which are the Nation's link to
international commerce. According to the FHWA document
entitled, "The National Highway System, The Backbone of
America's Intermodal Transportation Network," most major
airports have adequate access, but they are expected to face
increasing problems with peak period congestion. The NHS will
provide resources to improve existing access routes to
tomorrow's airports. This will enable plans for airport
expansion and the required ground access to be much more
closely integrated. The proposed NHS, which was approved by
Congress in November, 1995, included roads that served a total
of 143 airports.
Not to be overlooked when examining the regional context of
airports are needs related to emergency vehicle access to and
from airports. To ensure adequate emergency medical service
response times, the highway segments that constitute the
shortest routes between hospitals/major medical centers and
the airport along with redundant routes should be identified
and considered for improvements. In addition, the shortest
routes from existing and planned local fire and rescue
stations that support the airport should be identified and
reviewed. Potential highway capacity bottlenecks for these
vehicles should be identified and mitigated through geometric
or operational changes.
Geometric Design Alternatives
Geometric design alternatives are related to construction and
physical changes in a roadway's alignment, cross-section,
intersections, or interchanges. Cross-section changes that
increase highway capacity include the following:
o Widening to provide additional travel lanes,
o Construction of medians and median dividers,
o Extension of left turn storage lanes,
o Construction of additional right and/or left turn lanes
at intersections,
o Widening paved shoulders, and
o Minor geometric improvements implemented at access
points and intersections.
Alignment changes include:
o Straightening sharp horizontal curves
o Lengthening short crest and sag vertical curves
o Realigning skewed intersections to achieve 90 degree angles
o Reducing grade differentials at at-grade intersections.
Construction changes implemented at key interchanges and
intersections in highway corridors that serve the airport can
also improve airport accessability. Detailed information on
geometric improvements is included in A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets.
Traffic Operations Alternatives
There are alternative traffic operations improvements that can
be implemented to improve access to airports. In addition to
improved highway signing, which was discussed earlier in this
section, traffic operations improvement alternatives include:
o Improvements in traffic signal operation on arterial
roads that lead to airports. These include:
- Changes in signal phasing and timing at individual
intersections,
- Implementation of signal synchronization or
"optimized" coordinated signal timings,
- Implementation of traffic responsive signal systems,
and
- the introduction of pro-active preventative traffic
signal maintenance programs.
o Improvements in traffic surveillance systems, incident
detection and response systems, and traffic control systems
for freeways.
o Implementation of traffic management centers that
coordinate incident management.
o Implementation of improved traffic information
dissemination systems.
Considerations Related to Access Roads Near Airports
Citing a 1966 NCHRP Report, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' Traffic and Transportation Planning Handbook
indicates the following:
"Although airports may be among the largest single-site
travel generators in major metropolitan areas, they account
for only a fraction (usually less than 2 %) of the total
travel within those areas, so their measurable traffic impacts
are usually limited to those parts of the highway network
within a radius of a few miles. The localized impacts on
roads providing direct airport access can be quite severe,
especially where total airport traffic discharges into an
already busy urban expressway as at Chicago's O'Hare or New
York's La Guardia and Kennedy Airports."
Consequently, far greater attention should be devoted to the
examination and improvement of the capacity of roads in the
immediate vicinity of airports, especially those that provide
direct access to the airport. It should be noted that
temporal vehicular traffic distributions vary among airports,
depending on the number of flight arrivals and departures, the
amount of support and cargo services provided at the airport,
the amount of non-airport related employment within the
airport property, and seasonal factors. Figure 6.1-3 presents
the temporal distribution of total vehicular traffic entering
a large international airport.
Geometric Design Alternatives
All of the improvements discussed for off airport roads apply
equally to roads in the immediate vicinity of the airport.
Improvements to at-grade intersections, grade-separated
interchanges, and ramps that serve existing primary airport
access roads can result in travel time savings to motorists
bound for the airport. In some cases, burgeoning traffic
demands through a critical at-grade intersection may warrant
consideration of a grade-separated interchange. Additional
discussion on warrants for upgrading to grade-separated
interchanges can be found in A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.1-3 Temporal Distribution of Total Traffic Entering a
Major International Airport.
Airport access can be greatly improved by the construction of
new roadways, including "dedicated" roadways, that lead
directly to the airport and spurs from freeways that are
constructed in accordance with interstate design standards.
Access highways to large airports should have full control of
access with no crossings at grade. Figure 6.1-4 illustrates
the proportion of different size airports that are directly
served by controlled access facilities. As can be seen in
Figure 6.1-4, most airports that serve more than 2.5 million
annual originating passengers are served by fully controlled
access facilities. Only 20% of the airports with 1 to 2.5
million annual originations are served by fully controlled
facilities. Only one of the nineteen airports with less than
a million originations draw controlled access.
It may be desirable to establish exclusive express lanes such
as the Dulles Airport Access Road, that lead directly to the
airport within existing highway corridors that service the
airport. Furthermore, the highway capacity of primary airport
access roads should be sufficient to accommodate the
anticipated and projected traffic demands for the specific
airport.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.1-4 Primary airport roadway access facilities
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.1-5 Airports With Multiple Access Facilities
Some airports provide more than one major access roadway in
order to provide sufficient capacity; however, this is usually
limited to larger airports as displayed in figure 6.1-5
Traffic Operations Alternatives
Improvement alternatives identified for off airport facilities
are also applicable to roads in the immediate vicinity of the
airport. Additional traffic operational improvements on roads
in close proximity to the airport have been implemented to
facilitate access to airports. Most notable is the
application of Highway Advisory Radio (HAR). As far back as
1977, there were two HAR systems in operation at Houston
Intercontinental Airport. The primary information that was
broadcast was related to parking conditions. The Los Angeles
International Airport has also had an HAR system in operation
to assist motorists in direction finding since prior to 1980.
Changeable message signs have also been used on roads outside
of airport boundaries to present information to drivers about
construction and temporary traffic and parking conditions at
airports. Additional information on the use of changeable
message signs can be found in other references.,
Considerations Related to On-Airport Roads (Excluding Terminal
Curbside Areas)
The topic of traffic operations at airport terminal curbsides
will be addressed in section 6.3. This section deals with
other roads and traffic operations considerations within the
airport property.
Vehicular traffic entering an airport is composed of different
airport users, including the following:
Passengers
o Local Residents on Business Travel
o Local Residents not on Business Travel
o Non-local Residents on Business Travel
o Non-local Residents not on Business Travel.
Spectators, Visitors and Meeter Greeters
Employment-related
o Airport Employees
o Airline Crews
o Non-Airport Employees working at locations within the
Airport Property
o Customers of Airport and Other Services
o Non-Airport Employees delivering goods and services
It is important to recognize that motorists can be bound for a
variety of destinations within the airport property. Many
airports include on-airport hotels, retail stores within and
outside the terminal, commercial offices and cargo/shipping
service centers and terminals. There are also a wide variety
of vehicle types that access an airport, including personal
vehicles (e.g., automobiles, pick-up trucks, vans,
motorcycles), commercial vehicles (e.g., taxicabs, limousines,
shared ride vehicles, buses, jitneys, hotel courtesy buses and
rental car facilities based off airport), and cargo vehicles
(single-unit trucks, tractor-trailers). In addition, there
are shuttle buses and other vehicles that operate entirely
within the airport property.
Airport Circulation
Components of airport landside circulation include the
following:
Airport Roads
Terminal curb areas
o Curb frontage
o Sidewalk platforms
o Curbside Baggage Check-in
o Terminal entranceways
o Pedestrian Crossings and Walkways
Public Parking Facilities
o Short term areas
o Long term areas
o Parking area/structures lot entrances and exits
o Parking area circulation roads/aisles
Public Transportation and Rental Car Areas
The layout and types of terminal concepts at an airport
determine the integration of the components to form the
airport circulation system. Several of the more typical
airport circulation configurations are depicted in figure 6.1-
5. and described in table 6.1-2.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.1-6 Typical Airport Circulation Systems
| Table 6.1-2 Description of Typical Airport
Circulation Systems. |
| Type of Layout |
Description |
Means of Expansion |
Examples |
| Centralized |
complex consists of a single building or a
contiguous series of buildings. All passenger-related vehicles
normally pass through same series of roadways. Public parking
and car rental facilities are centrally located. |
Terminal unit expansion along existing terminal area
access
road without loss of original ground access system concept. |
Chicago O'Hare
San Francisco Int'l, Los Angeles
Int'l, Atlanta Hartsfield, Washington Nat'l
Ft. Lauderdale Hollywood Int'l
|
| Segmented |
Terminal building divided into originating and departing
passengers or grouping of airlines on either side. Originating
passengers use one set of terminal frontage roads and terminating
passengers the other. |
Terminal unit extension with retention of the same ground
access system. |
Orlando Int'l,
Jacksonville
Greater
Cincinnati |
| Decentralized |
Airport access and terminal access roads funnel traffic to
and from separate terminal facilities. Parking and car rental
facilities are grouped on a terminal unit basis. |
Addition of terminal units around the terminal access road
with separate terminal frontage roads. |
Kennedy Int'l,
Kansas City Int'l |
| Unitized |
Access from centrally located roadway. In some cases, may
consist of a series of terminal buildings located in a linear
fashion. |
Addition of terminal units between terminal area access
roads. |
Dallas-Ft. Worth Int'l,
Houston Intercont'l |
Airport roads have been classified as follows:
o Primary airport access roads.
o Terminal area access roads
o Recirculation roads
o Terminal frontage roads
o Service roads:
- General-use
- Restricted-use
Primary airport access roads include those roads that provide
primary access to the airport from the regional transportation
network. Terminal area access roads serve airport passengers,
visitors, and employees and connect primary access roads with
terminal buildings, air cargo, parking and service facilities.
Recirculation roads provide road sections to link the ingress
and egress lanes of the access road. In some cases, there are
both terminal area recirculation roads and terminal frontage
recirculation roads. Terminal frontage roads distribute
vehicles directly to terminal buildings. If more than one
terminal building exists, there may be more than one terminal
frontage road. General-use service roads are used for the
delivery of goods, services, air cargo, and flight kitchen
supplies, among others. General-use service roads provide
connections between the airport and terminal access roads and
the non-passenger related land uses at the airport such as air
cargo facilities, concessionaire service facilities, airport
maintenance areas, and employee parking areas. Restricted-use
service roads are limited to airport maintenance, fire and
rescue, fuel, baggage, freight, and aircraft service vehicles.
Sections of restricted-use service roads that provide access
to aircraft operating and parking areas require control points
for security reasons. The typical operating characteristics
of airport roadways are described in table 6.3-3.
| Table 6.3-3 Characteristics of Airport
Roadways. |
| Characteristic |
Primary Airport Access Roads |
Terminal Area Access Roads |
Recirculation Roads |
Terminal Frontage Roads |
Service Roads |
Desirable Hourly Lane Capacity
(veh/hr/lane) |
Arterials: 700-800
Freeways: 1200-1600 |
900-1000 |
600 |
Inside lane: 0
Outside: 300
Additional thru lanes:
600 |
600-1200 |
Average Speeds
(mi/hr) |
Arterials: 20- 25
Freeways: 40- 50 |
20-25 |
N/A |
10-20 |
15-20 |
| Desirable Demand Volume to Capacity Ratio |
Arterials: 0.80
Freeways: 0.60 |
0.60-0.70 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
| Desirable Minimum Number of Lanes and Lane Width |
2 lanes (12 ft) |
2 lanes (12 ft) |
If 1 lane (20 ft)
2 or more lanes (12 ft) |
4 lanes: Adjacent to curb (8 ft + 12 ft) Through
lanes (12 ft + 12 ft) |
2- lane,
2- way
(12 ft) |
Principles for Design and Operation of Airport Roads
Terminal area access roads should be sufficiently long to
permit the smooth channeling of traffic into appropriate lanes
for safe access to terminal curbsides, parking lots, and other
public facilities.
Ample separation should be provided at locations where drivers
must make route choice decisions, to avoid driver confusion .
Not more than two route choices should be required of a driver
at any location.
A minimum of four lanes adjacent to the terminal curb is
recommended to avoid congestion caused by double parking.
Four lanes are also recommended when the terminal arrivals and
departures are on the same level. Service-related traffic and
passenger-related traffic should be separated. At large
airports with centralized airport layouts, originating
passenger traffic and departing passenger traffic should also
be separated. This can be accomplished through the vertical
separation of terminal frontage roads.
At airports where several terminal buildings exist, it is
desirable to separate traffic for the various passenger
terminal buildings, thereby reducing the traffic volumes on
individual terminal frontage roads. If only one terminal
frontage road exists, then all traffic must pass each terminal
building, resulting in greater traffic flows and possible
congestion on the terminal frontage road.
Traffic circulation in front of the terminal should, normally,
be one-way and counter-clockwise for convenience of right-side
loading and unloading of vehicles. Adequate transition areas
for lane additions and lane reductions should be provided
where possible. Taper lengths should conform to the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Recirculation of
vehicles to the passenger terminal should be permitted. When
several terminal buildings exist, it may be advisable to
provide more than one terminal road.
Traffic streams should be separated at an early stage with
appropriate signing to avoid congestion and assure lower
traffic volumes on each of the terminal frontage roads. At
very large airports it is desirable to provide service road
entrances and interchanges either before or shortly after
entering the airport in order to relieve congestion on airport
terminal access roads. (At low activity airports, the service
and primary airport access roads may be concurrent.)
The needs of the pedestrian should be considered in the design
of pedestrian facilities within the airport. Generally, the
pedestrian wishes to take the shortest route to a given
destination that still provides an acceptable level of risk.
Exposing pedestrians to numerous conflict points should be
avoided. When designing for pedestrians an airport planner
should:
o Separate pedestrians and vehicular traffic,
o Establish pedestrian/bicycle networks,
o Consider special provisions for bicycles,
o Maximize safety at pedestrian crossings through the
provision of adequate sight distance, signing, and pavement
markings. In general, pedestrian crossings should be at 90
degrees to vehicular traffic. Grade separation of pedestrians
and vehicular traffic should be considered where the number of
pedestrian-vehicle conflicts are expected to be very high.
o Minimize the number of at-grade crossing points.
Traffic signal control should be limited to only those
locations where warrants are met and are justified in
accordance with guidelines specified in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.
The design of the airport roadway system must also include
adequate provision for the following:
o Satellite Parking Areas
- Access from the airport entrances to the satellite
parking lots.
- Access from the satellite parking lots to the
terminal(s).
- Access from the terminal(s) to the satellite parking
lots.
- Access from the satellite parking lots to the airport
exits.
o Access to and circulation around on-airport intermodal
stations, including transit stations.
o Rental Car Areas
- Access from the airport entrances to the rental car
return areas.
- Access from the rental car return areas to the
terminal(s).
- Access from the terminal(s) to the rental car pick-up
areas.
- Access from the rental car pick-up areas to the
airport exits.
- Access from the rental car pick-up areas to the
terminal(s).
- Access from the terminal(s) to the rental car return
areas.
o Safety considerations for parking lot and parking
structure access points (parking is covered in detail in
section 6.2).
o Taxicab and Public Transportation Staging and Parking Areas
- Storage (staging) and dispatching of taxi cabs, and
other commercial vehicles,
- Access from the airport entrances to temporary
storage areas,
- Access from taxi temporary storage areas to terminal
curbside.
Given that a significant percentage of originating and
departing passengers access the airport via taxi cabs and
other commercial vehicles, the quality of traffic flow on
airport roads is greatly affected by how taxis are managed,
and how well roadways serve there needs.
Roadway Design to Accommodate Airport Taxi Cabs
In order to increase curbside operating efficiency, short term
parking areas for buses, taxis, and limousines are often
located away from the terminal curb front. These vehicles can
be called to the curb in a demand-responsive mode and curb
front dwell time considerably reduced. Provisions can be made
for exclusive lanes or dedicated auxiliary curbs for these
commercial vehicles. Parking space for 160 vehicles per acre
is recommended. Table 6.3-4 presents the results of a 1986
survey of approximately 175 airport managers. As noted, most
large and medium airports have holding areas for taxis.
Overall, 68 percent of the airports that responded to the
sample had holding areas.
Geometric Design Alternatives
In general, changes to roadway geometry are often implemented
to increase highway capacity, improve traffic flow and enhance
highway safety. There are a large number of geometric
improvement alternatives that can be considered for roadways
within an individual airport. Applicability of these
Table 6.3-4 Airport Manager Survey Results Related to Taxi
Holding Areas.
Holding Areas Gated Holding
AIRPORTS for Taxis Areas for Taxis
Large Airports (28) 100% 23%
Medium Airports (34) 94% 35%
Small Airports (110) 52% 13%
All Airports (172) 68% 22%
alternatives is greatly affected by the physical conditions
that already exist at the airport. Physical constraints may
preclude certain construction alternatives. Institutional
barriers and limitations will also influence the range of
alternatives. Potential geometric improvements are identified
below:
Roadway Network
o Construct separate service roads for trucks and service
vehicles,
o Construct additional through lanes on the major airport
and terminal area access roads,
o Construct or widen paved shoulders,
o Upgrade airport and terminal area access roads to
freeways with full control of access,
o Improve roadway connections between the terminal(s) and
the rental car areas,
o Construct separated roadways to allow commercial
vehicles to travel directly to the arrivals curbside, and
o Construct or widen service roads that provide access to
and from satellite parking areas.
Interchanges
o Lengthen merge areas.
o Improve diverge areas at key route choice decision
points related to the terminal(s) and parking areas.
o Lengthen weaving areas and/or construct additional
auxiliary lanes.
o Improve sight distance and other ramp geometrics.
At-grade Intersections
o Provide separate right-turn and left-turn lanes at at-
grade intersections,
o Provide channelization and turning roadways at
intersections where appropriate,
o Install traffic signal control when warranted and
justified,
o Implement other geometric design improvements, (e.g.,
increase intersection radii), and
o Construct grade-separated interchange to replace a
service drive and airport access road intersection.
Driveways and Other Access Points
o Increase width of driveways to allow for passing of stalled
vehicles,
o Construct deceleration and, if appropriate, acceleration
lanes for entrances to the major roads,
o Consolidate driveways and access points that are in
close proximity,
o Apply access management principles and design treatments,
o Separate basic conflict points,
o Limit or restrict (by physical means) access onto the
airport and terminal access roads, and
o For entrances to parking areas, increase the capacity to
store vehicles waiting to enter.
Geometric design alternatives for terminal curbside areas are
discussed in section 6.3.
Traffic Operations Alternatives
Improvements in signing can enhance safety and sometimes
improve traffic flow through airports. Wayfinding is a
critical issue for airports, especially when one considers the
information needs of unfamiliar drivers on a roadway system
that serves numerous destinations. Navigational information,
static and dynamic displays, directional and identification
signs are all key components of an airports highway
information system. Clearly visible signs should be
positioned on roads and in terminal curb areas well in advance
of desired destinations to permit drivers to detect, respond,
decide on appropriate driver control actions, and then execute
them in a safe and efficient manner. Signs should be
properly lighted for night use. Sign legends should be easily
detectable and readable within the available viewing
distances. Messages should be concise, command the attention
and respect of drivers, and be easily understood. In
addition, signs should be clearly visible by approaching
motorists during daylight and nighttime ambient conditions.
Color coding for unit terminals, airlines, parking facilities,
etc. is recommended, particularly for complex terminal areas.
Airport Roadway Guide Signs, A Proposed Recommended Practice
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers can serve as a
valuable resource. This document recommends the use of
symbolic signs as shown in figure 6.1-7 for airports with
frequent foreign visitors. As noted in the ITE document, it
is not intended that the standardization of airport signing
terminology conflict with the MUTCD, but rather that it
supplement it. A typical sign plan for a multi-terminal
airport is shown in figure 6.1-8. General guidelines for
signing the airport roadway system are shown as a sidebar.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.1-7 Highway Signs for Airports with Frequent
Foreign Visitors
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.1-8 Typical Sign Plan for a Multi-terminal Airport
Because land in the immediate terminal area is often at a
premium, some rental car agencies have begun to base vehicles
at remote locations and use courtesy vans to shuttle customers
to and from the terminal curbside and remote locations. A
rule of thumb is that approximately 750 originating passengers
are accommodated per rental car ready stall. When they are in
close proximity to the terminal curbside, consideration should
be given to relocating rental car pick-up and return areas to
remote areas that are removed from the terminal(s).
Other operational improvement alternatives that can be
considered for the terminal curbside area include the
following:
o Improve delineation, pavement markings, pavement markers
and channelization,
o Change the operation of the terminal access and frontage
roads to one-way and counter-clockwise, and
o Implement a signing system that provides drivers with
reasonably accurate real-time data on parking availability
(e.g., short-term lot full, use satellite lot).
Transportation Enhancement Alternatives
Since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) improvement alternatives that do not
improve roadway capacity have been referred to as
transportation enhancements. For airports, typical
enhancements include the following:
========================================
Recommended Sequence for Signing on Airport Roadways
1. Erect airport identification signs that clearly indicate that
the patron is on the airport grounds. For larger airports, indicate
the distance to the terminal area so he is comfortable in passing
ensuing exits to ancillary destinations.
2. Sign off all traffic not destined to the terminal but headed to
other locations such as hangars, industrial areas, air cargo, airport
services and deliveries, administration, hotel, air mail freight, and
service roads.
3. Sign off rental cars if there is remote drop-off.
4. If there is a remote lot, provide a billboard sign in a
simplified form indicating the various types of parking facilities at
the airport and their relative rates.
5. Sign off the remote lot.
6. Sign the terminal(s).
7. Sign the terminal-parking split.
8. Sign the arrivals-departure split.
9. Sign from the terminal to parking and exit.
========================================
o Provide covered walkways from public parking lots to
entrances of terminal buildings,
o Improve markings and lighting of pedestrian routes,
o Install or improve shelters for shuttle bus stops,
o Improve visibility of signs and markers denoting shuttle
stops,
o Install secured bicycle racks for storage of bicycles
used by airport passengers, employees, and visitors, and
o Improve pedestrian and bicycle trails and walkways,
especially those that connect intermodal terminals.
Management of Traffic During Construction
The need to maintain vehicular traffic flow and accommodate
pedestrian traffic should not be overlooked when airport
roadway physical improvements are implemented. While improved
traffic flow may be the end result after the construction is
completed and the geometric and traffic operational changes
have been implemented, adverse effects during construction can
be staggering. It is recommended that staging plans and
traffic maintenance plans be developed, reviewed and approved
prior to the start of any construction that would alter the
capacity of airport roadways or reduce curbside capacity.
Construction work zone plans should be in conformance with the
guidelines and principles presented in the latest revisions
for part VI of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Desirably, two-lanes should be provided during construction on
the approach to the enplaning curbside. Mitigating measures
should be considered to provide sufficient curbside capacity
during construction, especially if construction must take
place during peak seasonal travel periods. In general, the
performance characteristics of construction vehicles are much
lower than the performance characteristics of other vehicles.
Consequently, every effort should be made to segregate
construction traffic from other airport-related traffic,
especially on critical terminal area access roads,
recirculation roads, and terminal frontage roads with limited
highway capacity.
6.2 Parking Alternatives
With the increases in air traffic volumes and the high
reliance on the automobile as the primary mode of ground
transportation to the airport, the demand for more parking
capacity at most U.S. airports is growing. Studies of
existing parking conditions and projected future parking
demand, like those described in Chapter 5, can identify the
need to improve existing and/or future parking facilities at
an airport. Since the automobile is the primary access mode
to most airports, a sufficient supply and the proper
allocation of parking are important to convenient airport
access. If the analysis of current or projected conditions
identify these parking problems, alternatives can be developed
to alleviate them. Generally speaking, options for improving
airport parking conditions include the following:
o Space reallocation to match parking demand,
o Modifications to parking operations or rates,
o Redesign and/or construction of facilities to improve
capacity.
Reallocation of spaces
Airport parking can be allocated for different users (e.g.,
employees, passengers, rental cars), different parking
durations (e.g. long term, short term), or different levels of
service (e.g., self-park, valet). Sometimes an airport will have
enough total spaces, but too much is allocated to one user group and
not enough to the other. In these situations it may be
necessary to reallocate parking from one use to another.
Examples of space reallocation include moving employee lots to
provide more public parking or exchanging long-term areas to
create more short-term and intermediate facilities. Table
6.2-1 identifies examples of different types of parking space
reallocation that can be accomplished at airports, examples of
airports where it has been accomplished and the reasons for
reallocating the spaces.
| Table 6.2.-1 Reallocation of Spaces |
| Type of Reallocation |
Description |
Reason |
Examples |
| Moving employee lots to create more public parking. |
Conversion of employee lots to long- term/remote
parking. |
Demand/occupancy studies verify need for more long-term
public parking. Employees will more readily accept shuttle
service. |
To Be Supplied |
| Exchanging long term parking for short/intermediate term
spaces. |
Changing the designation of already functional parking areas.
In small airports, it could involve movement of barriers. |
Periodic studies reveal that the short- term/intermediate
facilities are consistently operating beyond capacity, whereas
the long-term facilities are under utilized. |
Birmingham, AL, Santa Ana, CA, Manchester, NH, Huntsville,
AL, Charlotte, NC, Jacksonville, FL, Las Vegas, NV, Portland, OR,
Salt Lake City, UT, Newark, NJ |
| Introducing, increasing or reducing valet parking |
Attendant picks up, parks and delivers patron’s vehicle at or
near patron’s destination (i.e., the terminal). |
Due to the time-saved and convenience, valet parking is being
introduced or reinstituted at numerous airports. Business
people, in particular, prefer and are willing to pay for the
convenience and level of service. |
Airport & Spaces
Anchorage, AL 480
Baltimore
/Washington Int'l 958
Burbank, CA 500
Dayton, OH 200
Detroit Metro 150
Minneapolis/St. Paul 439
Washington Dulles 327 |
| Moving rental companies/vehicles to create more public
parking |
Return car area (office), service area, and ready car area
moved off airport. At very least, functional support operations
can be moved. Patron shuttles are provided by the companies |
To gain more short-term or long-term parking. |
To Be Supplied |
Methods Of Operation
Public parking facilities at airports can be operated using a
variety of methods, each of which has its advantages and
disadvantages. The four methods of operating airport parking
are described in Table 6.2-2 and include:
o Management contract
o Concession agreement
o Self-operation
o Combination
Table 6.2-3 summarizes the method used to operate airport
parking at 110 airports that responded to an American
Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) Survey. This table
illustrates that the concession agreement, while still in
vogue at the small airports, is very seldom utilized at medium
and large airports. During 1993-1994, 48 percent of the
airports that
Table 6.2-3 Methods of Operations Used
by Airport
METHOD OF NUMBER OF AIRPORTS BY SIZE
OPERATION Large Medium Small Total
Management
Contract 14 20 19 53
Concession
Agreement 2 1 26 29
Self-Operation 6 7 15 28
Totals 22 28 60 110
responded to the AAAE Survey operated their public parking
facilities through a management contract and 25 percent
assumed responsibility for operating their own facilities.
Further proof of the shift away from the traditional lease or
concession agreement to either a management contract or self-
operation is demonstrated by another survey. Of the 113
airports that responded to the Airports Association Council
International- North America (AACI-NA) 1991 Airport Parking
Systems Survey, 47 (42 percent)operated with a management
contract, 28 (25 percent) operated their own parking
facilities, and 36 (33 percent) operated under the once almost
exclusive concession agreement.
A primary reason for this trend is that approximately ten
percent of the gross parking revenues go to the lessee or
concessionaire, and as the revenues increase airport operators
would rather keep this significant airport revenue. As an
example, the gross parking revenues at San Francisco
International have increased from $4.0 million in 1971 to
$34.5 million in 1993. Revenues from parking at three other
airports operating their own parking facilities in 1993 were
$44,371,000 at Dallas/Fort Worth; $40,149,544 at Chicago
O Hare; and $36,915,158 at Boston Logan.
Another important reason is that the monies are available for
immediate use by the airport rather than having to wait for up
to sixty days for a payment(s) by the concessionaire or
lessee.
| Table 6.2-2 Alternative Approaches for
Operating Airport Parking |
| Method |
Description |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Examples
(1993 Dollars) |
| Management Contract |
- Airport contracts with professional parking company to
operate facilities for management fee plus reimbursement of
approved operating expenses. Operator provides all personnel,
stipulated services, and collects all revenues which are
deposited to an airport bank account. Approximate cost
$50,000/year. |
- Places full operational responsibilities with parking
company
- Operator’s primary concern is not financial but
providing services that airport stipulates.
- Operating
emphasis can be placed on revenue control and labor
supervision.
- Generally easier to terminate a management
contract than to break a lease agreement. |
- May not be incentives for managing agent to increase gross
revenues or control the operating expenses.
- Airport is
responsible for payment of operating costs, but has little direct
control over expenses. |
- Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport paid $41,675 management
fee.
- Nashville International has 5 year contract; fee
ranging from $44,624 to $60,624/ year including bonus for quality
service (i.e., number of complaints).
- KCI pays
$50,000/year for personnel only, airport pays all additional
operating expenses. |
| Concession Agreement |
- Airport leases parking system to outside entity/operator,
for minimum guarantee plus percentage(s) of gross or net revenues
at escalating levels. Could also be leased for percentage of net
operating income. |
- Operator (lessee) assumes all monetary risks expenses.
- attractive if airport seeking to minimize operation
involvement (e.g., small hubs) and maximize revenues.
-
Concessionaire has the most incentive to operate
efficiently. |
- Emphasis on maximizing profits, may de-emphasize customer
service
- Airport exerts least control over parking
operation.
- 10% of gross parking income goes directly to
concessionaire.
- Airport must wait 30-60 days for
payments. |
- Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International receives 87.4%
of gross receipts.
- Dayton (OH) International receives
91.5%
- Louisville- Standford Field receives 90.9%
-
BWI receives 90% of receipts after shuttle bus costs are
deducted. |
| Self-Operation |
- Airport assumes total responsibility for all operating
functions, (e.g., day-to-day supervision, staffing including
recruiting and training, revenue collection/ auditing,
maintenance, insurance, taxes, payroll, etc.). Airport can
operate parking services with its own employees and as an
extension of its existing services (e.g., Utilities, security,
maintenance, accounting, administration, etc.). |
- Substantial management fee or percentage of gross revenues
does not have to be paid to a parking company.
- Airport
retains immediate use of its own monies. Airport has most
day-to-day control over the parking service. |
- Airport staff must be educated on mechanics of a large and
complex parking operation.
- Airport management must
assemble and supervise sizeable work force including money-
handling. |
- The four airports with the highest annual gross parking
revenues: Dallas/Fort Worth ($44,371,000); Chicago O’Hare
($40,149,544); and Boston Logan ($36,915,158); all operate their
own parking facilities. |
| Combination |
- Can involve any combination of above three. For example,
many provisions, terms and conditions formerly only included in
management contracts are now being embodied into concession
agreements (e.g., deposit of the revenues into the airport’s or
trustee’s bank account on the next business day, and specifying
staffing of the lanes. |
- Combination of above. |
- Combination of above. |
- Charlotte/Douglas (NC) International operates parking, but
contractor provides personnel.
- Madison (WI) airport
operates parking except remote facilities which is outside
company operate under management contract.
- LAX and
Cleveland Hopkins employ operators under a hybrid concession/
management contract. |
The ACI-NA survey identified acceptable methods of payment for
public parking at 57 airports. Only four of those airports
have machine cash collection capabilities (e.g., pay-on-foot
stations in the terminal) and only two accept debit cards,
innovations that will certainly be used more frequently as
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improve. A number of
airports have machine or automatic read capability (i.e., a
machine reads the ticket and calculates the fee). Many of
these fee collection computers are in turn linked to a host
computer for space information and revenue reporting. Some
airports include an on-line license plate inventory system to
automatically calculate parking fee if a patron loses a
ticket. Automated parking operations should increase as ITS
systems improve.
The ACI-NA survey also included costs for operating public
parking facilities at 60 airports. This data is summarized by
airport size in Table 6.2-4. The yearly average for all size
airports was approximately $1.6 million or $300 per space.
The size of the airport and whether the parking is structured
or surface are among the factors that affect the operating
expenses. These data suggest that the cost of operating
public parking facilities at airports with over 2.5 million
originations can be very high, ranging from $152 to $1341 per
parking space. Operating expenses decrease at smaller
airports.
| Table 6.2-4 Cost of Operating Airport Parking
Facilities |
Originating Passengers
(millions) |
Number |
1990 Operating Expenses
(dollars) |
1990 Operating Expenses
(dollars per
car) |
| Low |
High |
Median |
Low |
High |
Median |
| <0.5 |
14 |
58,000 |
4,145,000 |
206,671 |
56 |
728 |
169 |
| 0.5 -1.0 |
9 |
83,477 |
1,381,053 |
386,852 |
26 |
462 |
196 |
| 1.0 - 2.5 |
15 |
99,375 |
2,531,988 |
923,000 |
12 |
803 |
238 |
| 2.5 - 5.0 |
10 |
1,211,720 |
7,312,836 |
2,687,603 |
152 |
785 |
423 |
| >5.0 |
12 |
1,400,000 |
9,289,701 |
2,218,535 |
125 |
1,341 |
302 |
Parking Rates and Pricing
According to the ACI-NA survey maximum daily rates average
$15 at large airports, just over $12 at medium airports, and
just under $7 at smaller airports. The highest daily maximums
are $49 at Chicago Midway and $48 at Newark International.
The effect of parking charges as a means of altering the use
of parking facilities is discussed in section 6.5 on
transportation demand management.
Alternative Types of Parking Facilities
After the capacity limitations of on-airport parking have been
reached, the storage of automobiles at metropolitan airports
can lead to many problems. Those seeking a parking place are
forced to recirculate, or double park along terminal frontage,
or even park along the side of remote airport roads.
Recirculation reduces roadway capacity, results in passenger
delays, and decreases levels of service. Airport operators
must find alternatives to new on-airport surface parking to
satisfy parking demand.
Structured Parking
People like to park as close to their destination as possible.
Likewise, most travelers driving to the airport prefer to park
close to the terminal. Unexpected difficulties trying to find
a parking space or an unplanned shuttle trip from a distant
location raises the anxiety level of most travelers.
Therefore, constructing a multilevel parking structure is a
feasible solution to the ever increasing demand for airport
parking. These multilevel facilities should be constructed as
close as possible to the passenger terminals and should
accommodate both short- and long-term parking. Parking
garages can enable airports to raise service level standards
by saving passengers and others considerable time, reducing
walking distances, and affording protection from the weather
(especially if an enclosed pedestrian bridge or walkway is
provided). A multilevel parking structure can also enable
airports to conserve valuable land and park many more vehicles
within a given area. Construction of the tiered parking
facilities should be preceded by a feasibility study to
document such factors as the parking demand, size of the
structure, site selection, ingress and egress, construction
costs, net operating income and debt service coverage.
Off-Airport Facilities
Off-airport parking offers one solution to the need for
additional airport parking facilities, but usually with
varying results. Drivers hesitate to use off-airport parking
in the hopes of obtaining closer-in spaces. Off-airport
parking is often thought of as a spill-over resulting from
insufficient on-airport capacity. If they cannot find on-
airport parking, drivers return to an off-airport facility and
in the process utilize both inbound and outbound terminal
roadway capacity.
Among the advantages of off-airport parking are reduced
vehicle trips to the airport, reduced on-airport parking
demand, and possible improved air quality. Apparent
disadvantages are loss of airport parking revenues and
inconvenience to airport users. Long-term public parking and
employee parking with shuttle transportation are the most
suitable types of off-airport parking.
Technical studies should be made of proposed off-airport
parking facilities to determine such factors as demand
characteristics, transportation shuttle needs, and financing
requirements for land, construction, and operations.
Changeable message signs, Highway Advisory Radio and other
traveler information systems, discussed in section 6.7, can be
used to encourage passengers to enter off airport parking
before entering the airport.
Remote Employee Parking
Employees and other non-passengers usually are permitted to
park close to their work areas or destinations, unless these
areas are located near the terminal buildings. However, if
space for
parking cannot be located near the work location, remote
parking facilities with shuttle service to the work areas has
to be provided. Remote off-airport parking for employees may
be necessary if on-airport capacity is not available. It has
been established that employees will more readily accept
remote parking than airport passengers for the following
reasons:
o Uncertainty of shuttle bus schedules is less critical to
employees.
o Employees are not frustrated by the luggage handling from
automobile to shuttle bus to terminal, as well as the anxiety
of making their flight.
6.3 Curbside Capacity Improvements
One of the most valuable, highly utilized and congested
components of an airport access system is terminal curbside.
This area provides the most convenient location for passengers
to transfer between an airport terminal building and ground
access. It is used by automobiles, busses, taxis, limousines,
courtesy vehicles and other rubber-tired modes to pick up and
discharge passengers that originate or terminate their air
trip at the airport.
Congestion at terminal curbsides can be reduced by better
managing the use of available curb length or by modifying the
physical layout of curbside facilities (e.g., providing a
longer curbside). Terminal curb analysis and the
identification of alternative improvements must be performed
with an understanding of the difference between the behavior
patterns and needs of enplaning and deplaning passengers.
The arrival time of passengers originating their trip at an
airport will be spread over a significant period of time prior
to a flight s departure. The arrival time of these passengers
will depend on the activities that they need to perform at the
airport (e.g., ticketing, baggage check, check-in), the type
of flight they are taking (e.g., international or domestic),
the purpose of the trip, the mode that they used to get to the
airport and personal preferences. The ground access vehicle
used by enplaning passengers whether it is low occupancy
(e.g., private auto, taxicab) or high occupancy (e.g, express
bus) will normally only remain at the curbside while the
passengers disembark.
The arrival times at the terminal curbside of passengers who
terminate their trip at an airport are more peaked, because an
entire flight deplanes and passengers want to leave the
airport as soon as possible. Flight arrival times, the time
required to deplane, the time required to retrieve baggage,
and the time it takes to reach the curbside from the airplane
are not totally predictable. Therefore, drivers of vehicles
picking up passengers at the terminal curb are not able to
predict the exact time that a deplaning passenger will reach
the terminal curbside. Due to these factors, vehicles picking
up terminating passengers tend to wait at the curbside, if
they can, for longer periods of time and passengers tend to
get to the curbside at the same time, thus deplaning passenger
operations are generally more demanding of curbside resources
than enplaning operations. Therefore, alternatives to
increase curbside capacity and reduce curbside congestion
usually are driven by the needs of deplaning passengers.
Curbside Operations
The major characteristics influencing the organization and
management of terminal building curbsides are:
o Number and type of ground transportation access modes
(i.e., the number of private vehicles, taxicabs, busses,
courtesy vehicles, vans, and limousines). The number of
private vehicles using a curbside may vary if convenient,
short-term parking is available (drivers may choose to park
rather than use the curbside).
o Curbside Dwell Time (i.e., the length of time vehicles
remain at the curbside). Dwell times vary depending on
whether drivers are prohibited from remaining at the curbside
unless passengers are actively boarding or alighting a
vehicle. Dwell times for buses, vans, and limousines are
influenced by the number of passengers and bags being picked
up or dropped off, and by the time required for vehicle
maneuvering. Because of the greater number of passengers and
baggage per vehicle, buses, limousines, and vans remain at the
curbsides for a longer period of time.
Each type of ground transportation access mode has a different
circulation pattern and distinct operational need at
curbsides. These patterns and needs should be considered when
evaluating possible curbside management measures. Because the
primary objective of all airport operations are to provide a
high level of convenience and maintain safety for passengers
and vehicles, minimizing the conflict between the two and
ensuring a level of safety for pedestrians should also be
considered. The following paragraphs describe the key
curbside operational characteristics of each of the primary
access modes.
Private Vehicle Operations
Drivers picking up deplaning passengers often arrive early and
remain longer at the curbside. Private vehicle drivers
usually attempt to stop as near as possible to the doorway
serving their airline. Drivers can be encouraged to wait for
deplaning passengers in the short-term parking areas, if
drivers are aware that the spaces are available.
Taxicab Operations
Deplaning passengers typically arrive at the curbside in large
groups -- reflecting aircraft arrivals. At larger airports
that have taxicab dispatchers, the dispatchers learn through
experience which flights generate a need for many taxicabs.
In order to respond to these surges in deplaning passengers,
groups of taxicabs are dispatched from the taxicab pool to the
terminal curbside to wait for customers, thus minimizing
customer waiting time. (Taxicab drivers should also be
prohibited from leaving their vehicles unattended at the
curbsides.)
Curbside space for the operation of taxicabs is allocated for
(1) taxicab stands large enough to accommodate many taxicabs
at one time, (2) clearly designated passenger waiting areas
(to enable taxicab dispatchers to estimate the number of
taxicabs required), and (3) storing the queue of newly arrived
vehicles waiting to enter the taxicab stand.
Curbside space not appropriate for use by other services
(e.g., space not located near terminal doors, space on a
roadway curve) can be used to store taxicab queues, or
separate taxicab staging areas can be provided away from the
terminal building.
Scheduled Services
Scheduled services often have many buses and vans arriving at
(or departing from) the same curbside area simultaneously.
Adequate curbside space must be reserved to accommodate these
nonuniform arrival patterns and to prevent the backup of buses
waiting to access the curbside.
To allow for proper operations, vertical clearances of at
least 13 feet should be provided for intercity buses and 11
feet for other full-size buses. Some airports provide
holding lots for commercial vehicles that allow drivers and
vehicles to wait between runs.
Nonscheduled Limousine and Charter Bus Operations
Limousine services include shared-ride services (vans or
sedans) and private services (prearranged chauffeured or
luxury limousines). Luxury limousine drivers typically meet
their customers at the gate, while charter bus operators that
serve larger passenger groups often provide a host or greeter
to assemble the group (and their baggage) before the bus
arrives. Shared-ride services operate more like taxicabs,
where the driver, a dispatcher or starter assembles a
passenger group. At some airports drivers compete to solicit
the same passenger. At other airports, some shared-ride
operators have kiosks or ticket counters within the baggage
claim area that they use to form passenger groups. To improve
curbside operations, drivers of private limousines or charter
buses should be prohibited from leaving the limousine hold
area (a remote waiting area) until their customers flight has
arrived. Drivers of all limousines and charter buses should
be required to remain with their vehicle at the curbsides, and
should not be allowed to enter the terminal to greet arriving
customers. Thus, the curbside areas assigned to limousines
should be positioned so that drivers and customers can find
one another.
Courtesy Vehicle Operations
Providers of courtesy vehicle services, including hotels, on-
and off-airport rental car agencies and the off-airport
parking lots, use a variety of vehicle sizes, including full
and mid-size buses. The vehicle drivers may attempt to respond
to hailing by customers, even if they stop in areas reserved
for other services or double-park. Therefore, it is essential
to allocate curbside space for passengers waiting for courtesy
vehicles. Shelters are useful at these locations and often
contain courtesy phones to supplement those found in the
baggage claim area.
Curbside Management Measures
Better management of terminal curbside is an effective
approach to improving curbside operations. Most measures
require little capital investment and can be implemented in
less than three years, many in less than a year. Improved
management of existing terminal curb space should usually be
evaluated as a means of solving a problem before construction
of additional curb space is considered.
Management of the terminal curbsides should be (1) flexible
enough to respond to changes, (2) capable of accommodating the
operational requirements of each type of vehicle and the
unique characteristics of the airport, and (3) integrated with
other ground transportation management measures.
Curbside management needs to be flexible to respond to (and,
if possible, anticipate) changing requirements and operating
patterns, including changes in:
o The number of vehicles, passengers, and type of
services using the curbside (changes in parking
availability, mode choice).
o Airline passenger volumes (hourly, daily, and seasonal
peaking).
o Airline operations (the entry or departure of airline
companies, promotional fares, delayed flights).
Actions that influence the operation of one component of the
airport s ground transportation system (the curbside areas,
access and circulation roadways, parking facilities, and
interterminal circulation buses) can affect other components
of the system. For example, ensuring the availability of
short-term parking spaces can improve curbside operations.
Objectives of Curbside Management
Curbside management measures should be considered in the
context of the ways in which they affect the following general
objectives for curbside operations and control:
o Facilitate the efficient movement of passengers and
vehicles to and from the curbside areas (i.e., minimize dwell
times).
o Provide a safe environment for pedestrians and
vehicles.
o Provide for the operational needs of the various ground
transportation modes, and minimize the conflicts between these
modes (e.g, private vehicles parking in bus stops).
o Minimize congestion of curbsides and adjoining
roadways.
o Clearly identify, to passengers and drivers, the
curbside designations for each ground transportation
access mode.
o Ensure that passengers arriving at the curbside are
aware of the available choices of ground transportation
options.
Curbside management can improve the operations, efficiency,
and passenger service level, but it can not significantly
affect the modes of transportation that passengers choose.
This is because curbside management measures would have
limited influence on the decisions of passengers who have
selected their travel mode before reaching the curbside (e.g.,
those passengers who (1) have made prior reservations for a
rental car or a limousine, (2) expect to be picked up in a
private vehicle, or (3) left their vehicle parked at the
airport). In addition, curbside operations do not affect the
key measures influencing passenger travel mode choice
decisions -- the reliability, convenience, availability, and
comfort of the various ground transportation operations.
There are two basic categories of curbside management
measures: (1) curbside space allocation, and (2) curbside
enforcement and traffic control.
Table 6.3-1 identifies measures that improve the utilization
of terminal curbside. These measures allocate curb space to
the most appropriate users, reduce the number of vehicles at
the curb, improve operations at the curb and facilitate
enforcement. Table 6.3-1 describes seven measures, their
benefits, some locations where they are used, and how long it
should take to implement each measure.
Curbside Enforcement and Traffic Control
Curbside enforcement procedures can be established to ensure
the proper operation of curbside areas and to respond to
unusual conditions (e.g., overflow situations during holiday
periods). Curbside enforcement can be accomplished by (1)
police, (2) Officers employed by the police, (3) ground
transportation supervisors and agents, and (4) civilian
attendants and ticket writers. Enforcement staff should have
the authority to issue legally binding tickets.
Enplaning and deplaning curbsides are often separated. The
degree of enforcement required on deplaning curbsides is
greater than on enplaning curbsides because of differences in
driver behavior. Drivers dropping off passengers will
typically drive away as soon as the passenger enters the
terminal. Thus, on the enplaning curbside, some enforcement
is required to discourage double-parking, but less action by
enforcement staff is required to discourage unattended
vehicles.
Conversely, drivers picking up passengers prefer to wait at
the curbside (even if they are double-parked) until the
passenger arrives. These drivers will remain at the curbside
unless there is active enforcement to discourage them from
doing so (e.g., prohibiting waiting at the curbside unless a
vehicle is in the process of picking up passengers).
Similarly, active enforcement is needed on the deplaning
curbside to ensure that commercial vehicles are not left
unattended. Double-parked vehicles interrupt the flow of
traffic and restrict the maneuvering of high-occupancy
vehicles into and out of the curbside area.
Table 6.3-2 provides similar information to Table 6.3-1 for
improving curbside enforcement and traffic control. Most
curbside enforcement and traffic control measures can be
implemented in less than a year. These measures in
conjunction with measures that improve the utilization of curb
space will allow an airport operator to maximize the benefits
derived from existing terminal curb space.
| Table 6.3-1 Curbside Space Allocation
Measures |
| MEASURE |
DESCRIPTION |
BENEFITS |
LOCATIONS
USED |
YEARS TO IMPLEMENT |
Develop rationale for curbside space allocation.
|
Multi passenger and private vehicles are allocated space in
accordance with objectives. Must recognize/passenger safety,
physical constraints, different operational requirements, unique
characteristics of airport. |
Provides framework for allocating curbside based on unique
needs of an airport. |
Boston Logan |
< 1 |
| Separate private and commercial vehicles |
Passengers and private vehicles recognize that pickups and
dropoffs are prohibited where Multi passenger vehicles are
assigned a specific curbside area. |
With physical separation, curbside enforcement is more
effective and commercial vehicle operations are improved.
Separation ensures a level of safety for pedestrians and
vehicles. |
Dulles International
Washington National
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Portland, OR |
1-3 |
| Relocate activities |
Relocating vehicles, which do not have immediate need at
curbside, to other locations. |
Reduces number of vehicles waiting at curbside |
TBS |
<1 |
| Provide clear signage and curbside delineation |
Regulatory signs are needed to indicate traffic rules and to
clearly define curbside areas allocated for each type of
vehicle. |
Curbside management and enforcement can be assisted by
traffic signs that are easily recognized and understood by
motorists and pedestrians. |
TBS |
1-3 |
| Install flight information displays |
Video monitors displaying flight information can be installed
at deplaning curbsides. |
Will indicate actual arrival time and status of inbound
flights. |
MASSPORT has installed displays at Terminal C and the
limousine hold area. |
1-3 |
| Provide alternative passenger pickup areas for private
vehicles. |
Alternative boarding areas could be provided and could be
linked to the terminal buildings via a people- mover system. |
Relieve curbside demand at central curbside area. |
Newark
Seattle- Tacoma
Portland |
1-3+ |
| Provide angled pickup spaces for buses and shuttle
vehicles. |
Angled curbside spaces can be provided on roadways with
adequate widths rather than having vehicles stop along curbside
in a bumper-to- bumper alignment. |
Allow more buses and vans to stop, reducing passenger walking
distances; aid enforcement and discourage double parking; reduce
maneuvering time for large vehicles. |
Hartsfield Atlanta
Newark
Las Vegas
Orlando
Portland
Tampa |
>3 |
| Table 6.3-2 Curbside Enforcement and Traffic
Control Measures |
| MEASURE |
DESCRIPTION |
BENEFITS |
| Enforce "no parking" and "no-stopping"
prohibitions. |
No parking and no stopping regulations to prohibit excessive
dwell time, unattended vehicles, private vehicles stopping in
reserved areas and double parking. |
Reduce amount of stopped curbside traffic to allow for better
traffic circulation. |
| Develop communication between enforcement staff and
management. |
Required to ensure effective communication between airport
management, enforcement staff, taxicab and limo dispatchers and
commercial ground transportation operators. |
Effective communication allows individuals to discuss
opportunities for improving curbside management. |
| Use taxicab pools and limousine hold area to restrict flow of
curbside traffic. |
If terminal at which their passengers are arriving is busy,
vehicles can be retained in hold area until curbside space is
available. |
Alleviate amount of backup and congestion and improve
curbside operations. |
| Establish procedures and regulations for commercial
vehicles. |
Operators and drivers of all vehicles are required to comply
with airport’s rules and regulations. |
Ensure proper operation of curbside areas. |
| Station tow trucks at curbsides. |
Presence of uniformed police or civilian enforcement along
curbside areas will remind drivers to obey curbside regulations.
Have tow trucks drive along curbsides during peak hours. |
Encourages drivers to obey posted regulations prohibiting
unattended or illegally parked vehicles. |
Curbside Construction
Terminal curbside problems may be so severe that they cannot
be solved by better management and enforcement alone. It may
be necessary to provide additional terminal curb space to
accommodate access needs. Additional curb space can be
provided in several ways, some of which are only appropriate
when implemented with the construction of a new terminal
facility or parking garage or reconstruction of existing
facilities. Additional curbs space can be provided through:
o Horizontal Curbside Separation
o Vertical Curbside Separation
o Supplemental Curbside Areas
An analysis of the terminal design of over a hundred American
airports of different sizes was performed to determine a
relationship between curbside configuration and passenger
originations. The results of this analysis is shown in Figure
6.3-1. This analysis found that most American airports with
less than a million originations per year have single level
terminals and as originations increase the proportion of
airports with multiple level terminals and roadways increase.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.3-1 Airport Terminal Designs
Over 95 percent of the airports with less than a million
originating passengers a year were providing curb space using
a single level terminal building. Almost 40% of the airports with
1 to 2 « million originations have single level terminals. Only
25 percent of the airports with 2 « to 5 million originations
and less than 5% of the airports with over 5 million
originations have single level terminals. It was also noted
from this analysis that 40% of the airports with less than
500,000 originations per year provide multiple curbsides
through horizontal separation and supplemental curbside areas.
This increases to over 60% of the airports with more than 5
million originations. Some airports, such as Boston Logan
airport, have multiple curbside and terminal configurations
that are provided at different terminals.
This section provides brief descriptions of alternatives for
providing terminal curb space at airports. Examples of the
terminal and curbside configurations used by different
American airports are also provided.
Horizontal Curbside Separation
When increasing demands warrant and where roadway width and
the absence of physical obstructions (e.g., parking garages)
permit, the terminal curbside roadway can be widened to
provide a second (or even third) parallel curbside with a
raised center island for passenger pickup or drop-off.
An alternative to the center-island curbside is the pull-
through configuration that is illustrated in Figure 6.3-2.
This configuration, which is used at Lambert-St. Louis
International Airport on the upper-level departures roadway,
provides pull-
through passenger drop-off spaces. The use of pull-through
spaces provides for more parking spaces per linear foot of
terminal building frontage as compared with parallel parking
spaces, but it requires a minimum roadway width equivalent to
about four traffic lanes.
Horizontal separation of deplaning curbside roadways is
illustrated in Figure 6.3-3. This configuration, as used at
Portland International Airport, provides for passenger pickup
along three separate roadways at the deplaning (baggage claim)
level. Starting with the roadway closest to the terminal
building, an "inner" roadway provides curbside area for
private vehicles and the next "outer" roadway provides about
30 angled short-term parking stalls (controlled by meters) for
use by private vehicles, and a taxicab pickup lane. The
outermost lanes consist of a commercial vehicle roadway with
angled parking stalls and curbside for courtesy vans,
scheduled buses/vans, charter buses, and chauffeured
limousines.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.3-2
Use of pull-through passenger drop-off spaces
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport will also provide
passenger pickup along three, arrivals-level roadways when
planned commercial roadway facilities are completed in 1996.
With this plan, the curbside adjacent to the terminal building
will be reserved for private vehicles; the middle roadway will
be reserved for taxicabs, limousines, and courtesy vehicles;
and the outermost roadway, located within the adjacent parking
structure, will provide curbside areas for scheduled buses and
vans as well as a taxicab staging area. Passengers will use
an underground passageway to access the commercial vehicle
roadways.
Issues to consider when implementing a center-island or pull-
through curbside design include (1) pedestrian safety
(pedestrians must cross the inner roadway), (2) enforcement of
curbside usage (restricting private vehicles from areas
designated for commercial vehicle use), and (3) passenger
convenience (e.g., longer walking distances, lack of porter
service at the center island).
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.3-3
Horizontal separation of deplaning curbside roadways
Another approach to vertical curbside separation is to provide
laterally separated ticketing and baggage claim facilities as
illustrated in 6.3-4. At McCarran (Las Vegas), Philadelphia,
and Greater Cincinnati International airports, passenger
ticketing facilities and baggage claim facilities are located
in separate, laterally spaced buildings with enplaning and
deplaning curbside frontage areas provided at the same level.
Both sides of the baggage claim building are used for
passenger pickup--with one side reserved for commercial
vehicles and the other side reserved for private automobiles.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.3-4
Laterally separated ticketing and baggage claim facilities
Vertical Curbside Separation
As shown in Figure 6.3-1, most larger American airports
vertically separate departing and arriving activities and the
associated curbsides. This configuration is illustrated in
Figure 6.3-5. At several airports, a third or fourth curbside
level has been provided. For example, at Orlando
International Airport two deplaning roadways are provided for
passenger pickup on two elevations--one reserved for private
vehicles, taxicabs, and concession limousines and another for
other commercial vehicles (e.g., courtesy vehicles, scheduled
buses, and other limousines). The commercial vehicle lanes
consist of (1) a curbside reserved for courtesy vehicles,
scheduled buses, and limousines, and (2) about 44 angled
parking stalls, each large enough for one bus or two vans.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.3-5 Vertical separation of ticketing and baggage claim
curbside roadways
Other major airports with multilevel curbsides include
Pittsburgh and the Denver International airports. At
Pittsburgh, the east and west sides of the landside terminal
building are served by two-level curbsides--one level for
passenger dropoff and the other level for passenger pickup.
The east side is reserved for commercial vehicles and the west
side is reserved for private vehicles. At Denver, three-level
curbsides are provided on the east and west sides of the
landside terminal building. The upper level is for private
vehicle passenger dropoff, the middle level is for commercial
vehicle passenger pickup and dropoff, and the lower level is
for private vehicle passenger pickup.
Supplemental Curbside Areas
Supplemental passenger pickup areas for commercial vehicles
are often provided in facilities adjacent to the terminal
building either in surface parking lots or parking structures,
or elsewhere on the airport in "ground transportation
centers."
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.3-6 Additional passenger pickup area at ends of terminal
A conceptual drawing showing an example of additional
passenger pickup areas at the ends of the terminal building is
shown in Figure 6.3-6. At Tampa International Airport, four
surface lots located at the deplaning level are provided for
all commercial vehicle passenger pickup (except taxicab
patrons). Each of these "quad lots" contains 17 angled, pull-
in stalls and a parallel curbside. Commercial vehicles enter
and exit the quad lots using roadways that bypass the
arrivals-level roadway used by private vehicles.
Another example of a supplemental curbside area for commercial
vehicle passenger pickup is illustrated in 6.3-7. This
curbside configuration, as it is provided at Hartsfield
Atlanta International Airport, provides a surface lot located
at the western end of the passenger terminal for commercial
vehicle passenger pickup. The Hartsfield commercial vehicle
area has 13 angled, pull-in stalls for use by scheduled buses,
22 angled stalls for courtesy vans, and two parallel curbsides
for taxis and on-airport rental car vans. Passenger amenities
can also be provided including canopied shelters for use by
passengers waiting for scheduled buses or courtesy vans and
large signs above the angled berths indicating the destination
of the scheduled buses
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.3-7 Supplemental curbside area for commercial
vehicle passenger pickup
At Newark International Airport, courtyards between the
terminal buildings are used by courtesy vehicles and scheduled
buses for passenger pickup. Courtesy vehicles park parallel
to the curbside and scheduled buses park in angled stalls.
Windscreens and canopies provide shelter for waiting
passengers.
Commercial ground transportation facilities can be provided
within parking structures or lots adjacent to the terminal
building as illustrated in Figure 6.3-8. For example, at
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, the third level of the
parking structure includes (1) a roadway and parallel curbside
for courtesy vehicle passenger pickup and drop-off, and (2) a
metered parking area with 1,000 spaces for use by private
vehicles. Pedestrians use an elevated connecting walkway to
walk between the parking structure and the terminal building.
Commercial vehicle pickup areas located on the grade level of
multi-level parking structures are also provided at New
Orleans International, Indianapolis International and Houston
Hobby airports.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.3-8
Additional pickup area located in parking structure
The operators of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Miami
International airports are planning large, centralized "ground
transportation centers" located at a site remote from the
passenger terminal that will provide pickup and drop-off areas
for passengers traveling in commercial vehicles. These
facilities are designed to accommodate and encourage the use
of commercial vehicles by providing a high level of service
for the passenger. To provide a high level of service, these
facilities could include such amenities as airline ticketing
and baggage check-in facilities and concessions. Rapid and
convenient transfer between the ground transportation center
and the terminal building and airline gates is necessary to
promote the attractiveness of these centers. At these three
airports, automated people-movers are planned to link the
ground transportation centers with the terminal buildings and
key airport employment centers, and with local and/or commuter
rail systems.
6.4 HIGH OCCUPANCY (HOV)
MODES OF GROUND ACCESS
In the airport environment, several types of shared-ride modes
of transportation are typically available. These include
public transit, inter-terminal and parking shuttles, taxicabs,
door-to-door shared ride vans, courtesy vehicles, charter
buses, prearranged services, and at some airports, fixed-rail
transit. This section describes rubber-tired and fixed-rail
transit alternatives to the private automobile. It also
profiles the usage of different modes for access to different
size airports and describes the characteristics of alternative
modes.
General Planning and Design Considerations
Market Segmentation
Air travelers can be segmented by purpose of their trip (i.e.,
business or non-business) and residency (i.e., resident of
airport service area or visitor). The trip purpose will
determine the importance of different ground access modes at a
given airport. Airports that primarily serve tourists often
have higher taxicab and rental car use than other airports.
Furthermore as shown in Table 6.4-1, which presents the mode
of access for five airports, the modes used by residents of
the airport service area are considerably different than those
used by visitors. At these five airports, the majority of
residents (54 to 90%) use the private automobile, while only
20 to 40% of visitors use private vehicles.
Click HERE for graphic.
Table 6.4-2 illustrates the proportion of Logan International
Airport passengers, desegregated by residence and purpose, who
use different modes. This table shows that 40% of non-
business travelers are dropped off regardless of their
residency, while only non-resident business travelers heavily
use taxis and rental cars, and resident business travelers
heavily use long term parking facilities (48%). There is not
a large difference in
Another important market segment that access the airport by
transit are airport employees. Table 6.4-3 provides the modes
used by employees to get to work at five large airports in
areas with mature transit systems. Between 10 and 21 percent
of employee trips to these airports use transit, and less
than 10 percent arrive as auto passengers. Even though these
airports are in metropolitan areas with the best transit
systems in the country, over 70 percent of the airport
employees drive to work.
Table 6.4-2 Mode of Access to Logan Airport by Residence and Purpose
PASSENGER MARKET SEGMENT (Percent)
MODE Resident Resident Non- Non-Resident Non-Resident/
Business Business Business Non-Business
Drop-off 15 39 10 40
Taxi 13 12 32 14
Long Term Park 48 16 3 3
Rental Car 2 1 33 18
Door-to-Door 8 10 7 4
Van
Scheduled HOV 11 12 5 9
Transit 7 10 10 12
TOTAL 100 100 100 100
the use of high occupancy vehicles by different market
segments (i.e., door-to-door vans, scheduled HOV, and transit)
to access the airport; however, passengers who were residents
of the area and making non-business trips were the most likely
to use these modes (32%). Only 22% of visitors who were
traveling on business used high occupancy vehicle modes and
approximately 25% of the other two market segments.
Table 6.4-3 Airport Employee Mode Split (Percent)
Auto Auto
Airport Driver Passenger Transit Other
Newark 72 9 17 2
La Guardia 71 7 18 4
Kennedy 80 6 13 1
Logan 88 - 10 2
O Hare 75 - 21 4
While the mode used to access an airport by resident status
and purpose of the trip will be different at every airport,
these data
illustrate the importance of different modes for providing
service to different market segments and the importance of
market segmentation for airport access planning.
Characteristics of Successful Airport Access Modes
While transit modes may vary in terms of sponsorship (e.g.,
public transit, airport- or privately-sponsored
transportation)
and operational characteristics, the provision of high levels
of passenger service should be a priority for all shared-ride
services. A survey was performed at Boston s Logan
International Airport to determine the importance of selected
HOV ground transportation characteristics. This survey
identified service reliability (always on time), equal travel
time to the automobile, a guaranteed seat and easy access as
the most important characteristics. A study performed for
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey identified the
characteristics of trips that might affect a travelers mode
choice. These characteristics are summarized in Table 6.4-4.
| Table 6.4-4 Characteristics of trips that
might affect New York AGT choice |
| Passenger or Employee Trip Characteristic |
Potential Impact on Behavior |
| Persons in travel party |
More persons in party encourages travel modes that charge by
the group (i.e., taxi) and discourages modes that charge by the
person (i.e., AGT) |
| Location of the trip end of the airport access trip away from
the airport |
Persons located close to AGT stations, or in locations where
the AGT offers significant performance advantages, relative to
existing travel modes to the airports, are more likely to choose
the AGT. |
| Trip purpose |
Persons making business trips are likely to value reliability
and travel time higher than persons making non-business trips.
In addition, they may be less likely than persons making
non-business trips to have luggage. Thus, relative to
non-business passengers, business passengers will favor modes
that offer fast, reliable trips, and be less concerned about
modes that offer especially efficient luggage handling.
Non-business passengers may be more sensitive to cost
differentials than business passengers. |
| Current mode of access to the airport |
Persons using more expensive taxi and auto park modes may
value their time and the convenience of these modes highly.
Persons currently being dropped off or using rental cars may have
special travel needs that the AGT cannot satisfy. Persons
currently using express bus or transit may be particularly likely
to use the AGT services. |
| Airport used |
Persons using JFK are more likely to be catching long-haul
flights, where alternative flights are less likely to be
available. Thus, they may be inclined to choose airport access
modes that have high reliability. |
| Length of time passengers plan to be away from home |
Persons staying away from home longer are likely to have more
luggage and face higher parking charges at the airports. Thus,
these persons may favor modes that handle luggage efficiently and
enable them to avoid driving and parking at the airports. |
========================================
A survey performed at Bostons Logan International Airport identified
service reliability (always on time), equal travel time to the
automobile, a guaranteed seat and easy access as the most important
characteristic of an airport access mode.
========================================
A number of planning and design issues should be considered
when planning for alternative airport ground transportation
services. Attention to these issues will enhance the
attractiveness of access alternatives to airport passengers,
visitors, and employees. The service and operational issues
that should be considered when designing HOV services
include:
o Maximize passenger level of convenience and comfort
(e.g., vehicle seating configuration and seating capacity,
baggage storage space, the number, width, and height of
vehicle doors and steps, passenger shelter amenities, speed
and reliability of service).
o Minimize the frequency of stops, necessary transfers,
and dwell times.
o Identify operational constraints that may affect
passenger level of service (e.g., levels of congestion
on access roadways and at major intersections, shared right-
of-way on local streets or freeways, reserved curb space).
o Consider potential passenger traffic characteristics
(e.g., the volumes and locations associated with peak hourly
and daily ridership, service coverage area, socio-economic
characteristics). By understanding the characteristics of
potential ridership, operators may plan for services
efficiently and effectively (e.g., providing express,
dedicated vehicles to serve employees or passengers).
o Develop desired performance measures (e.g., passengers
per hour, vehicles per hour, minimum headway).
o Establish operating procedures, including information
regarding passenger pickup and drop-off, driver and vehicle
requirements, and staging areas.
o Identify compliance and operational review procedures
(e.g., vehicle safety requirements, permitting procedures,
schedule adherence, trip monitoring of excessive circuits or
dwell times).
o Consider the needs of disabled passengers in the
provision of services (e.g., lift-equipped vehicles,
audio information systems or driver announcements of stops,
color and size of passenger wayfinding signs and symbols).
o Determine the feasibility of establishing programs to
prioritize high-occupancy vehicle travel throughout the
region. Coordinate efforts with local and regional transit
agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, state and local
transportation agencies to implement priority measures for
high-occupancy vehicles, including reserved lanes and ramps,
signal pre-emption or special signal phases, central or
outlying transfer and park and ride terminals.
o Identify fare collection methods and procedures that
minimize passenger delay.
========================================
GOALS
Four goals were developed for a recent study to improve taxi
operations at Washington National Airport. These goals, which
are probably just as applicable to any rubber tired commercial
service provided at an airport, were:
1. Provide an acceptable level of service to the traveling
public that use taxis.
2. Minimize operation and maintenance costs associated with
taxi operations.
3. Minimize the impacts to other operations at the Airport
and in the vicinity of the Airport.
4. Provide the opportunity for taxi drivers servicing the
Airport to make a good living.
========================================
Source
Rubber-Tired Transit Service Options
A number of different types of rubber tired transit services
are provided at airports throughout the United States. Each
airport is unique and the type of transit service best suited
for a specific airport is dependent on a number of factors.
Likewise, each rubber tired transit service has different
characteristics and market applicability. These services can
either be publicly sponsored (e.g. provided by a local or
regional transit authority), sponsored by the airport, or
privately sponsored. Rubber tired services along with their
characteristics, market applicability and examples of where
they are used are discussed in this section.
Publicly Sponsored and Airport Sponsored Services
Public transit and airport provided services are available at
many airports. These services are described in Table 6.4-5.
Traditional Public Bus Services
These services include all forms of regularly scheduled public
transportation, including local and regional bus routes
operated by public transit agencies. Transit agencies usually
offer a designated stop at the airport along a multiple-stop
route (e.g., Suntran service at Tucson International Airport).
Depending on demand, funding availability, and project
priority, some transit agencies may provide express or semi-
express routes to the airport (e.g., nonstop or limited-stop
service between the airport and a nearby rail station or major
activity center), as is currently provided from Portland
International Airport to downtown Portland.
The primary service objective for multiple-stop routes serving
the airport is provision of scheduled service to numerous
residential and commercial areas, usually located along a
major arterial. The needs of the airport passenger,
therefore, are considered equally as important as the needs of
the general public passenger using the route. These routes,
because of frequency of stops and associated travel times,
are usually less attractive to airport passengers and visitors
than to airport employees living along the route, who may
elect to use this mode for cost or other reasons.
On-Airport Shuttle Services
Airport operators may provide shuttle services to transport
passengers and employees between public or employee parking
lots and passenger terminal buildings. Shuttle services are
typically provided when walking distances to the terminals
from the parking lots or between terminals are greater than
600 to 1000 feet, or a distance established by the airport
operator. At Boston, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia
International airports, shuttle services are provided to serve
remotely located public and employee parking lots and multiple
terminals.
Depending on the location of the facilities to be served
(e.g., employee and public parking lots, terminal buildings),
the Airport may provide separate shuttle routes to cover
different geographic areas. Separate shuttle routes may also
be provided to segregate employees and the traveling public.
These services are often operated by a private company under a
business agreement with the airport; this agreement typically
describes the shuttle bus company s responsibilities in
providing the service (e.g., service frequencies, vehicle
requirements, driver training).
On-Airport shuttle services are often provided on a fixed-
route, multiple-stop, scheduled basis without charge to system
users. The frequency and extent to which such services are
provided vary, depending on the proximity of the parking
facilities to the airport terminals or employment centers, and
demand for service. Typically, service with fixed headway of
less than 5 to 10 minutes is available during peak periods;
service may be less frequent or on an on-demand basis during
off-peak periods.
Shuttles to Other Locations
Shuttle services transporting both the traveling public and
employees to fixed-rail transit services or off-airport
facilities may be provided solely by the airport operator or
in conjunction with local transit or fixed-rail service
agencies. These services provide passengers with a relatively
high level of service (e.g., limited stops, curbside delivery
of baggage and passengers). Examples of shuttle service to
fixed-rail stations include the Washington Flyer serving
Washington Dulles International Airport and a rail station
located in West Falls Church, Virginia, and AirBart serving
Oakland International Airport and the Coliseum Bart station.
| Table 6.4-5 Publicly Sponsored and Airport
Sponsored Services |
| Types of Service |
Traditional Bus Service |
On-Airport Shuttle Service |
Shuttles to Other Locations |
| Description of Service |
Regularly scheduled local and regional bus routes
operated by public transit agencies |
Depending on demand, can be multi-stop routes, or if
demand warrants, express or semi- express routes to airport |
Shuttle service transporting passengers and employees
between parking lots and passenger terminal buildings |
| Service typically provided when walking distances
greater than 600 to 1,000 feet |
Separate routes are often provided to segregate
employees and traveling public |
Terminal-to-terminal services for transporting both
public and employees to fixed-rail transit services or
off-airport terminal facilities |
Provide passengers with relatively high level of service
(i.e., limited stops, curbside delivery of baggage and
passengers). |
Operating
Characteristics |
Full size buses with seating capacity of 35 to 55
passengers or articulated buses with seating capacity of 65 to 75
passengers |
Typically fixed route, scheduled service |
Typically operated under business agreement by
contractor for airport |
| Types of vehicles (buses or vans) used vary due to
passenger demand and physical characteristics of facilities.
|
Typical service - fixed route, multiple-stop, scheduled
services, 10-15 minute headway during peak periods; service may
be less frequent or on-demand basis during off-peak |
Vehicle sizes vary depending upon passenger demands
(e.g., peak arrival and departure activity, employees shift
times). Can be either full size buses with capacity for 35 to 55
passengers or vans seating 16 to 20 passengers |
Typical headways less than 20 to 30 minutes
Usually fixed-route, scheduled services. |
Fare
Characteristics |
Fares usually established by governing public transit
agency. Higher rates may be established for express routes |
Typically no charge to system users. |
Typically no charge or minimum charge to system
users |
Market Applicability |
Employees - High
Resident Passengers -
Medium
Non-Resident Passengers -Low |
Employees - High
Resident Passengers - High
Non-Resident Passengers - Low |
Employees - High
Resident Passengers -
High
Non-Resident Passengers - Low |
Ingredients
for Success |
Express or semi-express service to major activity areas
(e.g., CBD, popular tourist activity centers, residential areas
with high concentrations of airport employees) |
Travel time savings along access corridors |
Frequent service, especially during periods of peak
airport passenger and employee demands |
| Frequent service, especially during period of peak
airport passenger and employee demand. |
Frequent service, especially during periods of peak
airport passenger and employee demands. |
Low fares, travel time, reliability, convenience |
Coordination of efforts between the airport and other
agencies (e.g., fixed-rail station or transit center) |
| Examples |
Suntran service at Tucson Int’l Airport |
Service provided from Portland Int’l Airport to downtown
Portland |
Shuttle service provided at Boston, Los Angeles and
Philadelphia Int’l airports to serve remote parking lots and
multiple terminals |
| Washington Flyer between Washington Dulles Int’l airport
and a Metro station. |
Air Bart serving Oakland Int’l airport and a nearby
commuter rail station |
Van Nuys Express (L.A.) |
Logan Express (Boston) |
| Table 6.4-6 Privately Sponsored On-Demand
Services |
| Types of Service |
Taxicabs |
Door-to-Door Shared Ride Vans |
Fixed-Route, Scheduled Services |
| Description of Service |
Exclusive ride, door-to-door service typically provided at
small, medium and large hub airports
|
Demand-responsive services offered by private companies. May
focus on providing services to specific geographic areas (i.e,
northern suburbs, southern suburbs of a major metropolitan
area)
|
Scheduled, line-haul services typically operated by private
companies between airports and established stops (e.g., major
activity and employment centers, areas with high concentrations
of hotels and motels, intermodal transportation facilities) |
| Operating Characteristics |
Sedans, vans or station wagons used as service vehicles
typically holding five or fewer passengers |
Service typically provided in vans with seating capacity for
8 to 12 passengers. Sedans, station wagons, mini-buses and
stretch limousines may also be used. |
Depending on demand, services may be provided in contentional
transit buses with seating capacity of 35 to 55 passengers or in
vans with seating for 16 to 20 passengers. |
| Fare Characteristics |
Fares usually time-, zone-, or distance- dependent, usually
for the entire vehicle, as recorded by taxi meter. Sometimes cab
patron and driver may negotiate fare or agree to a fare based on
authorized charges |
Typically flat fares or distance-based fares regardless of
number of passengers transported |
Typically flat fares or distance-based fares |
| Market Applicability |
Employees - Low
Originating Residents - Medium
Originating Visitors - High |
Employees - Low
Originating Residents - High
Originating Visitors - Medium |
Employees - Low
Originating Residents - Medium
Originating Visitors - High |
| Ingredients for Success |
- Quality of service
- Availability of vehicles
(waiting times)
- Airport rules and regulations |
- Quality of service
- Number of enroute stops
-
Cost (vs. taxicab)
- Travel time reliability |
- Fares (vs. other modes)
- Travel time
- The
identification of efficient and effective routes to and from the
airport to serve specific market and high activity centers. |
| Examples |
Local service |
SuperShuttle
-- San Francisco airports
-- Los Angeles
airports
-- Phoenix
-- Dallas/Ft. Worth |
Marin Airporter
Connecticut |
Privately Sponsored Services
Privately sponsored services include taxicabs, and door-to-
door shared ride vans that provide passengers with service
directly between the airport and their destinations.
Privately sponsored services also include regularly scheduled
fixed route service between the airport and established stops.
These services are described in Table 6.4-6.
Taxicabs (includes medallion taxicabs, radio cabs, or metro
cars)
Taxicabs are exclusive-ride, door-to-door, on-demand services
typically provided at large-, medium-, and small-hub airports.
Taxicabs are frequently the second most commonly used mode of
access to an airport. There are various types of operating
arrangements between airports and their respective taxicab
services, with some airports operating an open access
system, allowing all properly permitted taxicabs (e.g., with
permits from appropriate governmental agencies such as the
local city or State Public Utilities Commission) to operate at
the airport. Other airports enter into business agreement
with a single taxicab operator or group of operators who, in
exchange for the exclusive right to pickup airport passengers,
assume responsibility for operation of the service (e.g.,
driver training, vehicle and insurance requirements).
Many airports have problems efficiently and effectively
providing taxis for passengers terminating their trip at the
airport. Taxis are sometimes not available during peak
periods or during inclement weather, while at non-peak times a
surplus of taxis may exist. Taxis may not be well maintained,
drivers may not speak English very well, or passengers may be
overcharged. In 1995, special taxicab service agreements
existed at a number of airports: Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport allowed taxicabs permitted by four
different agencies (i.e., Minneapolis, St. Paul, and two
classifications of suburban counties) to operate on the
airport. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, allowed
taxicab service by a consortium of drivers (i.e., owner-
operators), formed at the request of the Airport operator.
A survey was conducted in 1995 to determine how seven large
airports managed taxi operations. Ground transportation
managers, parking structure managers and taxi managers at New
York LaGuardia, Chicago O Hare, Cincinnati, Miami, Phoenix and
San Francisco Airports were interviewed. None of the airports
had a formal Taxi Management Plan . All of the airports
placed some restrictions on which taxis are allowed to enter
the airport to pick up passengers. LaGuardia and O'Hare
require all empty taxis that enter the airport to have
medallions showing that they are licensed by the city within
which the airport is situated. Both airports restrict entry
to only city licensed medallion holders. Other taxis, not
licensed in the city may only drop off passengers, and may not
enter the airport without passengers in the vehicle.
The taxi system at Cincinnati is run by an association of 13
taxi companies from two states (Kentucky and Ohio) who manage
and police themselves. The association has an agreement with
the airport and, therefore, the airport permits only taxis
from the association to enter the airport to pick up
passengers. Prearranged service is not allowed, and no other
taxis are permitted to enter the airport.
Miami International permits all taxis licensed within Miami
County to enter the airport and San Francisco requires a city
permit to enter the airport. Both airports allow unlicensed
taxis to drop off passengers, but they may not enter the
airport specifically to pick up passengers. Phoenix contracts
for taxi service with three companies and only taxis from
those companies may enter the airport to pick up passengers.
Non- contract taxis may only drop off passengers and then must
immediately leave the airport premises.
None of the surveyed airports charge a fee when taxis enter
the airport, but all six charge when taxis exit the staging
facility. Cincinnati airport charges an exit fee of $2.00 per
taxi. A dollar fifty goes to the taxi association for
management and administration costs of the taxi system. The
money is used to pay the dispatchers and to manage the staging
facilities and the taxi stands at curbside. The other fifty
cents goes to the airport. Miami charges a dollar exit fee
that is added into the fare on the taxi meter. Phoenix charges
two types of fees. The first is a flat fee of $200 per
vehicle per year. Each of the three companies with service
contracts are responsible for paying the fee for each of the
vehicles working at the airport. This flat fee helps with the
administrative costs incurred by the airport for quarterly
vehicle inspection, decals, meter inspection and insurance.
The other type of fee at Phoenix is a one dollar trip fee paid
by the driver upon leaving the staging lot, which is added
onto the passenger s fare.
All of the airports hold taxis in some type of staging
facility. Most often the facility is within a few miles of
the airport, if not directly on the terminal grounds. These
staging facilities tend to be large enough to hold a
considerable supply of taxis. For example, O'Hare
International Airport has a facility large enough to hold 600
to 700 taxis. If the staging lot is full, the taxis wait at
curbside, where there is room for about 20 taxis. San
Francisco recently opened up two overflow lots to handle extra
taxis on the facility, which previously circulated through the
roadway network until space in the staging lot was available.
Washington National Airport has one staging facility that
accommodates 485 taxis and another that accommodates over a
hundred.
Typically, a curb starter or a dispatcher communicates by
radio with the staging facility dispatchers to request taxis
when they are needed. The staging facility dispatchers write
a ticket, collect the exit fee and stamp the ticket showing
that the fee has been paid by the taxi. The taxi drives off to
the destination terminal, hands the ticket to the starter,
picks up the passenger(s) and leaves the airport to drop off
the passenger. Usually, it is a first in first out (FIFO)
system, where the first taxi in line is the first to be called
for duty. In several instances when a taxi serves a short
haul trip and returns to the airport within a half hour it
does not have to wait in line, and no trip fee is charged.
This provides some incentive for taxis to serve less
profitable short haul trips.
Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) technology for taxi
monitoring was not used at any of the airports at the time of
the survey. However, several airports were exploring use of
AVI technology. San Francisco found that using AVI for taxis
was too expensive, yet the airport uses AVI for tracking other
ground transportation such as shuttle buses and limousines.
O'Hare was awaiting state approval for incorporating AVI
technology into their ground transportation management system.
Miami uses AVI to monitor the number of courtesy shuttles that
continuously circle the roadway, but was not using AVI for
taxi monitoring.
Door-to-door, shared-ride vans
These demand-responsive shared-ride services, offered by
private companies, are often attractive to travelers who might
otherwise drive alone to the Airport and use on- or off-
Airport public parking facilities or rental car services. In
metropolitan regions, door-to-door companies may focus on
providing service to specific geographic areas (e.g., at
Chicago O Hare International Airport, Tri-State Coaches to the
South suburbs and Northwest Indiana and Airport Express
service to the South Shore suburbs).
Fixed-Route, Scheduled Services.
These scheduled line-haul services are typically operated by
private companies between the airport and established stops
(e.g., major activity and employment centers, areas with a
high concentration of hotels and motels, and intermodal
transportation facilities). Examples of this type of service
include the Raz Trans Airporter at Portland International
Airport serving selected hotels, the convention center, and
the Greyhound bus station, and the Connecticut Limousine
serving the three New York City airports and selected areas in
New York and Connecticut. These services may be provided
either by private operators under exclusive concession
agreements with the Airport or on a competitive basis.
Prearranged Services
Prearranged transit services are typically provided on a
prearranged basis, with passengers calling in advance for
vehicle services. These services include chauffeured
limousines, charter vans and buses, and courtesy vehicles.
These services are described in Table 6.4-7.
Chauffeured Limousine Services
At some airports, chauffeured limousine service is available
on-demand, possibly illegally or improperly. These services
are usually expensive and provide high quality individualized
service to passengers.
Charter Vans and Buses
These charter services are usually provided by operators of
tour companies for special, infrequent group events that
require the use of a full-size bus (i.e., seating capacity of
35 to 55 passengers), or for regularly scheduled events,
including the transportation of cruise ship passengers. Due
to space constraints at the terminal curbside and because it
is often necessary for operators of these vehicles to wait
while passengers claim baggage, separate staging facilities
(e.g., courtyards) may be provided.
| Table 6.4.-7 Privately Sponsored Prearranged
Services |
| Types of Service |
Chauffeured Limousines |
Charter Vans/Buses |
Courtesy Vehicles |
| Description of Service |
Exclusive ride-services provided on pre-arranged basis with
passengers calling in advance for vehicle services |
Usually provided by operators of tour companies or for
special, infrequent group events that require use of full-size
bus (35 to 55 passengers) or for regularly scheduled events
(i.e., cruise ship passengers activity) |
Typically shared-ride, on-demand services provided for
customers of on- and off-airport rental car agencies, hotels,
motels, off-airport public parking lots |
| Operating Characteristics |
Private companies offering services usually provide stretch
or luxury limousines with maximum seating capacity of four to
five passengers. |
Depending on demand, services may be provided in full size
buses or mini-buses with seating for 16 to 20 passengers
Because of space constraints at curbside and because operators
may wait while passengers claim baggage, separate staging
facilities may be provided |
Operators of the primary services (e.g., hotels, parking
facilities) may provide a variety of vehicles to transport
patrons to and form the airport, including vans, mini-buses and
full size buses.
Service may be provided at regular
intervals (e.g., headways less than 10 to 15 minutes) regardless
of demand
At locations with low, sporadic demand, passengers may
be required to notify respective agencies of their arrival at the
airport to arrange for services |
| Fare Characteristics |
Fares typically charged on per hour or daily basis regardless
of number of passengers being transported |
Charter companies usually paid on per hour basis regardless
of number of passengers being transported |
Typically no charge to system users as transportation is
considered part of, or incidental to, primary services being
provided |
| Market Applicability |
Employees - None
Originating Residents - Medium
Originating Visitors - Medium |
Employees - Low
Originating Residents - Low
Originating Visitors - High |
Employees - Low
Originating Residents - Low
Originating Visitors - High |
| Ingredients for Success |
- High proportion of business trips
- Fare (compared to parking costs)
- Provision of high levels of passenger service |
- Not airport-dependent
|
- Frequency of service
- Quality of service |
| Examples |
Local service |
Local service |
Most hotels, motels, rental car agencies, and private parking
lots |
Courtesy Vehicles
Courtesy vehicles are typically shared-ride, on-demand
services provided for customers of on- and off-Airport rental
car agencies, hotels, motels, off-airport public parking lots,
and other companies.
At many airports courtesy vehicles provide service at regular
intervals (e.g., headway of less than 10 to 15 minutes)
regardless of the demand. During off-peak periods or at
locations where demand for these services is low or sporadic,
passengers may be required to notify the respective agency of
their arrival at the airport to arrange for transportation
services.
Airport Rail Services
Many airports face severe congestion problems caused by rubber
tired access to the airport. Rail transit is often considered
as an alternative for solving these congestion problems. Rail
service is not a viable option for most airports and even the
most successful airport access rail service in the US carries
less than 10% of originating and terminating passengers to and
from the airport. The most successful European service does
not achieve more than a 30% mode split. However, in locations
where desirable characteristics such as those described in
this section occur, rail does offer some benefits. The
literature indicates that the perceived primary benefits of
rail service are the following:
o Provides an environmentally friendly and cost-effective
airport access mode that can attract passengers who would
otherwise travel in automobiles.
o Reduces congestion on access routes and airport roadways.
o Enhances a community s image as a modern, world-class
city and can assist in attracting business, tourism, and new
airline service to a community.
Desirable Characteristics of Rail Service
The technical characteristics of both existing urban rail and
light rail technologies and proposed advanced transit systems
and magnetically-levitated or linear induction rail systems
have been described in numerous publications. Airport rail
systems that attract the highest percentage of airport
passengers and employees appear to have the following common
characteristics:
o Direct Service - Rail services that allow passengers to
travel between the airport and major activity centers (e.g.,
the CBD, tourist attractions) without making transfers, or
incurring numerous stops.
o Frequent Service - Rail services that minimize passenger
waiting times by providing headway of 10 minutes or less
during peak periods, thereby reducing travel times and
enhancing the convenience of the system.
o Extensive Regional Coverage - Airport rail systems that
are part of a comprehensive network of rail service and feeder
buses provide an attractive alternative to a greater number of
potential passengers than systems that consist of a single
line (e.g., between the airport and the CBD).
o Available Parking - Residents, wishing to park at rail
stations away from the airport and use rail as their airport
access mode, will be influenced by the availability of parking
at non-airport stations. The operators of some commuter rail
systems prohibit overnight parking in order to increase
parking availability for typical non-Airport commuters.
o Through Service - Routes that continue past the airport
will likely support more frequent service and attract more
ridership than routes that terminate at the airport.
In a very few European airports rail service is provided using
dedicated trains with special features such as unique exterior
color schemes, on-board attendants, and oversize baggage
compartments or provision for hanging garments. However, in
order to allow equipment to be interchanged throughout the
system, most rail operators prefer to use standard equipment
on the airport lines.
Desirable Characteristics of Airport Rail Stations
Airport rail stations that have attracted the highest
percentage of airport passengers and employees appear to have
the following common characteristics:
The station is located within convenient walking distance of
the terminal. - Ideally the rail station is:
o Located within 500 feet of the terminal building, thereby
avoiding the need for passengers to ride a shuttle bus or
transfer to a people mover system to access the terminal
building.
o Designed to minimize (or avoid) the need for passengers
to change levels, climb stairs, or use an escalator. Grade-
separated paths between the terminal building and rail station
should, however, be provided to eliminate the need for
passengers to cross roadways. Grade-separated paths enhance
passenger safety and eliminate impacts on roadway operations.
o Designed to accommodate passengers with baggage carts or
suitcases with wheels.
o Designed to comply with ADA requirements.
o Located adjacent to the baggage claim areas, where
passengers select from the available travel modes.
Click HERE for graphic.
Fig. 6.4-2 HOV Use at US Airports
Baggage handling is made easier - Ideally passengers are
offered:
o Porter service to assist in transporting baggage between
the terminal and rail platform (or rail car).
o Baggage trolleys that can accompany a passenger on the
entire route between the baggage claim area and the rail
platform, including on escalators.
o Baggage handling services that allow passengers to check
their baggage to (or from) their ultimate destination. For
example, the Swiss "Fly/Rail-Baggage" service allows
passengers to check their bags at any of over 100 rail
stations in Switzerland through to their final destination
(i.e., avoiding the need to claim and recheck bags at the
airport) or to check their bag at any Swissair airport ticket
counter in any nation (or at those of certain other airlines)
through to any of 100 Swiss rail stations. Examples of more
limited baggage handling services exist in Sweden and Japan.
The station provides good information systems. - Good
information systems include:
o Clear signage and graphics, posted in highly visible
locations at frequent intervals through out the terminal and
rail station to facilitate passenger wayfinding.
o Information describing fares, schedules, and best routes
to popular destinations. This information should be presented
simply and clearly (e.g., easily understood by persons who are
unfamiliar with the rail system and the region).
o Pathways that allow passengers to identify their
destination and minimize their reliance on signs.
o Airline flight information displays in the rail station,
to assist rail passengers in finding the proper terminal
building or concourse.
o Staffed information booths to supplement available signs
and computerized terminals.
The station is designed to enhance passenger comfort and
convenience. - Examples of desirable design features include:
o Passenger amenities, such as telephones, benches, vending
machines, and concession areas.
o Passive and active security features (e.g., video or
audio monitoring of platforms and station areas, well-lit
corridors, visible elevators, roving security personnel).
o Sheltered waiting areas, with heating and air
conditioning.
Access Characteristics of US Airports
Figure 6.4-2 provides the minimum, maximum, and median percent
of passengers who access different size airports via high
occupancy modes (i.e., rail, bus, van, limousine). These
transit mode splits are displayed for airports having annual
originations that range from under a half million to over five
million passengers per year. Even though a clear cut
relationship cannot be identified from the available data,
several observations about mode of access to airports can be
made from Figure 6.4-2. The use of high occupancy ground
access modes generally increases as originations increase: the
median value for access by a high occupancy mode at airports
with less than five million annual originations is in the
range of 11 to 15 percent, and the median for airports with
over five million annual originations is 21 percent. The
maximum transit use for airports with less than 2.5 million
originations is 18 percent, and for airports with over 2.5
million originations is 35.6 percent.
Forecasting Use of New Access Modes
========================================
The stated preference approach is based on interviews with members of
the potential market for AGT service, which collect relevant
information on how these tripmakers trade-off cost, time, reliability,
safety, comfort, and privacy in making choices among travel modes to
the airports. Once the trade-off behavior is identified, it is used
to evaluate the actual trade-off situations passengers and employees
are expected to experience in 2003, the ridership projection year, and
thus to develop the ridership projection. The stated preference
approach used here is an AGT study based on an extensive survey
research effort completed at JFK and passengers and employees using
the airports, and also the travel alternatives to those individuals.
========================================
Very little research has been performed to develop travel
demand models that predict the mode of access to airports
resulting from proposed improvements to high occupancy
services. A model was developed in 1994 to forecast ridership
for a proposed Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) facility to
serve New York s LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy airports. This
model was based on stated preference analysis.
The statistical behavioral choice logic model that was used
had the formulation:
Probability AGT
= eA*TimeAGT+B*CostAGT/(eA*TimeAGT+B*CostAGT + eA*TimeCurrent
Mode+B*CostCurrent Mode)
Where: e = 2.7
C = a constant
A= a coefficient for riding time
B= a coefficient for cost
The forecasting procedure used to forecast ground access trips
for the AGT is illustrated in Figure 6.4-3. The development
and application of this procedure, including data collection,
was very expensive, and is probably only warranted when
considering a major rail expansion.
Since travel forecasting models are not readily available,
airport planners must have some method for identifying
potential utilization of proposed high occupancy ground access
service improvements. The following sections provide summary
information about high occupancy service and mode splits that
have been achieved at different sized US airports. Planners
should be able to use this data to identify a comparable
airport that has service similar to what is being considered.
This data coupled with a market analysis and professional
judgement should help planners make a preliminary estimate of
how much proposed high occupancy ground access improvement
will be used.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.4-3 AGT Forecasting Procedure
Access to Airports Served by Rubber Tired Transit
High occupancy access to most US airports is provided only by
rubber tired transit. This section describes the
characteristics of service at selected US airports. Data on
mode of access used was assembled from the most recent
passenger surveys at 34 US airports. Airports were then
categorized into those served by rail transit and those only
served by rubber tired vehicles. Airport access modes (e.g.
limousines) are defined differently in different airport
access surveys. The seven airport access modes reported in the
following sections were defined as follows:
o Private Auto - parked, drop-off, parking lot
shuttle
o Rental Car - rental car, rental car courtesy
vehicle
o Taxi - city taxi, suburban taxi
o Other On-Demand Services - limousine, door-to-
door van, hotel/motel courtesy vehicle, charter
bus,military bus, government
o Scheduled Bus and Van Services - city transit
bus, regional bus, airport express/shuttleservices
o Courtesy Vans - Hotel and Motel Courtesy Vans
o Rail - rail and light rail transit, regional and
commuter rail services, AMTRAK, also includes feeder service
to local rail
o Other - helicopter, water shuttle/ferry,
walking.
Data for airports served by only rubber tired vehicles are
presented in this section and data for airports served by rail
transit are provided in the next section. Airports served by
rubber tired transit were categorized by size based on the
number of annual originations (originating and terminating
passengers) served by the airport.
Airports With Less Than 500,000 Originations/Year
Data was available for only four airports with less than a
half million annual originations. These airports are
identified in Table 6.4-7 along with annual originations, the
percent originations are of total enplanements, and the year
that the survey was conducted. Table 6.4-8 provides mode of
access information for airports with less than 500,000 annual
originating passengers. Each of the four airports in this
category primarily serves originating passengers (over 80% of
enplanements). Travel time to the airport from the central
business district (CBD) can take anywhere from five minutes at
Palm Springs by taxi to as long as an hour by bus at Long
Beach. Transit use for these airports ranges from 2.3 percent
in Long Beach to 15.2 percent in Savannah.
Table 6.4-7 Airports With Less Than 500,000 Originations
Airport Originations Percent Survey
(Millions/yr.) Originations Year
Palm Springs .2 90 1990
(PSP)
Springfield Reg. .2 85 1993
(SPI)
Long Beach (LCB) .3 96 1991
Savannah (SPV) .4 80 1989
Atlantic City .1 100 1995
Intl. (ACY)
| Table 6.4-8 Mode of Access to Airports with
Less than 500,000 Annual Originating Passengers |
|
(PSP) |
(SPI) |
(LGB) |
(SAV) |
(ACY) |
| Mode Split (%) |
| Private vehicle |
43.0 |
38.0 |
70.8 |
37.1 |
58.0 |
| Rental car |
38.0 |
46.0 |
16.6 |
43.5 |
2.0 |
| Taxicab |
8.0 |
3.0 |
10.3 |
4.2 |
10.0 |
| Other on-demand |
-- |
4.0 |
-- |
8.0 |
24.0 |
| Scheduled bus/van |
-- |
-- |
1.5 |
2.3 |
4.0 |
| Courtesy Vans |
8.0 |
2.0 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
| Other |
3.0 |
7.0 |
0.8 |
4.9 |
2.0 |
| Travel Time to Airport (minutes) |
| Via taxicab |
5 |
15 |
20-70 |
15 |
15 |
| Via bus |
15 |
-- |
45-60 |
15 |
-- |
| Travel Cost to Airport |
| Via taxicab |
$5.00 |
$8.00 |
$15-35 |
$15.00 |
$27.00 |
| Via bus |
$0.50 |
-- |
$0.75-2.70 |
$12.00 |
-- |
| Bus Headways (minutes) |
30 |
-- |
30 |
10 |
-- |
Airports With 500,000 to 2.5 Million Originations/Year
Data for only four airports were available for this group as
well. These airports are identified in Table 6.4-9 along with
originations, the percent originations are of total
enplanements, and the year that the survey was conducted.
Mode of access data for these airports is provided in Table
6.4-10. These airports shared many similar characteristics to
the airports in the previous category. Originating passengers
at three of the airports use private vehicles less than 60
percent of the time and heavily use rental cars, taxicabs and
transit. Transit is used for access at these three airports
over 12 percent of the time. This can be attributed to the
high number of non-resident, nonbusiness trips made to those
airports.
Table 6.4-9 Airports With .5 to 2.5 Million Originations
Airport Originations Percent Survey
(Millions/yr) Originations Year
Wichita (ICT) .5 83 1989
Albany (ALB) .8 94 1993
Tucson (TUS) 1.1 85 1991
Reno (RNO) 1.8 82 1989
| Table 6.4-10 Mode of Access for Airports with
.5 to 2.5 Million Annual Originating Passengers |
|
(ICT) |
(ALB) |
(TUS) |
(RNO) |
| Mode Split (%) |
| Private vehicle |
76.5 |
58.0 |
50.8 |
48.3 |
| Rental car |
14.5 |
15.0 |
31.1 |
27.8 |
| Taxicab |
3.9 |
9.0 |
4.4 |
7.9 |
| Other on-demand |
3.2 |
5.0 |
4.9 |
1.8 |
| Scheduled bus/van |
-- |
4.0 |
0.6 |
12.4 |
| Courtesy Vans |
-- |
6.0 |
6.8 |
-- |
| Other |
1.9 |
3.0 |
1.4 |
1.8 |
| Travel Time to Airport (minutes) |
| Via taxicab |
10-15 |
20 |
15-20 |
5-10 |
| Via bus |
-- |
20-30 |
25 |
20 |
| Travel Cost to Airport |
| Via taxicab |
$7.60 |
$13.00 |
$15-17 |
$8.00 |
| Via bus |
-- |
$0.75 |
$0.75 |
$1.00 |
| Bus Headways (minutes) |
-- |
30-60 |
60 |
25 |
Airports With 2.5 to 5 Million Originations
Data were available for 11 airports with 2.5 to 5 million
annual originations. These airports are identified in Table
6.4-11 along with originations, the percent originations are
of total enplanements, and the year that the survey was
conducted. The majority of enplanements at St. Louis,
Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Houston Intercontinental airports
are not originations. John F. Kennedy airport also serves a
high proportion of enplaning passengers that do not use ground
transportation. These airports all serve as hubs for major
air carriers or have a large number of international flights.
The remaining serve a high proportion of originating flights
(70-98 percent of enplanements). Chicago Midway and St. Louis
Lambert are included in this group since they did not have
rail service at the time of the survey, however they have
since added rail service. Mode of access information for the
11 airports that serve 2.5 to 5 million annual originating
passengers is provided in Table 6.4-12. It is difficult to
characterize the key factors contributing to transit ridership
to and from these eleven airports. 94 percent of the access
to San Jose is by private vehicle, rental car and taxicab
while only 6 percent of passengers use transit. Conversely, 36
percent of the passengers at JFK use transit while less than
38 percent use private vehicles. The high transit use at JFK
can probably be attributed to its location in New York City
(the highest transit use city in the US) and by the large
proportion of originating passengers that are traveling for
more than a few days on an international trip. Transit use at
other airports can be explained by a number of factors.
Portland has a popular scheduled bus and express service and
Tampa has a popular courtesy and shuttle van service. Ft.
Lauderdale has a large number of cruise ship bus passengers
and therefore, has a high use of scheduled bus and van
service. New Orleans serves a high number of non-business,
nonresident passengers who heavily use taxicabs and other on-
demand services to access the airport.
Airports in this group illustrate more than any of the other
groups, how the unique characteristics of each airport,
particularly the markets served, determine how passengers get
to and from the airport.
Table 6.4-11
Airports With 2,500,000 to 5,000,000 Annual Originations
Airport Originations Percent Survey
(Millions/yr) Originations Year
Chicago Midway 2.6 88 1990
(MDW)
San Jose (SJC) 2.8 87 1990
Ontario 3.0 98 1987
California (ONT)
New Orleans (MSY) 3.0 91 1994
Portland (PDX) 3.0 70 1990
Ft. Lauderdale 3.4 87 1990
(FLL)
Tampa (TPA) 4.0 83 1990
Houston (IAH) 4.1 47 1986
St. Louis (STL) 4.4 45 1990
John F. Kennedy 4.8 58 1993
(JFK)
Minneapolis (MSP) 4.9 47 1985
| Table 6.4-12 Profile of Airport
Characteristics for Airports with 2.5 - 5 Million Annual
Originating Passengers |
| AIRPORT |
(MDW) |
(SJC) |
(ONT) |
(MSY) |
(PDX) |
(FLL) |
(TPA) |
(IAH) |
(STL) |
(JFK) |
(MSP) |
| Mode Split (%) |
| Private vehicle |
48.3 |
66.1 |
59.0 |
21.0 |
64.0 |
46.0 |
48.6 |
67.0 |
63.4 |
38 |
67.4 |
| Rental car |
10.6 |
24.7 |
22.2 |
18.0 |
18.0 |
27.5 |
32.4 |
15.0 |
12.5 |
3 |
12.2 |
| Taxicab |
26.8 |
3.4 |
6.3 |
33.0 |
5.0 |
10.0 |
2.8 |
7.0 |
12.0 |
24 |
7.3 |
| Other on-demand |
9.7 |
2.1 |
3.2 |
24.0 |
-- |
5.7 |
11.0 |
-- |
1.0 |
21 |
6.9 |
| Scheduled bus/van |
0.6 |
1.2 |
3.6 |
1.0 |
6.0 |
8.5 |
0.6 |
5.0 |
1.7 |
10 |
1.9 |
| Courtesy Vans |
1.5 |
2.2 |
3.4 |
3.0 |
7.0 |
2.0 |
3.7 |
3.0 |
6.1 |
3 |
4.3 |
| Other |
2.5 |
0.3 |
2.3 |
-- |
-- |
0.3 |
0.9 |
3.0 |
3.3 |
2 |
-- |
| Travel Time to Airport (minutes) |
| Via taxicab |
20-30 |
10-45 |
25-90 |
20-30 |
20 |
5-7 |
20-40 |
30-40 |
15-30 |
35-60 |
15-30 |
| Via bus |
20-50 |
15-20 |
30-120 |
50 |
25 |
5-7 |
30 |
60 |
10 |
20-75 |
42 |
| Travel Cost to Airport |
| Via taxicab |
$17-20 |
$16-35 |
$25-90 |
$21.00 |
$22.00 |
$8.00 |
$13-15 |
$30-40 |
$13-18 |
$30-35 |
$20.00 |
| Via bus |
$1.80 |
$1.00 |
$0.75- 3.85 |
$1.10 |
$1.00 |
$8-10 |
$0.85 |
$1.20 |
$1.35 |
$1.25 |
$0.90 |
| Bus Headways (minutes) |
12-14 |
30-60 |
60 |
10-20 |
15-30 |
20 |
60 |
20-25 |
7-15 |
30 |
20-40 |
| Key Factors Contributing to Transit Ridership |
- |
- Dispersion of origins/ destinations
- Many business and resident passengers |
- |
- Many non- resident, non- business passengers |
- Scheduled Bus and Express Service |
- Large Volume of Cruise Ship Bus Passengers |
- Primarily Courtesy and Shuttle van Service |
- Distance
from CBD
- Unit Terminals |
- |
- Unit Terminals
- Local Service to CBD |
- |
Airports With Greater Than 5 Million Originations/Year
Data were available for seven of these large airports, which
are not served by rail transit. These airports are identified
in Table 6.4-13 along with originations, the percent
originations are of total enplanements, and the year that the
survey was conducted. These larger airports, except for Miami
and Seattle, primarily serve originating passengers. Miami
and Seattle serve a large number of International flights. At
La Guardia, which is the New York airport that primarily
serves passengers traveling to and from the New York area,
84.9 percent of the enplanements are originating trips.
Table 6.4-13 Airports With More Than 5 Million Originations/Year
Airport Originations Percent Survey
(Millions/yr) Originations Year
Seattle (SEA) 6.0 67 1988
Miami (MIA) 6.1 60 1991
Orlando (MCO) 6.4 74 1990
LaGuardia (LGA) 7.9 85 1993
Newark (EWR) 8.4 76 1993
San Francisco 9.9 71 1993
(SFO)
Los Angeles 13.6 74 1993
(LAX)
Mode of access data for these airports is provided in Table
6.4-14. Of the seven airports in this category, five have
passengers that use on-demand services such as limousine,
door-to-door vans and hotel/motel courtesy vehicles the most
of all transit alternatives. La Guardia and Newark have a
large demand for on- demand limousine service. San Francisco
and Los Angeles have successful on-demand, shared ride van
service. Orlando passengers use scheduled bus and van service
more than any other transit alternative. This may be because
Orlando is a tourist destination with many tour packages.
These tour packages provide bus service to and from the
airport for the many non-resident tourist passengers who
frequent the airport.
| Table 6.4-14 Mode of Access for Airports with
Greater than 5 Million Originating Passengers/Year |
|
(SEA) |
(MIA) |
(MCO) |
(LGA) |
(EWR) |
(SFO) |
(LAX) |
| Mode Split (%) |
| Private vehicle |
78.8 |
44.5 |
33.2 |
30.0 |
52.0 |
43.0 |
50.9 |
| Rental car |
5.2 |
25.5 |
46.2 |
4.0 |
10.0 |
18.0 |
19.6 |
| Taxicab |
2.6 |
12.2 |
5.4 |
36.0 |
7.0 |
8.0 |
5.4 |
| Other on-demand |
-- |
12.9 |
1.0 |
21.3 |
20.8 |
16.0 |
9.4 |
| Scheduled bus/van |
8.0 |
1.2 |
8.1 |
5.0 |
5.9 |
8.0 |
6.0 |
| Courtesy Vans |
3.7 |
3.7 |
1.9 |
1.0 |
3.0 |
6.0 |
4.9 |
| Other |
1.7 |
-- |
4.2 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
3.8 |
| Travel Time to Airport (minutes) |
| Via taxicab |
20-45 |
20 |
25 |
20-40 |
30-45 |
25 |
30-45 |
| Via bus |
40 |
35-40 |
40 |
20-75 |
30-45 |
30-50 |
45-50 |
| Travel Cost to Airport |
| Via taxicab |
$12-48 |
$16.50 |
$24.00 |
$15-25 |
$30-35 |
$29.00 |
$27-30 |
| Via bus |
$1.60 |
$1.00 |
$0.75 |
$1.25 |
$7.00 |
$1.75 |
$1.10 |
| Bus Headways (minutes) |
30 |
60 |
60 |
10-20 |
15-30 |
30 |
30 |
| Key Factors Contributing to Transit Ridership |
-- |
-- |
- Destination Resort
- Many non- Resident/ non Business Passengers |
- Taxicab and on- demand (black car services attractive) |
- Characteristics of New Jersey Market
- On-demand limousines
- High cost of parking |
- Concentration of origins/ destinations
- On- demand, shared ride vans successful |
- On- demand, shared ride vans successful
- Dispersion of origins/ destinations |
Airports With Rail Service
Data were available for 9 airports with rail service.
Cleveland Hopkins , Philadelphia, Washington National, Atlanta
Hartsfield, and Chicago O Hare airports have rail transit
stations within walking distance of the terminal. Four others,
Washington Dulles, Boston Logan, Baltimore Washington and
Oakland have shuttle bus service to a rail station. These
airports are identified in Table 6.4-15. All of the airports
in this group serve more than 2.5 million originating
passengers, and all but Hartsfield and O Hare (major transfer
Hubs) primarily serve originating passengers. Hartsfield and
O Hare are the two largest transfer points in North America,
and even though only 40% of enplanements at those airports are
originations, they both serve over 8 million annual
originations.
In North America, rail systems have been most successful at
airports serving frequent travelers who have little or no
baggage (e.g., passengers on shuttle flights), and where rail
offers faster or more reliable travel times due to congestion
on access routes or lack of parking at the airport.
Table 4.6-16 provides mode of access information for the 5
airports that have rail stations within walking distance of
the terminal. Access by rail to these airports ranges from 2
percent of originating passengers at Philadelphia
International to over 9 percent at Washington National and
Atlanta Hartsfield. Philadelphia International has the highest
overall transit usage (over 28 percent).
Table 6.4-15 Airports With Rail Service
Airport Originations Percent Survey
(Millions/yr) Origination Year
Cleveland 2.9 74 1988
Hopkins (CLE)
Philadelphia 5.0 69 1993
(PHL)
Washington 6.4 89 1992
National (DCA)
Atlanta 8.4 38 1989
Hartsfield
(ATL)
Chicago 12.8 44 1989
O Hare (ORD)
Washington 2.7 68 1992
Dulles (IAD)
Boston Logan (BOS) 8.2 80 1993
Baltimore 3.0 75 1992
Washington (BWI)
Oakland (OAK) 3.1 88 1990
Table 4.6-17 provides mode of access information for the 4
airports that have shuttle buses to a rail station. Rail is
used for access at two of these airports (Washington Dulles
and Oakland) less than 1% of the time. At Baltimore Washington
International rail is used 1% of the time and at Boston Logan,
which is the airport in this group with the best rail service,
rail
| Table 6.4-16 Mode of Access for Airports with
Rail Within Walking Distance |
| Airport |
(CLE) |
(PHL) |
(DCA) |
(ATL) |
(ORD) |
| Mode Split (%) |
| Private vehicle |
73.4 |
49.0 |
33.0 |
60.0 |
47.0 |
| Rental car |
11.2 |
18.0 |
11.0 |
15.0 |
9.9 |
| Taxicab |
5.0 |
5.0 |
36.0 |
7.0 |
14.8 |
| Other on-demand |
-- |
13.0 |
3.0 |
-- |
15.1 |
| Scheduled bus/van |
3.0 |
5.0 |
-- |
-- |
4.6 |
| Courtesy Vans |
3.0 |
3.0 |
6.0 |
-- |
4.5 |
| Rail |
2.8 |
2.0 |
9.0 |
9.3 |
3.8 |
| Other |
1.6 |
5.0 |
2.0 |
8.7 |
0.3 |
| Travel Time to Airport (minutes) |
| Via rail |
22-25 |
25-30 |
35-40 |
16 |
35-40 |
| Via taxicab |
15-30 |
15-30 |
10-20 |
15-20 |
25-60 |
| Via bus |
30-45 |
15-30 |
10-20 |
35-40 |
45-60 |
| Travel Cost to Airport |
| Via rail |
$1.50 |
$7.50 |
$1.25 |
$1.25 |
$1.50 |
| Via taxicab |
$16-17 |
$22-25 |
$9-16 |
$15.00 |
$25-30 |
| Via bus |
$10-15 |
-- |
$8.00 |
$8.00 |
$15.00 |
| Bus Headways (minutes) |
15 |
-- |
30-60 |
15-60 |
5-10 |
| Rail Headways (minutes) |
12 |
30 |
5-10 |
8-15 |
5 |
| Rail Station Location |
Under Terminal |
4 stops, each bag claim area |
Across Road |
Near baggage claim area |
Under garage |
| Rail Station Distance to Terminal (ft.) |
330 |
330 |
1,650 |
330 |
1,000 |
| Key Factors Contributing to Transit Ridership |
- Little time savings
- Parking available
- No access congestion
- Low visibility |
- High cost
- Transfer required to CBD
- Parking available |
- Frequent users, shuttle passengers
- Access congestion
- Lack of parking
- Convenient |
- Travel time savings
- Convenient CBD service
- Parking at stations
- Parking available |
- Reliable travel time
- Travel time savings
- Travel cost savings
- Used by employees |
| Table 6.4-17 Mode of Access for Airports with
Shuttle Bus to Rail |
|
(IAD) |
(BOS) |
(BWI) |
(OAK) |
| Mode Split (%) |
| Private vehicle |
58.0 |
40.1 |
63.0 |
69.0 |
| Rental car |
18.0 |
14.0 |
17.0 |
16.9 |
| Taxicab |
14.0 |
18.2 |
7.0 |
3.0 |
| Other on-demand |
-- |
12.8 |
-- |
2.3 |
| Scheduled bus/van |
5.0 |
4.2 |
7.0 |
6.6 |
| Courtesy Vans |
5.0 |
1.9 |
4.0 |
1.5 |
| Rail |
-- |
5.8 |
1.0 |
-- |
| Other |
-- |
3.0 |
1.0 |
0.7 |
| Travel Time to Airport (minutes) |
| Via rail |
37-42 |
20 |
-- |
-- |
| Via taxicab |
45-60 |
15-30 |
16-18 |
10-45 |
| Via bus |
45 |
30-60 |
25-35 |
30 |
| Travel Cost to Airport |
| Via rail |
$9.65 |
$0.85 |
-- |
-- |
| Via taxicab |
$35-40 |
$12-20 |
$15-25 |
$20-30 |
| Via bus |
$16.00 |
$5-8 |
$1.75 |
$1.00 |
| Bus Headways (minutes) |
30 |
30-60 |
40 |
30-60 |
| Rail Headways (minutes) |
-- |
8-12 |
-- |
-- |
| Rail Station Location |
None © |
Remote |
None © |
-- |
| Rail Station Distance to Terminal (ft.) |
Miles |
5,250
(Shuttle bus) |
Miles |
Miles |
| Key Factors Contributing to Transit Ridership |
- Bus to Rail
- Distance from CBD |
- Reliable travel time
- Constrained access
- Shuttle passengers
- Large rail service area
- service to CBD |
- Bus to Rail
- Distance from CBD
|
- Frequent Users, shuttle passengers
- Bus to Rail |
is used by almost 6 % of originating passengers. Shuttle bus
service to a rail station does not appear to attract many
airport users unless it is very convenient, and serves a
congested airport such as Logan.
A characteristic common to all of the successful rail
facilities is that for the most part they provide a travel
time savings and a travel cost savings. Travel to the
airports by rail takes between ten to 20 minutes less time
than travel by taxicab or bus, with the exception of
Philadelphia International.
Parking availability tends to be a problem at many airports
served by rail. This may cause travelers to use alternative
modes of transportation to the private vehicle if they can not
be guaranteed parking at the airport. Ample parking exists at
the rail stations and at the airports in Atlanta, Philadelphia
and Cleveland Hopkins. Washington National and Boston have
constrained access, limited parking and site congestion.
6.5 Intermodal Transportation Facilities
Intermodal transportation facilities are designed to
accommodate various modes of transportation and to allow for
the transfer of passengers and/or cargo from one travel mode
to another. Traditionally, intermodal transportation
facilities have been planned to facilitate cargo transfer
(e.g., from air or shipping modes to rail or trucking modes
and vice versa). However, with growing concerns over air
quality levels, the move toward encouraging the use of high-
occupancy vehicles as a means of relieving congestion, and
governmental legislative impetus, e.g., (passage of 1991 ISTEA
and the Clean Air Act Amendment), there is increasing interest
in providing facilities for intermodal transfer of passengers
as well as cargo.
In the airport environment, intermodal passenger
transportation facilities should provide convenient and
efficient transfers from one travel mode to another in order
to facilitate trips to and from the airport. "The design of
an intermodal facility is dictated by the nature of the
transfers occurring there. Fundamentally, the transfer is
perceived as an impediment to travel. All trips involving
more than one mode of travel require a transfer, as do many
trips on a single mode. Experience has shown that where the
difficulty of transferring has been reduced, user satisfaction
and the amount of travel have both increased. Since transfers
cannot be entirely eliminated, it is essential to make them as
quick and pleasant as possible."
========================================
Four "C" words have been identified as the core of intermodal
transportation facility planning. "(1) Connections. The convenient,
rapid, efficient, and safe transfers of people and goods among modes
that characterize comprehensive and economic transportation service;
(2) Choices. Opportunities afforded by modal systems that allow
transportation users to select their preferred means of conveyance;
(3) Coordination and (4) Cooperation. Collaborative efforts of
planners, users, and transportation providers to resolve travel
demands by investing in dependable, high-quality transportation
service either by a single mode or by two or more modes in
combination."
========================================
Source
The special requirements of airport travelers, visitors, and
employees should be accommodated. This should include
minimizing walking distances between any two travel modes,
providing timed transfers and connections to minimize
passenger delay, and limiting baggage-carrying. Efforts to
achieve high levels of passenger service are necessary to
encourage the use of high-occupancy vehicles such as rail,
transit, and commercial vehicles, usually available at such
facilities. In addition to these more popular modes of travel
there are many others that could be utilized to and from an
intermodal transfer facility.
Various types of on-airport and off-airport intermodal
transportation facilities can be provided for the benefit of
airport passengers, visitors, and employees. A document,
prepared for the Federal Highway Administration that may be
used as a guide for the evaluation of an intermodal
transportation facility is entitled Evaluation of Intermodal
Transportation Facilities. Intermodal facilities and
specific planning and design considerations for each type are
described in the following sections.
On-airport Intermodal Facilities
Table 6.5-1 provides specific planning and design
considerations for on-airport intermodal facilities. On-
airport intermodal facilities are typically designed to
improve circulation at the terminal curbside by separating
some or all commercial transportation activity (e.g., shuttles
services, courtesy vehicles, prearranged ground
transportation) from private vehicle activity; such separation
of activity minimizes curbside requirements at the terminals.
In addition, these facilities provide improved levels of
service for passengers using some modes of shared-ride
transportation to the airport as fewer interterminal and on-
airport stops are required. The intermodal facilities can
vary in the level of passenger amenities, services, and
functions available, and can be classified broadly as either
"mini-terminals", "mega-terminals", or intermodal terminal
facilities.
========================================
MODES OF ACCESS TO AN INTERMODAL TRANSFER FACILITY
o Automobile: Kiss-n-Ride, Park-n-Ride, Private, Package
Drop-Off, Rental
o Pedestrian: Abled and Disabled
o Metrorail
o Light Rail Transit (LRT)
o Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
o Group Rapid Transit (Peoplemover)
o Buses: Local, Express, Intercity, Tours, School
o Shuttles, Trams
o Limos
o Taxis
o Bicycles
o Motorcycles
o Commuter Rail
o Intercity Rail: High Speed, Conventional
o Handicapped Services
o Delivery: Packages, Mail, Freight, Baggage
o Boats: Ferries, Water Taxis, Private Boats
========================================
Source
Table 6.5-1 On-Airport Intermodal
Transportation Facilities |
|
Description of Facilities |
Examples |
Planning Issues To Be Considered |
Mini-Terminals |
Bus shelters, waiting rooms with limited passenger amenities,
covered shelters.
Located near parking structure or lot,
perhaps located adjacent to commercial vehicle lane, near baggage
claim area. |
Portland International Airport provides covered shelters for
passengers waiting at island curbside adjacent to roadway. |
Consider airport policies and studies related to land use
planning, terminal area planning and surface access planning (new
roadways, links to existing or planned rail systems).
Identify any potential constraints at sites and access
constraints such s freeway construction.
Identify type
of facilities to be provided at intermodal facility vs. airport
facility.
Design facility to allow for flexibility to
expand or reassign areas based on changing needs. |
Mega- Terminals/Ground Transportation Centers (GTCs) |
Multi-storied buildings with passenger pickup and dropoff for
various modes, ticketing, baggage claim, rental car facilities,
etc. |
San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami International Airports
are currently planning for specially designated ground
transportation centers at sites separate from terminal. |
Design facility to minimize walking distances; separate
vehicle and pedestrian and vehicular activity; minimize need for
passenger signage, etc.
Provide reliable and rapid
transportation service between facility and airport.
Coordinate timed transfers and connections of various modes to
minimize passenger delays. |
Intermodal Terminal Facility |
Airports which, within their terminal facilities, serve as
convenient transfer point for various modes of travel.
Typically, integration of air, bus and commuter rail operations
within one transportation center. |
Michigan Regional Airport has provision for air, bus and
commuter rail operations within the Michigan Transportation
Center. |
Consider mode-specific planning and design related to
operational and enforcement issues.
Consider potential
passenger perceptions regarding level of convenience due to
number of mode transfers and location of facility in relation to
boarding areas.
Consider availability of funding sources
for financing of facility, including both airport and non-airport
sources. |
Mini-Terminals
This classification refers to facilities such as bus shelter
or waiting rooms located near a parking structure and often
located near the baggage claim area or adjacent to a
commercial vehicle lane. Mini-terminals do not have many
passenger amenities and often are just a small waiting room or
a covered shelter.
Mega-Terminals/Ground Transportation Centers (GTCS)
Most often these facilities are referred to as ground
transportation centers and are typically multi-storied
buildings with passenger pickup and drop off for various modes
(car, taxi, courtesy bus, shuttle). Many times these
facilities also have ticketing, rental car facilities, baggage
claim, and automated peoplemover systems to link centers with
passenger terminals. This provides a transfer convenient for
both passengers and employees of the airport. GTCs are often
at a location separate from the passenger terminal.
Intermodal Terminal Facility
This classification refers to airports which, within their
terminal facilities, serve as a convenient transfer point for
various modes of travel. They serve as an intermodal transfer
facility offering connections to bus and commuter rail
operations but within the airport, thereby offering the
integration of all three services under one roof.
Planning Issues to be Considered in Designing On-Airport
Intermodal Facilities
o Consider airport policies and studies related to land use
planning, terminal area planning and surface access planning
(e.g., new roadways, links to existing or planned rail
systems).
o Identify any potential constraints at the sites including
available area, environmental concerns, signalized
intersections near or at capacity, inadequate queuing capacity
to enter and exit the proposed facility.
o Identify the type of facilities that should be provided
at the intermodal facility versus those that should be located
at the airport terminal (e.g., commercial vehicle curbsides,
rental car facilities, concessions, offices, passenger
ticketing, baggage check-in, public or employee parking,
vehicle staging area).
o Design the facility to allow for flexibility to expand or
to reassign areas as ground transportation and passenger needs
change.
o Design the facility to ease passengers' walking distance,
confusion of signage, baggage carrying needs.
o Provide rapid and reliable transportation between the
facility and the airport.
o Coordinate timed transfers and connections of various
modes to minimize passenger delays.
o Consider mode-specific planning and design related to
operational and enforcement issues (e.g., dispatch and queuing
areas for taxicabs, quick turnaround and maintenance
facilities for rental car operations).
o Consider potential passenger perceptions regarding level
of convenience due to number of mode transfers and location of
the facility in relation to boarding areas.
o Consider availability of funding sources for financing of
the facility, including both airport and non-airport sources
(ISTEA funds, user fees). Identify the need for project
support (state and local transportation and transit agencies,
commercial vehicle operators, airlines).
Off-airport Intermodal Facilities
Off-airport intermodal facilities, often referred to as
satellite terminals, are typically operated by either public
or private agencies rather than the local airport. These
facilities can be classified broadly as either limited-service
or full-service terminals. Table 6.5-2 provides specific
planning and design considerations for off-airport intermodal
facilities.
| Table 6.5-2 Off-Airport Intermodal
Transportation Facilities |
|
Description of Facilities |
Examples |
Planning Issues To Be Considered |
Limited Service Terminals |
Satellite terminals, typically operated by public or private
agencies other than the local airport.
Park n' Fly type
facilities, provide parking for airport bound travelers and
convenient transfers to dedicated service to airport.
Facility may offer additional passenger amenities including
waiting areas, some airline ticketing services. |
Flyaway Service in Van Nuys, CA is a 24 hour bus service to
LAX. It provides 2000 parking spaces, ticket counters for
several airlines, skycap baggage service, waiting areas and
parking lot security for passengers. |
Coordinate multiple-agency concerns and requirements (i.e.,
re-routing public transit services, potential funding sources,
etc.).
Identify feasible locations for off-airport intermodal
facilities that are appropriately located to attract high
passenger levels (i.e., along a congested highway corridor that
provides high occupancy vehicle lanes, with in a corridor with
high levels of airport-bound business trips). |
Full Service Terminals |
Remote airport passenger terminals, offering airline
ticketing and baggage check-in services in addition to
transportation to nearest airport. |
Currently in Orlando there are plans to construct an
intermodal transportation center designed to function as a remote
airport terminal with airline ticketing, security screening and
passenger and baggage check-in. |
Consider availability of property for the facility, including
any land use, environmental or physical constraints at the
site.
Identify potential impacts of the facility on
surrounding residential or commercial areas. |
Limited Service Terminals
This classification generally refers to "Park-n-Fly" type
facilities that provide parking for airport-bound travelers
and convenient transfers to a dedicated airport service (e.g.,
direct rail or bus service). Some facilities may also offer
additional passenger amenities including waiting areas and
some airline ticketing services. The Flyaway Service in Van
Nuys, California is an example of this type of facility. It
offers a 24-hour bus service to Los Angeles International
Airport, with 15 to 30 minute headways during peak periods.
This service is convenient to both passengers and employees of
the airport. Figure 6.5-1 illustrates the ridership on the
bus service that serves the Van Nuys terminal. Bus service is
used mainly by passengers, particularly during the peak
vacation months of June, July and August when passenger
ridership is between 60,000 to 70,000 riders per month. The
use of this facility by employees of the airport is relatively
constant throughout the year with approximately 10,000
passengers each month. In addition to bus service, the
facility provides 2000 parking spaces, ticket counters for
several airlines, skycap baggage service, waiting areas, and
parking lot security for its passengers. (Passengers may
purchase bus tickets until two minutes prior to bus
departure.) Another example of this type of facility is the
Logan Express bus service which serves the Boston,
Massachusetts area as illustrated in Figure 6.5.2.
Full Service Terminals
These facilities, operating as remote airport passenger
terminals, offer ticketing and baggage check-in services in
addition to transportation to the nearest major airport.
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.5-1 Van Nuys Express Ridership
Planning Issues to be Considered in Designing Off-Airport
Intermodal Facilities
Planning for these off-airport intermodal facilities often
requires close coordination among various public and private
entities, including private commercial vehicle operators, rail
and transit agencies, the airport, local communities, and
metropolitan planning organizations. When designing an
intermodal facility it is important to assure a good fit with
the remainder of the transportation system and assure the
transportation system's fit with the intermodal facility. The
following issues should be addressed when planning for off-
airport intermodal facilities:
Click HERE for graphic.
Figure 6.5-2 Logan Express Bus Service
o Properly locating a facility relative to other facilities
and modes to appropriately attract high passenger levels
(e.g., along a congested highway corridor that provides high-
occupancy vehicle lanes, within a corridor with high levels of
airport-bound business trips).
o Relocating modes to better service the facility.
o Coordinating multiple agency concerns and requirements
like realigning schedules and routes to better coordinate
transfers at the facility and throughout the system.
o Introducing new modes and services to capitalize on the
new facility and to accommodate new demand.
o Establishing priorities of access to facilities.
o Redefining the roles of existing transfer facilities to
eliminate duplication and to develop specialization.
o Upgrading the condition of modal equipment to match the
new facility.
o Respecting business and community needs and environmental
concerns by identifying potential impacts of the facility
on surrounding residential and commercial areas.
o Considering the availability of property for the
facility, including any land use, environmental or
physical constraints at the site.
o Considering availability of funding sources for financing
of the facility, including both airport and non-airport
sources (ISTEA funds, user fees). Identify the need for
project support (state and local transportation and transit
agencies, commercial vehicle operators, airlines).
6.6 Transportation Demand Management
As congestion and environmental problems have worsened
transportation demand management (TDM) has become more and
more important as an alternative for solving congestion
problems in urban areas. Transportation demand management
measures are designed to reduce the number of vehicle trips
made, by shifting trips to higher occupancy modes. As has
been discussed elsewhere in this guide, there are two major
travel markets that access an airport; employees and
travelers. These two groups usually do not travel at the same
time and often are coming from different areas. Most TDM
measures are designed to encourage employees to use higher
occupancy vehicles and may be relevant to airport and tenant
employees who work at an airport. A limited number of
measures are also relevant to air passengers who access an
airport. These measures often complement or supplement other
airport access alternatives such as transit or parking
improvements.
Management of Employee Trips
A study of California airports estimated that 40 percent of
all vehicle trips to the airport and 20 percent of all
airport related vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are by
employees. A study at Logan Airport in Boston reported
that 25 percent of vehicle trips to the airport are by
employees. These estimates are probably transferrable to
airports nationwide, therefore employees are responsible for a
considerable portion of the regional VMT associated with
airport operations and an even higher proportion of the
congestion occurring on airport access roads.
Employee trip reduction measures have been studied and applied
at urban and suburban employment centers for a number of
years, however there is much less experience with measures
aimed specifically at airport employees, who are different in
many ways from the usual office employee. Many airport
activities take place 24 hours a day, and are performed by
employees who work on different shifts. Many employees begin
at least one end of their trip outside normal working hours,
and often must be at work before public transportation starts
to operate. Other employees, such as flight crews, may only
travel to and from the airport at their home base once or
twice a week on a variable schedule and cannot arrange for
ridesharing. Employees at most U.S. airports enjoy on-airport
parking, fully subsidized by their respective employers.
Nonetheless planners should analyze the employee situation at
an airport, understand the different markets and identify
potential application of TDM measures. The tables in sections
6.6 will provide some information on employee related TDM
measures. Further descriptions of TDM measures and their
application to employees can be found in FHWA TDM Measures.
Management of Passenger Trips
The implementation of a successful travel demand management
program to reduce airport passenger ground access trips is
considerably more difficult than for employee trips.
Passengers do not travel to the airport on a regular basis and
therefore cannot make regular ridesharing arrangements such as
vanpools and carpools. Passengers can be encouraged to travel
in higher occupancy modes through parking pricing policies,
and through the provision of convenient express transit
services such as the Boston Logan Express service.
Air passengers are concerned about getting to and from the
airport as quickly, conveniently and reliably as possible.
They cannot afford to miss their flight and are often on a
tight schedule. Passengers will only use high occupancy modes
if they are perceived as reliable and fast. Air travelers,
particularly those traveling on business, are often not
particularly price sensitive to the cost of the access trip,
including parking charges, and are willing to pay for the
convenience of taking a taxi or parking at an airport.
However, experience with work travelers has shown that if the
cost of driving alone is increased and quality alternatives
are provided, passengers making business and pleasure trips
will be more likely to shift to higher occupancy modes. The
willingness of passengers and employees to use higher
occupancy modes, if they have the right characteristics, is
shown by the ridership on the Logan Express in Boston, the
Flyaway service in Los Angeles (as shown in Figure 6.5-1), and
Metrorail at Washington National Airport.
========================================
Discouraging passengers from driving to the airport and parking in
long term lots does not always reduce congestion and air pollution.
Some alternative modes such as Pick-up/Drop off and taxi may actually
increase vehicle trips associated with passenger access to the
airport. A useful concept for comparing ground access impacts of each
mode is the average number of vehicle trips per passenger (VTPP).
This measure was developed by Boston Central Transportation Planning
Staff based on information from a 1987 Air Passenger Survey. The
higher the VTPP is for a mode the more it has a negative effect on
congestion and air pollution. VTPP will be different depending on the
situation. For example, Los Angeles International and San Francisco
International airports have experienced much lower occupancies for
their door to door van service and would probably have a much higher
VTPP for that mode.
LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Vehicle Trips per Passenger by Ground Access Mode
Access Mode VTPP
Pick-up/Drop-off* 1.29
Taxi 1.09
Long Term Park 0.74
Rental 0.64
Door-to-Door 0.33
Scheduled HOV** 0.10
Transit*** 0.00
* Pick-up/Drop-off includes short-term parking
** Includes Logan Express
*** MBTA Blue Line to Massport shuttle bus
and Logan Water Shuttle
========================================
Estimates of achievable high occupancy vehicle utilization by
passengers can be made by analyzing the mode splits that were
reported in the tables included in section 6.4. The results
of this analysis, included as table 6.6-1, shows that high
occupancy use ranges from 37% of the passengers originating at
Philadelphia International Airport to 5% of those originating
at the airport in Wichita Kansas.
Table 6.6.1 HOV Use at Different Size
Airports.
Originations Number Highest Lowest Median
(Millions) of Airports HOV Use HOV Use HOV Use
>5 11 37% 15% 24%
2.5-5.0 9 33% 10% 13%
1-2.5 1 16% 16% -
.5-1.0 2 16% 5% -
<.5 1 15% 15% -
Management of Commercial Vehicles
Commercial vehicles such as taxicabs, limousines, van
services, and bus service can also contribute to airport
congestion. These vehicles often circulate through the
terminal access roads looking for passengers to pick up,
monopolize terminal curb space, or block terminal roads.
Management of curbside utilization by these vehicles is
discussed in section 6.3. Other approaches to managing these
vehicles, as well as autos that circulate through the terminal
area and locations where management techniques have been
implemented are described in Table 6.6-2.
| TABLE 6.6-2 Commercial Vehicle
Management |
| TDM MEASURE |
DESCRIPTION |
EXAMPLES |
| Vehicle Entrance Fee |
All vehicles entering an airport are charged a fee whether
they go to the curb, parking lot or just passing through. |
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport charges all vehicles
a $.50 entrance fee. |
| Limits on Taxicabs and Limousines |
Taxicabs and limousines are required to have entry permits,
exclusive contracts and/or trip fees are imposed. |
San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles International and John
Wayne. |
| Limits on Hotel, Parking, and Car Rental Shuttles |
Using Automatic Vehicle Identification, a circuit fee on
shuttles is imposed to encourage getting as many riders as
possible per trip and limiting circulation around the
terminal.
Consolidate shuttle services (e.g., hotel/model and
rental car) by using the same shuttle to access multiple
locations. |
Los Angeles International, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Minneapolis-St.
Paul, Washington National |
TDM Measures
This section will discuss several different types of TDM
measures that are applicable to airport related employees,
airport passengers, and commercial vehicles that serve
airports. The types of TDM measures discussed in this section
include:
o High Occupancy Vehicles
o Financial Incentives
o Parking Management
o Information and Marketing, and
o Airport Access Fees and Circulation Control
High Occupancy Vehicles
A number of transit options were discussed in section 6.4.
These options, such as Express buses and shuttle buses are
traditionally viewed as TDM measures and provide an
alternative to single occupant vehicles for employees as well
as passengers.
In addition to the transit services described earlier,
employees at an airport can also carpool or vanpool to work.
The inflexibility and variety of work schedules make it
difficult for many employees to take advantage of traditional
carpools and vanpools as an alternative to driving alone.
However,
employers at an airport can sponsor carpool and vanpool
programs for those employees who can take advantage of them.
Vanpooling programs encourage groups of employees to ride to
work together in a van that is driven by one of the employees.
Employers can support vanpooling by:
o Providing ridematching assistance
o Buying or leasing vans for employees use
o Subsidizing employee ownership or lease
o Subsidizing vanpools or riders by paying operational
expenses and parking costs
o Insuring vans
o Maintaining vans
o Fueling vehicles
Financial Incentives
Airport employers can provide financial incentives that
encourage employees to use higher occupancy modes. Financial
incentives that can be provided by employers include rideshare
subsidies, transportation allowances, and indirect incentive
as described in Table 6.6-3. If employees are provided high
quality service as an alternative to driving alone, these
incentives provide further impetus for workers at an airport
to use higher occupancy modes.
| Table 6.6-3 Financial Incentives |
| TDM STRATEGIES |
CHARACTERISTICS |
EXAMPLES |
| 1. Rideshare Subsidies |
Regular, periodic payments made to employees who use
car/vanpools, transit, bicycles, or other alternatives to driving
alone.
Subsidies most often provided as cash payments of a
pre-set amount or as a reimbursement for actual travel costs, but
may also be pre-paid fare media such as transit passes or
coupons. |
Union Bank San Diego, California: Offers 315 employees 100%
transit subsidy. Employees have free parking, but off-site, in a
company-leased garage several blocks away. Monthly garage pass
holders are given passes to downtown trolley service, which
connects garage to office |
| 2. Transportation & Travel Allowances |
Regular, periodic payments provided either as cash payment or
one time income adjustment. They differ from subsidies in that
they are given to all travelers even those who drive alone.
Flexibility in mode choice provided because no mode is favored
over others. |
CH2M HILL- Bellevue, Washington: Travel allowance of $40 per
month. |
| 3. Indirect Financial Incentives |
Employers who do not want to offer employees cash payment can
provide positive economic incentives to shift drivers to
ridesharing by offering measurable benefits with monetary, but
non-cash value.
Use of fleet vehicles for ridesharing;
subsidized fuel or maintenance provided on-site or with vouchers
accepted at local gas stations; extra vacation time accumulated;
catalog points awarded for ridesharing and redeemable for
merchandise; free or discounted equipment (i.e., walking shoes,
bicycles, etc.) |
Allergan - Irvine, California: Offers employees one
to two extra paid vacation days per year for ridesharing on a
regular basis (two to three days or more per week). |
| Table 6.6-4 Information and Marketing TDM
Measures |
| TDM STRATEGIES |
CHARACTERISTICS |
EXAMPLES |
MARKET SEGMENT |
| Employee |
Visitors |
Local Residents |
Meeter/ Greeter |
| 1. Employer Ridematching Program |
Employer-sponsored ridematching assists employees by
identifying employees who want to use commute alternatives and
matches them. |
FMC Corporation - Princeton, New Jersey |
X |
|
|
|
| 2. Information Dissemination |
Bulletin boards, flyers distributed to desks, in-house
newsletters, promotional events such as rideshare fairs. |
Kiosk at S.F. Int’l Germantown Share Ride - Germantown,
Maryland: Promotional events, mass mailings, newsletters. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| 3. Transportation Coordinator |
Provides personalized assistance. Offers individual trip
planning assistance, as well as marketing and information
functions. |
Irvine Spectrum - Irvine, California:
TMA
Coordinator |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| 4. Special Promotions |
Periodic prize drawings, contests, awards for ridesharing,
commuter and bike clubs and other activities to attract the
attention and generate excitement about the use of commute
alternatives. |
-- |
X |
|
|
| 5. Guaranteed Ride Home |
Commuter insurance of not being stranded without
transportation in an emergency. Free or subsidized emergency
transportation, generally by taxi or rental car for the trip
home. |
-- |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Information and Marketing
Another means of encouraging the use of high occupancy
transportation by both airline passengers and employees who
work at an airport is to make information on alternative modes
easily available to them. This can be accomplished by:
o Ground transportation kiosks at the airport that provide
passengers and employees with information
o Transportation coordinators who provide information upon
request and who actively encourage use of high occupancy
modes,
o Providing employees who rideshare with a guaranteed ride
home if they use a high occupancy mode to reach the airport
and cannot use it home because of unanticipated work
requirements.
These information and marketing measures and other examples
are included in Table 6.6-4.
Parking Management
Perhaps the most effective transportation demand management
measure for airports are parking management measures. Higher
charges for parking will encourage employees and some
passengers to look for high quality multi-passenger
alternatives to the automobile for their trip to the airport.
However, there is a risk that higher prices will increase the
drop off of passengers,
which may add to airport congestion and air pollution.
Examples of parking management measures and their
applicability to employees and passengers are shown in Table
6.6-5.
| Parking Management Program |
| TDM STRATEGIES |
CHARACTERISTICS |
EXAMPLES |
MARKET SEGMENT |
| Employee |
Visitors |
Local Residents |
Origination- Visitors |
Meeter/ Greeter |
| 1. Preferential Parking for Ride sharing |
Employees who rideshare receive reserved parking spaces near
entrance to building. In situations where parking facilities are
large, vary in convenience or attractiveness, or where parking is
limited, preferential parking can be an effective incentive to
rideshare. |
Lawrence Livermore Labs - Livermore, California:
Preferential parking. |
X |
| 2. Parking Prices/ Fees |
Fee charged for vehicle parking in a garage, l ot or other
facility.
Can generate revenue that can be used to subsidize
transit and other alternative modes.
Single fee paid daily by
all vehicles entering facility; single fee paid for monthly
parking pass; different rates charged for different modes or at
different times of day. |
Twentieth Century Corp. - Warner Center
W. San Fernando,
California: Priced parking.
Most major airports. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| 3. Parking Supply Reduction |
Limit amount of parking available. |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REFERENCES
(AGAPP.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
