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. |
| 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 | |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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) |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 | -- |
| 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 |
| 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 |
- |
| 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 |
| 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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
| 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. 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. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 | |