Airport and Airline Access. Airport and Airline Access

(1)

Airport Systems Planning & Design / RdN

Airport and Airline Access

Dr. Richard de Neufville

Professor of Systems Engineering and

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

— Objective:

To identify key issues

and provide detailed guidelines

— Topics

Q

User Needs

Q

Trends in Development

Q

Standard Notions of Airport Access

Q

Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Q

Policy Conclusions

Q

Detailed Guidelines

(2)

— Most airport traffic is to suburbs

Q

Travelers, employees, and others each

comprise about 1/3 of airport traffic

Q

Employees mostly in suburbs

Q

Suppliers mostly in suburbs

Q

Travelers: about half to suburbs, half to

city center

— Conclusion: Only about 1/6 of

airport access traffic to city center

User Needs (I)

— Traffic to city center alone is not

enough to justify mass transit

— Example analysis

Q

25 million total passengers airport with 20 % transfers

Q

=> 10,000,000 enplanement airport

• About 30,000 passengers/day

• About 15,000 passengers/day to city center

Q

If mass transit mode split is 50% (which would be

excellent), this gives it 7,500 passengers per day

Q

Since capacity of rail line is about 7,500 passengers/hour

Q

Airport traffic to city unlikely to justify mass transit

(3)

— Travelers put priority on reliability of travel

time

— Making the flight is most important

— Direct travel, without changing modes, is

an important part of travelers’ confidence

in reliability of access

— Travelers do not put priority on speed of

travel to airport

— Travelers typically arrive early

Q

“50% arrive an hour early”

User Needs (III)

— Travel to/from airport is too slow

Q

Crawling in traffic is absurd compared to

speed of aircraft

— Solution: High speed link between

airport and city center

— Examples

Q

Paris -- RER

Q

London -- Paddington/Heathrow express

A Standard Concept of

Airport Access

(4)

— An issue of social justice:

Q

Why should air travelers get special treatment,

compared to commuters?

Q

Air travelers a trivial fraction of urban congestion

Q

Air travelers also only a fraction of rush hour traffic

to/from airport

• Balance are airport employees, etc.

• Example: 20% at San Francisco

— Examples of these objections

Q

New York -- Newark and Kennedy to downtown

A Standard Objection to

High Speed Airport Access

— For a Range of Conditions

Q

Size of Airport, Distance from city center

— Looked at Cost and Speed of Many

Modes

Q

Taxi, Car, Bus, Bus on own right-of-way

Q

Rail, High-Speed Rail, Helicopter

— Can determine most attractive

mode for various values of time

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

of Airport Access

(5)

Airport Access

Cost vs. Time Tradeoffs

BUS AUTO LIMO TAXI VTOL HSR EXPRESS AUTO / HOV BUSWAY

Total Cost of Trip

Total

Travel

Time

Preferred Access Mode

Depends on Traffic, Value of Time

EXPRESS AUTO / HOV AUTO BUSWAY TAXI BUS

Value

of

Time

Traffic Volume

(6)

— Customers prefer Rubber-tired access

— These offer better service to most

customers because they are:

Q

Faster, because direct (no need to go to station) and

eliminates schedule delay

Q

Less Capital intensive (at margin: people own cars)

Q

Also (not included in analysis) these vehicles can

distribute traffic around city, not just to central city, this

is most important to employees

Results of Cost-Effectiveness

Analysis

— A metropolitan rail net exists, so that:

— ….cost of extension to airport is

relatively small

— Highway access difficult (example: to

airport islands or congested areas)

— As a pollution control measure

— Thus: Many rail systems exist and

many being developed

(7)

Rail Access To Airports

(Europe, part 1)

Country City Airport High Speed Intercity Metropolitan

Austria Vienna by 2004? yes

Belgium Brussels yes

Denmark Copenhagen yes u. c. 2007

Lyon yes

de Gaulle yes yes yes

Orly yes

Berlin Schonefield u.c. yes

Dresden yes

Duesseldorf yes yes yes Frankfurt yes yes yes

Hamburg u.c. 2005

Hannover u. c. yes Koeln-Bonn u.c. 2002 yes Leipzig-Halle u.c. 2001 u.c. 2001 u.c. 2001

Munich yes

Stuttgart yes

Paris France

Germany

Rail Access To Airports

(Europe, part 2)

Greece Athens u.c. 2004

Milan Malpensa yes Rome Fuimicino yes

Netherlands Amsterdam yes yes

Norway Oslo yes

Spain Barcelona yes

Madrid yes

Sweden Arlanda yes

Geneva yes yes

Zuerich yes yes

Birmingham yes

Gatwick yes

Heathrow yes yes

Stansted yes Manchester yes Newcastle yes London Switzerland Italy United Kingdom

(8)

Rail Access To Airports

(Asia and Australia)

Country

City

Airport

Intercity Metropolitan

Australia

Sydney

yes

Shanghai

Pudong

u.c.

Hong Kong

Chek Lap Kok

yes

Osaka

Shin Kansai

yes

Sapporo

Shin Chitose

yes

Haneda

yes

Narita

yes

Incheon

u.c. 2005?

Gimpo

u.c. 2007?

Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur

Sepang

yes

Philippines

Manila

u.c.

Singapore

Changi

yes

Thailand

Bangkok

yes

Japan

Tokyo

Korea

Seoul

China

Rail Access To Airports

(United States)

Atlanta

yes

Baltimore

yes

Boston

Logan

yes

Chicago

Midway

yes

Chicago

O'Hare

yes

Cleveland

yes

New York

Kennedy

u.c. 2004?

New York

Newark

yes

New York

LaGuardia

u.c. 2006?

Philadelphia

yes

Portland (Oregon)

yes

San Francisco

International

2003?

St. Louis

yes

(9)

— People movers are “trains” that cover

short distances -- “horizontal elevators”

— They constitute major innovation in

design of passenger buildings

— They resolve tension between

Q

Desire to concentrate passengers

Q

Need to space aircraft widely

— They link landside and airside buildings

or landside and remote parking, stations...

Role of People Movers

People Movers at U.S.

Airports

City Airport Landside Midfield

Atlanta yes

Chicago O'Hare yes yes Cincinnati yes Dallas/Ft.Worth Dallas/Ft.Worth yes

Denver yes

Detroit Wayne County yes Houston Bush yes

LasVegas yes

Miami International yes Minneapolis/St.P International yes yes

New York Newark yes

Orlando International yes Pittsburgh yes San Francisco International 2003

Seattle-Tacoma yes

Tampa yes

(10)

People Movers at Airports in

Europe & Asia

Region Country City Airport Landside Midfield

de Gaulle u. c.? Orly yes Frankfurt yes Dusseldorf yes Birmingham yes

Gatwick yes yes Stansted yes Italy Rome yes

Switzerland Zurich u.c

China Hong Kong Chep Lak Kok yes yes Osaka Shin Kansai yes

Tokyo Haneda yes Korea Seoul Incheon yes Malaysia Kuala Lampur Sepang yes Singapore Singapore Changi yes

Taiwan Taipei yes

Thailand Bangkok Second A/P u.c.? Japan

Asia

Paris London France Germany United Kingdom

Europe

— Two general types

Q

Self-propelled (motor on board)

Q

Cable-driven (lighter, shorter distances)

— Can be rubber-tired or steel-wheeled

— Many, many manufacturers

Q

However, a couple are beginning to dominate:

Q

Bombardier (Ex Adtranz and Westinghouse)

--rubber-tired, self-propelled, longer distances

Q

Poma/Otis -- cable driven, short distances

(11)

Airport

Start of

Service

Total Length of

Guideway (mi.)

Total Number

of Stations

Atlanta Chicago/O’Hare Cincinnati Dallas/Ft. Worth Denver Houston/Intercontinental Las Vegas Miami New York/Newark Orlando Pittsburgh Seattle-Tacoma Tampa 1980 1991 1993 1994 1974 1991 1994 1972 1990 1985 1980 1996 1981 1989 1992 1973 1971 1987 1991 2.4 3.6 2.7 0.25 13.0 13.93 2.4 1.4 1.59 0.5 0.5 2.4 1.5 2.2 0.93 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.4 10 12 5 3 28 32 7 9 11 2 2 7 4 6 2 8 8 10 16 Source: Austin, T. (1993)

Characteristics of Automated

People Movers at US Airports

Manufacturer

Pax. Capacity

Speed (kmh)

Sites Installed

AEG/Westinghouse 100 - 150 Seatac; Tampa; Miami;

Denver International; London/Gatwick - Stansted; Being installed:

Frankfurt; Honolulu

Matra 100 - 170 Chicago/O’Hare; Paris/Orly

Off Airport:

Turin; Reims; Lille; Toulouse; Bordeaux; Jacksonville; Taipei Siemens H- Bahn

Hanging monorail

45 - 65 Off airport:

Dortmund; Erlangen

Van Roll 120 NY/Newark

Off airport: Singapore; Hawaii; Dallas; Sydney; Birmingham Bombardier

Advanced Light Rail

70 Off airport:

Detroit People Mover; Vancouver Sky Train Otis Cable Max: 1.7 km. 150 50 up to 80 up to 60 45 80 40 Tokyo/Narita