Intermodal Transportation
Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities Gao ID: GAO-05-727 July 26, 2005With the number of airplane passengers using U.S. airports expected to grow to almost 1 billion by the year 2015, ground access to U.S. airports has become an important factor in the development of our nation's transportation networks. Increases in the number of passengers traveling to and from airports will place greater strains on our nation's airport access roads and airport capacity, which can have a number of negative economic and social effects. U.S. transportation policy has generally addressed these negative economic and social effects from the standpoint of individual transportation modes and local government involvement. However, European transportation policy is increasingly focusing on intermodal transportation as a possible means to address congestion without sacrificing economic growth. This report addresses the development of intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports, including (1) the roles of different levels of government and the private sector; (2) the extent such facilities have been developed; (3) benefits, costs, and barriers to such development; and (4) strategies to improve these capabilities. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Amtrak. DOT generally concurred with the report, and Amtrak had no comments.
State and local government agencies have primary responsibility for developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports. Generally airports and local transit agencies are heavily involved, especially if these projects are part of a local transit system. The federal government has not established specific goals or funding programs to develop intermodal capabilities at airports. However, it provides funding for projects fitting the criteria of other programs. The private sector may undertake a variety of roles. Most major U.S. airports have direct connections to local transit systems rather than to nationwide rail or bus systems. For example, 64 out of 72 airports have connections to local bus systems, and 27 airports have connections to local rail systems. At the same time, only 19 airports have connections to nationwide rail or bus systems. A number of airports have plans to enhance their connections to local rail and bus systems. U.S. and European transportation officials and experts cited the benefits for intermodal capabilities at airports to include increased transportation options, reduced road congestion, and reduced short-haul flights. The costs of intermodal projects using rail are typically significant. Barriers cited include the difficulty of securing needed funding, disincentives for airport support such as potential reductions in airport parking revenue, geographical and physical land constraints, limitations of the existing nationwide rail network, and inconveniences in comparison to using cars that limit consumer demand. Two differing strategies developed from our prior work would help public decision makers improve intermodal capabilities at airports. The first strategy would increase flexibility within current federal transportation programs to encourage a more systemwide approach to transportation planning and development. The second strategy would involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation policy's focus on local decision making by increasing the role of the federal government in order to develop more integrated air and rail networks and would be closer to the strategy followed in Europe. While the first strategy would most likely lead to a continued focus on the development of intermodal connections to local transit systems, the second strategy could develop more integrated air and rail networks, either nationwide or along particularly congested corridors. The second strategy would be costly, and high benefits, which would be difficult to achieve, would be needed to justify this investment.
GAO-05-727, Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-727
entitled 'Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would
Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities'
which was released on August 5, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives:
July 2005:
INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION:
Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport
Intermodal Capabilities:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-727]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-727, a report to the Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
With the number of airplane passengers using U.S. airports expected to
grow to almost 1 billion by the year 2015, ground access to U.S.
airports has become an important factor in the development of our
nation's transportation networks. Increases in the number of passengers
traveling to and from airports will place greater strains on our
nation‘s airport access roads and airport capacity, which can have a
number of negative economic and social effects. U.S. transportation
policy has generally addressed these negative economic and social
effects from the standpoint of individual transportation modes and
local government involvement. However, European transportation policy
is increasingly focusing on intermodal transportation as a possible
means to address congestion without sacrificing economic growth.
This report addresses the development of intermodal capabilities at
U.S. airports, including (1) the roles of different levels of
government and the private sector; (2) the extent such facilities have
been developed; (3) benefits, costs, and barriers to such development;
and (4) strategies to improve these capabilities.
GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation
(DOT) and Amtrak. DOT generally concurred with the report, and Amtrak
had no comments.
What GAO Found:
State and local government agencies have primary responsibility for
developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports. Generally airports
and local transit agencies are heavily involved, especially if these
projects are part of a local transit system. The federal government has
not established specific goals or funding programs to develop
intermodal capabilities at airports. However, it provides funding for
projects fitting the criteria of other programs. The private sector may
undertake a variety of roles.
Most major U.S. airports have direct connections to local transit
systems rather than to nationwide rail or bus systems. For example, 64
out of 72 airports have connections to local bus systems, and 27
airports have connections to local rail systems. At the same time, only
19 airports have connections to nationwide rail or bus systems. A
number of airports have plans to enhance their connections to local
rail and bus systems.
U.S. and European transportation officials and experts cited the
benefits for intermodal capabilities at airports to include increased
transportation options, reduced road congestion, and reduced short-haul
flights. The costs of intermodal projects using rail are typically
significant. Barriers cited include the difficulty of securing needed
funding, disincentives for airport support such as potential reductions
in airport parking revenue, geographical and physical land constraints,
limitations of the existing nationwide rail network, and inconveniences
in comparison to using cars that limit consumer demand.
Two differing strategies developed from our prior work would help
public decision makers improve intermodal capabilities at airports. The
first strategy would increase flexibility within current federal
transportation programs to encourage a more systemwide approach to
transportation planning and development. The second strategy would
involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation policy‘s focus on
local decision making by increasing the role of the federal government
in order to develop more integrated air and rail networks and would be
closer to the strategy followed in Europe. While the first strategy
would most likely lead to a continued focus on the development of
intermodal connections to local transit systems, the second strategy
could develop more integrated air and rail networks, either nationwide
or along particularly congested corridors. The second strategy would be
costly, and high benefits, which would be difficult to achieve, would
be needed to justify this investment.
Example of Intermodal Connections for an Airline Passenger.
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-727].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud, (202)
512-2834, siggerudk@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Each Level of Government and the Private Sector Play a Role in
Developing Intermodal Capabilities at U.S. Airports:
Most Major U.S. Airports Have Direct Connections to Local
Transportation Services, but Very Few Have Direct Connections to
Nationwide Rail or Bus Systems:
Development of Intermodal Capabilities May Provide a Range of Benefits;
However, Substantial Costs and Barriers Affect their Development:
Two Key Strategies Could Help Address Intermodal Transportation
Planning and Financing Limitations:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Intermodal Connections at Airports in Europe:
Role of the European Union in Developing Air-Rail Connections:
Role of Member Nations and Local Entities in Developing Air-Rail
Connections:
Differences between the United States and Europe Limit Usefulness of
"European Model":
Appendix III: Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports:
Federal Funding:
State and Local Funding:
Private Sector Investment:
Appendix IV: Survey Results:
Appendix V: Survey Results on Existing and Planned Bus and Rail
Connections:
Appendix VI: Selected Airport Case Studies:
Baltimore-Washington International Airport:
Los Angeles International Airport:
Miami International Airport:
Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport:
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport:
Newark Liberty International Airport:
New York John F. Kennedy International Airport:
Oakland International Airport:
Portland International Airport:
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport:
San Francisco International Airport:
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport:
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport:
Washington Dulles International Airport:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Typical Steps in the Development of Intermodal Projects:
Table 2: Federal Programs that Can Fund Intermodal Projects at Airports:
Table 3: Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Local Bus
Service:
Table 4: Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Nationwide Bus
Service:
Table 5: Number of Airports with Capital Improvement Plan Proposals to
Improve Passenger Access to Local and Nationwide Transportation Systems
Table 6: Examples of Intermodal Project Costs and Funding Sources:
Table 7: Selected Examples of Intermodal Rail Projects Funded by PFC
Funds:
Table 8: Airports Selected for GAO Case Studies:
Table 9: Existing and Planned Bus and Rail Connections at 72 Airports:
Figures:
Figure 1: Two Examples of Intermodal Connections for an Airline
Passenger:
Figure 2: German High-Speed Train at Frankfurt International Airport's
Long-Distance Train Station:
Figure 3: People Mover Tracks from New York's Kennedy Airport Leading
into New York's Jamaica Train Station:
Figure 4: The Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Various
Numbers of Ground Transportation Modes:
Figure 5: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Local Rail
Systems:
Figure 6: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Amtrak's
Nationwide Route Network:
Figure 7: Train Station and Automated People Mover at Newark's Liberty
International Airport:
Figure 8: Thalys High-Speed Train at the Paris Charles de Gaulle
Airport
Figure 9: Airport Sign Showing the Direction to the Amtrak Train
Station at Milwaukee's General Mitchell International Airport:
Figure 10: Primary Benefits and Barriers Associated With Developing
Intermodal Facilities at Airports, According to Airport and Local
Transportation Officials:
Figure 11: Intermodal Connections at Baltimore-Washington International
Airport:
Figure 12: Intermodal Connections at Los Angeles International Airport:
Figure 13: Intermodal Connections at Miami International Airport:
Figure 14: Intermodal Connections at Milwaukee General Mitchell
International Airport:
Figure 15: Intermodal Connections at Minneapolis/St. Paul International
Airport:
Figure 16: Intermodal Connections at Newark Liberty International
Airport:
Figure 17: Intermodal Connections at New York John F. Kennedy
International Airport:
Figure 18: Intermodal Connections at Oakland International Airport:
Figure 19: Intermodal Connections at Portland International Airport:
Figure 20: Intermodal Connections at Ronald Reagan National Airport:
Figure 21: Intermodal Connections at San Francisco International
Airport:
Figure 22: Intermodal Connections at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose
International Airport:
Figure 23: Intermodal Connections at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport:
Figure 24: Intermodal Connections at Washington Dulles International
Airport:
Abbreviations:
AIP: Airport Improvement Program:
BART: Bay Area Rapid Transit:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991:
PFC: passenger facility charges:
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21ST Century:
Letter July 26, 2005:
The Honorable John L. Mica Chairman Subcommittee on Aviation Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
With the number of airplane passengers using U.S. airports expected to
grow from over 688 million in 2004 to almost 1 billion by the year
2015, ground access to U.S. airports has become an important factor in
the development of our nation's transportation networks. Since most
travelers use cars, whether privately owned or taxis, to get to the
airport, local cities and communities will face increased congestion on
their airport access roads and highways. Moreover, increases in
passenger air travel and the difficulty of building new airport
capacity will place greater strains on our nation's airport runway and
air space capacity. Increased road congestion and the strain on airport
capacity can both have a number of negative economic and social
effects, including wasting travelers' time and money, degrading air
quality, slowing commerce, and increasing energy consumption. These
effects are especially problematic in areas and transportation
corridors that are already heavily congested.
While the U.S. passenger transportation system consists of a number of
different transportation modes, including mass transit, roads,
aviation, waterways, and railroads, U.S. transportation policy has
generally addressed the negative economic and social effects of
congestion from the standpoint of individual transportation modes and
local government involvement. Compared to the United States, European
transportation policy has increasingly focused on intermodal
transportation--that is, a system that connects the separate
transportation modes and allows a passenger to complete a journey using
more than one mode. This focus has included improving the connections
between airports and other transportation modes--particularly rail--as
a possible means to address congestion and other issues without
sacrificing economic growth. The European experience in this area might
provide important lessons for the United States.
To determine how the mobility of the American public might be improved
through enhanced rail, transit, and bus connections to airports and at
what costs, this report addresses the following questions: (1) What
roles do federal, state, and local governments and the private sector
play in developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? (2) To
what extent have intermodal services and facilities been developed at
selected U.S. airports? (3) What benefits, costs, and barriers exist
for developing additional intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? and
(4) What transportation strategies, including lessons learned from the
European experience, may help public decisionmakers improve intermodal
capabilities at U.S. airports?
Throughout this report, we defined intermodal transportation as direct
connections for passengers traveling between airports and local public
transit systems and nationwide rail and bus systems.[Footnote 1]
Because the ease of transfer between modes is critical to how likely
passengers are to use a bus or rail system, we considered a direct
connection to consist of a transfer point (such as a bus stop or rail
station) that is accessible from airport terminals either by walking,
an automated people mover, or direct shuttle.[Footnote 2] To address
the four questions, we obtained and analyzed information from a variety
of sources. We surveyed all large and medium and selected small hub
U.S. airports to obtain information on the extent intermodal services
and facilities have been developed. These 72 airports accounted for
approximately 90 percent of the enplanements for calendar year 2003. We
conducted semi-structured interviews with key government transportation
officials, airport officials, and private sector transportation
representatives to obtain information for case studies of 16 U.S.
airports located in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas and San
Jose, California; Miami, Florida; Baltimore, Maryland; Minneapolis/St.
Paul, Minnesota; the New York City area; Portland, Oregon; Seattle,
Washington; the Washington, D.C., area; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We
also met with officials from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Amtrak, the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Office of Intermodalism, transportation experts,
and industry associations. We interviewed officials from the European
Union, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands to obtain
descriptive information on their airport-rail connections. In addition,
we obtained and analyzed information from our past reports, as well as
documents from DOT, the European Union, and research organizations. We
conducted our work from July 2004 through July 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Additional
information on our scope and methodology appears in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
State and local government agencies have primary responsibility for
developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports while the federal
government provides funding and oversight, and the private sector at
times may undertake a variety of roles. Typically, one or more state or
local transportation agencies (such as state departments of
transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and airport
authorities) take the lead in developing an intermodal capability at an
airport, which includes planning; securing funding from state, local,
federal, or private sources; and arranging for the design and
construction of the project. While the roles of each type of agency can
vary, our research at 16 airports found that in most cases, airports
are heavily involved in projects on airport property, local transit
agencies are involved in projects that are part of a local transit
system, and in certain cases, state departments of transportation or
metropolitan planning organizations take leading roles. The federal
government has not established specific goals or funding programs to
develop intermodal capabilities at airports. However, it provides
funding for these capabilities when they fit the criteria established
for funding programs focused on surface transportation or aviation--
including direct funding through grant programs and the approval of the
collection and use of airport fees for some projects. In its oversight
role, the federal government also ensures the compliance of intermodal
capabilities with federal laws and regulations, including environmental
requirements. The private sector's role varies and may include funding,
project development under contractual agreement with state and local
transportation agencies, and/or participating in the decision-making
process during project planning.
Most major U.S. airports have some direct intermodal ground
connections, but those connections are primarily to local bus or rail
transportation systems rather than to nationwide bus or rail systems.
For example, 64 out of 72 airports we surveyed reported having direct
connections to local bus services, and 27 airports reported having
direct connections to local rail systems. The level of convenience and
access to these connections varies. Thirteen airports reported that
passengers could access a local rail station by walking or taking an
automated people mover, while 22 reported that passengers could access
the local rail station by shuttle. At the same time, while most of
these airports are located in a metropolitan area with nationwide rail
or bus service, such as Amtrak or Greyhound, only 13 airports have
direct connections to an Amtrak station and 12 to nationwide bus
stations. One airport reported that the Amtrak station could be
accessed by an automated people mover, while the rest reported access
only by shuttle. We also found that a number of airports have proposals
and plans to improve their intermodal services, mostly by enhancing
their connections to local rail and bus services.
Transportation and airport officials stated that the development of
intermodal capabilities at airports can provide a range of benefits;
however, they have not quantified these benefits through evaluations,
and substantial costs and barriers to developing these capabilities
also exist. Benefits cited for intermodal capabilities at airports
include alternative transportation options for travelers--with the
potential for reduced travel times and costs--and reduced road
congestion with the potential for an associated reduction in vehicle
emissions and improved air quality. Transportation industry experts and
European transportation officials we interviewed also stated that
airport connections to a nationwide rail system such as Amtrak can
encourage passengers to use rail service instead of short-haul flights
for a portion of their journey, which could potentially reduce the
overall demand for short-haul flights and allow existing airport
capacity to be used more efficiently. This situation has occurred in
several cases in Europe, where some national governments have
established policies to reduce the number of short-haul flights at
their major airports and have supported these policies by funding high-
speed rail infrastructure. The costs of intermodal projects vary
widely, depending on the complexity and scope of the project. The costs
of rail projects are typically substantial and can include costs to
construct a station as well as track and other infrastructure to
support the transit network. Almost all local transportation officials
agreed that the most significant barrier to developing airport
intermodal connections to rail transit is the difficulty of securing
needed funding--including the competition for and difficulty of
applying for limited federal grants, restrictions on the use of airport
revenue, and the need to develop agreement about the project from a
variety of local agencies with differing priorities. Other barriers
mentioned include disincentives for airport support of intermodal
projects such as the potential reduction in airport parking revenues
and geographical and physical land constraints at airports that can
make designing and constructing an intermodal capability difficult. In
addition, the existing nationwide rail network--Amtrak--does not
support air-rail service requirements because rail lines do not go near
some airports, passenger train schedules in some parts of the country
are not frequent enough to effectively link to airline flight
schedules, and transferring from air to rail poses inconveniences that
limit consumer demand. Finally, planning along transportation corridors
that cross multiple state and local boundaries can be challenging.
Two differing strategies, one of which incorporates lessons of the
European experience, could help public decisionmakers improve
intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports. Both of these strategies are
based on a systematic framework that includes identifying national
goals, defining the federal role, determining funding approaches, and
evaluating performance. The first strategy would provide federal,
state, and local transportation agencies with additional flexibility
within current federal transportation programs to encourage a more
systemwide approach to transportation planning and development.
Alternative transportation funding approaches--such as performance-
oriented funding and federal financial reward-based systems--could also
be used to encourage the planning and development of intermodal
capabilities. This strategy would maintain the focus on state and local
government initiative and would most likely lead to a continued focus
on the development of local intermodal connections rather than a fully
integrated nationwide system. The second strategy would involve a
fundamental shift in federal transportation policy's focus on state and
local decisionmaking by increasing the role of the federal government
in planning and funding intermodal projects in order to develop more
integrated air and rail networks, either nationwide or along
particularly congested corridors. This strategy would be closer to the
intermodal development strategy followed by the European Union and
several European countries, or to the strategy the federal government
used to develop the interstate highway system. Such a strategy could
increase intermodal options and American mobility through broad policy
and funding changes, but in this time of fiscal constraints, the high
cost of rail investments and the resulting high costs of this strategy
would make it difficult to justify on a nationwide scale. Given the
high costs of this strategy, benefits high enough to justify investment
in intermodal facilities would be difficult to achieve, as demand for
such services is likely to be low except in a few highly congested
travel corridors. Moreover, high demand would be difficult to achieve.
Due to the inconveniences of transferring from airplane to train or bus
and other reasons including potentially higher travel times and out of
pocket costs, many American travelers are likely to continue to prefer
car travel over transit to access the airport and short-haul flights
over connections to a nationwide rail system as part of their overall
journey. DOT generally concurred with our report and provided technical
corrections, which we incorporated as appropriate. Amtrak had no
comments on our report.
Background:
The United States' passenger transportation system consists of a number
of different modes, including mass transit systems, roads, aviation,
waterways, and railroads--each of which plays a critical role in
providing the American public with the mobility needed to sustain the
nation's economic viability. Intermodal transportation refers to a
system that connects the separate transportation modes and allows a
passenger to complete a journey using more than one mode. An efficient
intermodal capability provides a passenger with convenient, seamless
transfer between modes; the ability to connect to an extended
transportation network; and high frequency of service among the
different modes. As shown in figure 1, an intermodal connection at an
airport might involve a passenger arriving at the airport by private
shuttle service, flying to another airport, and then transferring to
local transit rail service[Footnote 3] to reach a final destination.
Opportunities also exist for using intermodal service to access
nationwide transportation systems, such as Amtrak.
Figure 1: Two Examples of Intermodal Connections for an Airline
Passenger:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
While intermodal refers to the use of any two modes of transportation
and therefore a trip that involves taking a private car or shuttle to
the airport followed by air travel could be considered intermodal, for
the purposes of this report, we are focusing on direct connections
between airports and public bus and rail systems. Because the ease of
transfer between modes is critical to how likely passengers are to use
a bus or rail system, we considered a direct connection to consist of a
transfer point (such as a bus stop or rail station) that is accessible
from airport terminals either by walking, an automated people mover, or
direct shuttle.[Footnote 4]
Historically, federal transportation policy has focused almost
exclusively on individual modes rather than intermodal connections.
Federal transportation funding programs are overseen by different
agencies within DOT--FAA oversees aviation, FTA transit, Federal
Railroad Administration railways, and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) highways--and no specific federal funding programs have been
established that target intermodal projects for passengers at U.S.
airports. In the United States, the:
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA)[Footnote 5] established an overall approach for surface
transportation planning and decision making that gave local and state
governments greater control over transportation decisions in their own
regions than was done in the past. The act also viewed different
transportation modes as part of a larger transportation network, but
maintained separate funding for the individual modes. ISTEA established
specific planning guidelines for metropolitan areas to prioritize the
highway and transit needs of the entire region with the goal of
promoting an integrated transportation system. The Transportation
Equity Act for the 21ST Century (TEA-21),[Footnote 6] enacted in 1998,
retained the basic policy and programs established by ISTEA and
provided state and local governments the flexibility to use highway
funds to support transit investments. DOT's Office of Intermodalism was
established under ISTEA; however, this office deals mainly with
intermodal freight issues and airports have had very limited
involvement in that discussion.
Federal policy for aviation is established through other legislation.
The planning and funding of U.S. airports is addressed under Vision 100-
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act.[Footnote 7] This act
authorizes funds for airport development and capital improvements, and
while it does encourage the development of intermodal connections
between airports and other local surface transportation systems, the
primary focus of funding is on runway and terminal infrastructure. The
planning for these projects is usually undertaken by airports, with no
federal requirements for local and state surface transportation agency
involvement as required by ISTEA and TEA-21.[Footnote 8] The Rail
Passenger Service Act of 1970 created Amtrak to provide nationwide
passenger rail service, and the federal government has provided funding
for both capital and operating expenditures to Amtrak. Amtrak operates
a 22,000 mile passenger rail system, primarily over tracks owned by
freight railroads.[Footnote 9] As of January 2002, there were 10
federally designated high-speed rail corridors nationwide. These
designated corridors are eligible for federal funds to upgrade rail
infrastructure to support high-speed rail service, although most
upgrades have not been completed and the amount of high-speed rail
service in the United States remains limited.[Footnote 10] The
corridors are dispersed throughout the country and include service
between some of the largest U.S. cities. For example, the Northeast
Corridor provides service between Washington, D.C., New York, and
Boston, and the Pacific Northwest Corridor provides service between
Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, Canada.
In comparison to U.S. transportation policy, European Union
policy[Footnote 11] and some European governments have focused on
developing high-speed train service between major European cities as an
alternative to air and car travel. This effort has also included
developing intermodal ground connections between passenger high-speed
rail systems and airports, an example of which is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: German High-Speed Train at Frankfurt International Airport's
Long-Distance Train Station:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Since 1992, the European Union has periodically published a common
transportation policy[Footnote 12] in response to increased ground and
air congestion that has resulted from the unequal growth of road and
air traffic compared with rail and maritime traffic. This growth in air
traffic and the capacity constraints at most key European airports have
caused the European Union to examine the potential of intermodal
transportation. A key component of the European Union's intermodality
policy is improving the connections between air and rail, thereby
transforming competition between those modes into complementary service
using high-speed train connections at European airports. While the
European Union has developed a common transportation policy and
provides limited funding for transportation networks that can connect
to airports, the actual implementation and development of
transportation infrastructure remains the responsibility of individual
member nations. For example, a priority European Union project is the
construction of a high-speed rail network across Europe that will
connect key airports, such as Brussels, Frankfurt, Cologne/Bonn, Paris
Charles de Gaulle, and Amsterdam Schiphol. Although this project
crosses a number of member states and is one of the European Union's
priority projects, individual member states are responsible for funding
the majority of the infrastructure and overseeing the construction of
sections within their borders. For example, Belgium is responsible for
providing the infrastructure from Brussels to the borders of France,
Germany, and the Netherlands. In addition, in 2003, the European Union
established the Rail Air Intermodality Facilitation Forum with the
objective of developing recommendations to encourage the integration of
rail and air service regarding operations, ticket sales, and legal
issues.[Footnote 13] (See app. II for additional information on
intermodal connections at European airports.)
Each Level of Government and the Private Sector Play a Role in
Developing Intermodal Capabilities at U.S. Airports:
State and local transportation agencies have primary responsibility for
developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports. The federal
government has not established specific goals or funding programs to
develop intermodal capabilities at airports, but it does provide
oversight and funding when projects fit the criteria for funding
programs focused on one or more individual modes. The private sector's
role may include funding and, in some cases, project development
through contractual agreements with state and local agencies.
State and Local Governments Have the Primary Responsibility for
Developing Intermodal Capabilities:
In line with federal transportation legislation's focus on state and
local government decisionmaking, intermodal capabilities at U.S.
airports are typically initiated and developed by state and local
transportation agencies, including some combination of state
departments of transportation, local transportation planning bodies
(i.e., metropolitan planning organizations), airports, and local
transit agencies. While the roles of any one stakeholder can vary, the
development of most projects involves similar steps (see table 1), and
one or more of these state and local transportation agencies will take
the lead in moving a project through these steps.
Table 1: Typical Steps in the Development of Intermodal Projects:
Step: Planning;
Description: The lead agency in initiating an intermodal project must
typically assess the project's justification, solicit public comment
regarding the most appropriate project to select for the area, and get
the project included in state transportation plans, if FHWA or FTA
funding in involved.[A] In order for the project to be included in
state transportation plans, local transportation officials must be able
to demonstrate how the project will be funded. This can include
securing federal funding grants or loans, getting federal approval to
levy certain fees on airport passengers to be used for the project, and
securing state and local funds.
Step: Preliminary design and environmental review;
Description: The lead agency works with other stakeholders to, among
other things, select the "preferred alternative"[B] --after considering
estimates of cost, benefits, and impacts (e.g., financial and
environmental)--and consult with federal agencies governing
environmental and historic preservation issues before advancing to
final design.
Step: Final design and right-of-way acquisition;
Description: Stakeholders work together to finalize design plans,
appraise and acquire needed property, and finalize project cost
estimates.
Step: Construction;
Description: The lead agency advertises and evaluates bids for
construction contracts. Once contracts are awarded, construction begins
and the lead agency may manage or oversee construction.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.
[A] These plans include the state's 20 year transportation improvement
plan and, as the project gets closer to being initiated, the state's
short-term transportation plan (at least 3 years).
[B] The preferred alternative is determined by applying National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requirements and other federal
environmental laws and regulations to each alternative considered. The
alternative that causes the least amount of damage to and best protects
the environment is typically considered preferred.
[End of table]
During our research at 16 airports, we found three common themes
regarding the roles of various stakeholders, although the extent of
different stakeholders' involvement varied among projects. First,
almost all airports are heavily involved with the development of
intermodal capabilities on airport property. This is especially true if
the project involves construction of a major intermodal facility such
as an automated people mover connecting the airport terminals to a
transit station. For example, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey[Footnote 14] was the lead agency in planning, building, and
operating the Air Train system at New York's John F. Kennedy
International Airport. The Air Train system is an automated people
mover that links the airport's terminals to two transit rail stations,
thereby providing passengers a connection from the airport to local
transit systems (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: People Mover Tracks from New York's Kennedy Airport Leading
into New York's Jamaica Train Station:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The second theme we found is that local transit agencies are heavily
involved in intermodal connections that are part of a new or existing
transit system. Depending on the specific transit system, the
involvement of the transit agency could include providing local bus
service or shuttle service to the airport or could include building and
operating a new heavy or light rail line to the local airport. For
instance, Portland, Oregon's local transit agency, Tri-Met, was a major
stakeholder in the development of the Metropolitan Area Express light
rail line extension to the Portland International Airport. Tri-Met
provided about $46 million towards the development of the extension,
managed the project during construction, took ownership of most of the
extension,[Footnote 15] and operates the service to the airport.
Finally, we found that other local and state transportation agencies,
such as state departments of transportations or local metropolitan
planning organizations, can be involved in these projects, including in
certain cases taking the lead in planning and obtaining funding. For
example, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation served as the lead
agency in planning an Amtrak station at the General Mitchell
International Airport in Milwaukee. Fairfax County, Virginia, secured
funding to cover part of the cost of a section of a planned local rail
line extension to Dulles airport by approving a tax on commercial and
industrial properties that was voluntarily proposed by a group of
landowners. In some cases, these state or local agencies may take the
lead because they have the best access to federal funding.
Federal Government's Role Is Primarily One of Funding and Oversight:
The federal government has not established specific goals or funding
programs to develop intermodal capabilities at airports. Its role,
therefore, is primarily one of funding and oversight of projects
through separate transportation programs within DOT agencies. Although
there is no federal funding program specifically for intermodal
projects, many intermodal projects at airports fit the funding criteria
for one or more federal programs focused on surface transportation or
aviation. State and local transportation agencies and airports may
receive funding from one or several of these federal programs to
develop their intermodal capabilities. (See table 2.) Appendix III
provides additional information on the financing of intermodal projects
at airports.
Table 2: Federal Programs that Can Fund Intermodal Projects at Airports:
Program: New Starts (FTA);
Description: Selects worthy fixed guideway transit projects for funding
by congressional appropriations. Projects can include heavy, light, and
commuter rail, and certain bus transit projects (such as bus rapid
transit). To be eligible for funding, projects must, among other
things, be justified based on a comprehensive review of mobility
improvements, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness, and operating
efficiencies; and supported by an acceptable degree of local financial
commitment. The program funding match is at most 80 percent federal and
20 percent local.[A] In fiscal year 2003, this program was funded at
$1.2 billion;
Example of use at airports: Bay Area Rapid Transit extension south of
San Francisco into the San Francisco International Airport and San
Mateo county. Metro Transit Hiawatha Line service between downtown
Minneapolis and the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.
Program: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (joint FHWA and FTA);
Description: Funds transportation projects and programs in order to
reduce transportation-related emissions in areas with poor air quality.
To be eligible for funding, projects must be transportation related, in
nonattainment or maintenance areas,[ B] and reduce transportation-
related emissions. The program funding match is 80 percent federal and
20 percent local. In fiscal year 2003, this program was funded at $1.4
billion;
Example of use at airports: Metro Transit Hiawatha Line service between
downtown Minneapolis and the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport.
Program: Surface Transportation Program (FHWA);
Description: Provides funding to states and localities for projects on
any federal-aid highway--including transit capital projects and local
and nationwide bus terminals and facilities. The program funding match
is 80 percent federal and 20 percent local. In fiscal year 2003, this
program was funded at $5.9 billion;
Example of use at airports: Miami Intermodal Center at the Miami
International Airport.
Program: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of
1998 (joint FHWA and FTA);
Description: Provides federal credit assistance for surface
transportation projects. Project sponsors may include public, private,
state, or local entities. Projects eligible for federal assistance
through existing surface transportation programs, including passenger
bus and rail facilities, are eligible for credit assistance under this
program. The amount of federal credit assistance may not exceed 33
percent of the reasonably anticipated project costs. In fiscal year
2003, this program was funded at $130 million;
Example of use at airports: Miami Intermodal Center at the Miami
International Airport.
Program: Airport Improvement Program (FAA);
Description: Provides grants to airports for planning and development
projects. The program is funded, in part, by aviation user excise
taxes, which are deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In
terms of promoting intermodal capabilities, these funds may be used for
access roads that are on airport property, airport owned, and
exclusively serve airport traffic. The program funding match is 75 to
90 percent federal based on the number of enplanements[C] at the
airport and the remainder local. In fiscal year 2004, this program was
funded at $3.4 billion;
Example of use at airports: We found no example of its use for
intermodal projects.
Program: Passenger facility fee (FAA);
Description: Authorizes commercial service airports to charge
passengers a boarding fee-- commonly called a passenger facility
charge--of up to $4.50, after obtaining FAA approval. The fees are used
by the airports to fund FAA- approved projects that enhance safety,
security, or capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier
competition. In calendar year 2004, $2.2 billion in fees were collected
under this program;
Example of use at airports: AirTrain automated people mover at New
York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark's Liberty
International Airport.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.
[A] When evaluating New Starts proposals, FTA places greater priority
on projects that have a greater local matching share. Competitive New
Starts proposals often have a less than 60 percent federal match.
[B] Federal air quality standards exist for certain air pollutants
(known as criteria pollutants). Geographic areas that have levels of a
criteria pollutant above those allowed by the standards are called
nonattainment areas. Areas that did not meet the standards for a
criteria pollutant in the past but have reached attainment are known as
maintenance areas.
[C] An enplanement is defined as a passenger boarding a flight.
Enplanements include passengers boarding the first flight of their
trip, as well as passengers who board after connecting from another
flight.
[End of table]
To carry out its oversight responsibility, the federal government
ensures that the design and construction of intermodal facilities
complies with federal laws and regulations, including environmental,
safety, security, and mobility requirements, such as the Americans with
Disabilities Act. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 requires, among other things, that the project sponsor prepare an
environmental impact statement for projects that receive federal funds.
This environmental impact statement must consider alternatives and
mitigation measures that would lessen the project's impacts. For
intermodal projects, FAA, FTA, or FHWA will typically act as the lead
agency, depending on how the project is funded--ensuring that
environmental documents are properly prepared and that all
environmental concerns are adequately addressed before granting
approval for the project's construction. FTA also established a
requirement that projects receiving funding through the New Starts
program conduct post implementation evaluations, which are subsequently
provided to FTA. In addition, FAA ensures that intermodal projects meet
airport safety requirements, and the Department of Homeland Security's
Transportation Security Administration establishes security
requirements that may affect the use of intermodal facilities at
airports.
Finally, the federal government's role in developing intermodal
capabilities at airports includes increasing awareness of intermodalism
at airports through workshops and funding research. For example,
conferences for FAA regional offices have included topics such as the
eligibility of ground access projects at airports for federal funding
programs. In addition, FTA has provided funding to the Transit
Cooperative Research Program to conduct two studies on improving public
transportation access to large airports.[Footnote 16]
Private Sector's Role Includes Funding or Assisting in Developing
Intermodal Capabilities:
The private sector's role in developing intermodal projects at airports
may include funding through lease revenues; contracting to design,
build, or operate intermodal capabilities; and participating in the
transportation decision-making process through public participation.
For example, a private developer will fund through lease revenues about
18 percent of the cost to develop the Metropolitan Area Express light
rail extension at the Portland, Oregon, airport. In another example, in
2001, the Florida Department of Transportation awarded contracts to
private companies for the design and construction of the rental car
facility--one component of Miami airport's planned intermodal bus and
rail facility. With respect to contracting arrangements with the
private sector, Miami airport is also requesting proposals to design,
build, operate, and maintain an automated people mover from the airport
terminal to the planned intermodal facility.
Airlines, in particular, can play an important role in the development
of intermodal projects at airports. Use and lease agreements between
airlines and airports are a major revenue source for most large
airports, and because of this financial arrangement, airlines may have
influence in or participate in airport decisionmaking.[Footnote 17] The
ability of airlines to participate in decisionmaking depends on the
specific airport and the structure of the lease agreement.[Footnote 18]
For example, some airports have lease agreements that can require
airports to obtain airline approval before making airport capital
expenditure decisions.[Footnote 19]
Most Major U.S. Airports Have Direct Connections to Local
Transportation Services, but Very Few Have Direct Connections to
Nationwide Rail or Bus Systems:
Based on our survey of all large and medium and certain small hub U.S.
airports,[Footnote 20] most airports have direct connections[Footnote
21] to rail or bus systems, with some airports having direct
connections to more than one type of ground transportation. The vast
majority of these direct connections are to local transportation
systems such as local bus or rail service. Direct connections to
nationwide ground transportation from airports are limited, with less
than one-third of airports reporting direct connections to either
nationwide bus or rail stations. While over one-fourth of airports
reported proposals and plans to improve their intermodal capabilities,
most of these airports plan to develop or enhance direct connections to
a local bus or rail system. (See app. IV for complete survey results.)
Many Airports Have More than One Type of Direct Intermodal Connection:
Most airports reported having some direct intermodal connections, with
a number of airports responding that they had connections to multiple
types of transportation modes. (See fig. 4.) Five airports, located in
the New York City area, Miami, Philadelphia, and Palm Beach, reported
direct connections to local and nationwide bus and rail systems. In
contrast, seven airports[Footnote 22] reported having no direct
connections. Those airports that have no intermodal connections are all
medium hub airports with fewer than 5 million enplanements in 2003. Two
of these airports have plans to develop intermodal service. Louis
Armstrong New Orleans International Airport plans to add stops for
local transit buses, and Jacksonville International Airport plans to
add connections to the local transit bus and light rail systems.
Appendix V provides a complete list of airports with the types of
connections and planned connections.
Figure 4: The Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Various
Numbers of Ground Transportation Modes:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The four ground transportation modes included in our survey were
local bus, local rail, nationwide bus, and nationwide rail.
[End of figure]
Most Airports Have Direct Connections to Local Transportation Systems:
Most of the major U.S. airports reported having direct connections to
one or more local transportation systems in their area, such as local
bus or rail service, with 26 airports reporting having both. The most
common type of public transportation system available to and from the
airport is local bus service.[Footnote 23] Sixty-four airports reported
having a direct connection to local bus service. However, according to
airport officials we interviewed, the level of bus service provided
varies. For example, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has five
public bus routes that serve the airport from the surrounding
communities, while General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee
has only one route that serves the airport. The Boston Logan Express
bus service offers nonstop airport connections to and from Boston's
General Edward Lawrence Logan Airport and four locations, serving over
100 communities.
The level of convenience and access to bus service also varies, as
shown in table 3. Airports with direct connections to local bus systems
either had connections to buses at the airport terminal(s) or at an
intermodal facility or transit center. For example, Denver airport
reported that it would be convenient for an average adult with luggage
to walk to the local bus stop, which is located at the airport
terminal, while passengers at Los Angeles International Airport can
take a shuttle to the airport transit center to access buses. However,
transportation experts and some airport officials we interviewed stated
that ridership on public buses is generally very low for airline
passengers but somewhat higher for airport employees. One reason for
this situation is the lack of accommodations for luggage on most public
buses.
Table 3: Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Local Bus
Service:
Type of connection to local bus service: Walking (convenient for an
average adult with luggage to walk from bus stop to any of the
airport's terminals);
Number of airports: 56.
Type of connection to local bus service: Automated people mover that
transports passengers from the transfer point to any of the airport's
terminals;
Number of airports: 6.
Type of connection to local bus service: Regular, fixed-route shuttle
service from the transfer point to any of the airport's terminals;
Number of airports: 48.
Source: GAO summary of data from 64 airports reporting access to local
bus services.
Note: The numbers do not add up to 64 because some airports reported
multiple options available to access the bus system, such as by walking
or taking an automated people mover.
[End of table]
Twenty-seven airports reported having a direct connection to a local
rail system, such as light rail, commuter rail, or subway, as shown in
figure 5. These airports reported several options for passengers to
access the rail system. Thirteen airports reported that passengers
could either walk or take an automated people mover to access the rail
station. Twenty-two airports reported that passengers could take a
regular, fixed-route shuttle service to a station for a local rail
system.
Figure 5: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Local Rail
Systems:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Transportation literature has shown that automated people mover
technology has been beneficial in linking public transit at airports,
and attributed this impact to the exclusive rights-of-way and
driverless operation that allows frequent service on an around-the-
clock basis. For example, Chicago O'Hare International Airport's
automated people mover is a free, fully-automated 24-hour rail system
that operates between the three domestic terminals, the international
terminal, and a transit rail station. By comparison, the level of
convenience of using shuttles varies. For example, a free shuttle from
Baltimore-Washington airport to the local rail station runs
approximately every 10 to 15 minutes and takes about 5 minutes. On the
other hand, a shuttle running from Washington Dulles International
Airport to the local transit rail station costs $8.00 one way, runs
every 30 minutes, and takes about 25 minutes.
Nationwide Ground Transportation Options from Airports are Limited:
While most major U.S. airports are located in metropolitan areas that
have stations for nationwide transportation systems such as Greyhound
or Amtrak, only 19 airports reported having direct connections to these
stations. Twelve of the 19 airports have direct connections to
nationwide bus service. In a few cases, the nationwide bus service is
easily accessible to passengers--for example, Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International Airport reports that Greyhound is accessible by
both walking and automated people mover. However, half of these
airports report that passengers can access these services without
taking a shuttle, as shown in table 4.
Table 4: Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Nationwide Bus
Service:
Type of connection to nationwide bus service: Walking (convenient for
an average adult with luggage to walk from a nationwide bus station to
any of the airport's terminals);
Number of airports: 5.
Type of connection to nationwide bus service: Automated people mover
that transports passengers from the transfer point to any of the
airport's terminals;
Number of airports: 1.
Type of connection to nationwide bus service: Regular, fixed-route
shuttle service from the transfer point to any of the airport's
terminals;
Number of airports: 10.
Source: GAO summary of data from 12 airports reporting access to
nationwide bus service.
Note: Numbers do not add to 12 because some airports reported multiple
options available to access the bus system, such as by walking or
taking an automated people mover.
[End of table]
Thirteen airports report having a direct connection to nationwide
passenger rail service, Amtrak, as shown in figure 6.[Footnote 24] All
13 airports provide shuttle service to transport passengers to Amtrak
stations that serve the metropolitan area. However, based on
information gathered during our research, the type of shuttle service
can vary. For example, Bob Hope-Burbank airport reports that a free
shuttle service transports passengers to the Amtrak station. On the
other hand, at Seattle-Tacoma airport, passengers may use a private
shuttle that charges a fee to connect to the Amtrak station. Of these
13 airports, only one--Newark's Liberty International Airport--
reported that passengers could also access the Amtrak station by an
automated people mover. The accessibility of Amtrak to Newark airport
has allowed Continental Airlines to establish a code share agreement
with Amtrak, whereby passengers can purchase one ticket for a journey
that includes travel by both air and rail.[Footnote 25]
Figure 6: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Amtrak's
Nationwide Route Network:
[See PDF for image]
Note: In addition, Oakland (CA) airport reported that passengers can
access Amtrak by shuttle as of June 6, 2005.
[End of figure]
Many Airports Are Planning to Improve Intermodal Connections to Local
Rail and Bus Systems:
Twenty airports reported that their airport capital improvement
plan[Footnote 26] included proposals to improve intermodal
capabilities. At several airports, these proposals are in anticipation
of expected growth in enplanements and the need to provide airline
passengers and airport employees with alternative transportation modes
to access the airports. Most of the airports with plans to improve
intermodal services intend to enhance their direct connections to the
local transportation system rather than to nationwide systems, as shown
in table 5. Only two airports, Baltimore-Washington International and
Dallas/Fort Worth International, reported plans to add a direct
connection to a nationwide transportation system, both of them to a
nationwide bus service.
Table 5: Number of Airports with Capital Improvement Plan Proposals to
Improve Passenger Access to Local and Nationwide Transportation Systems:
Number of airports with plans to improve intermodal connections;
Local transportation systems: Bus: 12;
Local transportation systems: Rail: 14;
Nationwide transportation systems: Bus: 2;
Nationwide transportation systems: Rail: 0.
Source: GAO summary of data from 20 airports.
Note: Numbers do not add to 20 because some airports reported multiple
proposals.
[End of table]
In addition to these plans to improve intermodal connections to a
particular mode, 19 airports reported proposals to build an automated
people mover to connect airport terminal(s) with ground transportation
facilities.[Footnote 27] For example, Denver International Airport
intends to build a local rail station adjacent to the airport's main
terminal and to connect the terminal to the station by an automated
people mover.
Development of Intermodal Capabilities May Provide a Range of Benefits;
However, Substantial Costs and Barriers Affect their Development:
According to transportation and airport officials we spoke with,
intermodal facilities and services at airports provide or are expected
to provide a range of benefits--such as alternative transportation
options for travelers, reduced road congestion and vehicle emissions,
and more efficient use of congested air space. These officials,
however, have not evaluated these intermodal capabilities and,
therefore, are not able to quantify the benefits. Moreover, costs to
develop intermodal projects at airports can be significant. In
addition, barriers such as the difficulty of obtaining financing can
affect the development of these projects.
Intermodal Capabilities Can Provide Benefits; However, Evaluation of
Benefits Can Be Difficult:
Based on our interviews with U.S. and European transportation officials
and our prior work, we identified a number of benefits that can be
derived from the development of intermodal capabilities at airports.
These capabilities can benefit not only airline passengers and
airports, but also airport and airline employees and society at large.
We found that many of the benefits cited mirror those that derive from
transit projects in general. However, officials had not evaluated
specific airport intermodal projects or measured the benefits that may
have actually occurred. Due to the post-implementation evaluation
requirements that were established for the New Starts program in 2000,
those projects that were subsequently selected under the New Starts
program will be evaluated over the coming years.
Intermodality Provides Alternative Transportation Options with the
Potential to Reduce Travel Times and Costs:
Transportation and airport officials we spoke with said that providing
passengers and employees alternative transportation options was a major
benefit of developing intermodal capabilities at airports. Our prior
research[Footnote 28] has shown that transit investments can provide
direct benefits to travelers by improving travel times for existing
transit users, improving travel times for automobiles and trucks on
alternative roadways, lowering the use of automobiles and the
associated environmental costs by attracting riders out of their
vehicles, and providing a back-up or future option for nonusers of
transit. In some cases, these alternative transportation options may
also provide a benefit of reduced travel times and costs in comparison
to traveling in a private vehicle (including shuttle or taxi) on
congested highways. Potential savings for passengers could include the
cost of gas, taxi service, or parking. Several local transportation
officials told us that the benefits of intermodal capabilities are
maximized when the supporting transit system is reliable and is part of
a larger transit network. For example, officials from the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey said that the automated people
mover that connects a terminal at Newark airport to a new Amtrak and
transit rail station was developed to provide access to many
destinations in the New York City area and beyond. In fact, Amtrak
officials stated that a large number of Amtrak passengers using the
Newark airport station are coming from Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
Figure 7: Train Station and Automated People Mover at Newark's Liberty
International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Intermodality May Reduce Road Congestion and Vehicle Emissions:
Airport officials stated that another benefit of airport intermodal
capabilities is the potential to reduce congestion on nearby highways,
airport access roads, and the terminal curbside. Transportation and
airport officials stated that a byproduct of reduced road congestion is
a reduction of vehicle emissions and improved air quality. For example,
it was estimated that the extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit to
the San Francisco airport would reduce road traffic around the airport
by 4,530 daily vehicular trips, representing 6 percent of the daily
vehicular trips to the airport. While officials believe intermodal
projects improve access to airports and reduce vehicle emissions, they
also stated that it is difficult to determine how trip reductions
affect overall congestion since congestion is affected by many factors,
such as land use, traffic patterns, and general economic conditions,
that are difficult to isolate.
Intermodality May Allow for the More Efficient Use of Congested Air
Space:
Transportation industry experts and European transportation officials
we interviewed stated that another potential benefit of intermodal
capabilities at airports is the more efficient use of air space and
existing capacity at congested airports through the replacement of
short-haul flights with rail service. The potential reduction of short-
haul flights could allow airlines to reallocate airport capacity to
long-distance flights, which generally have lower costs per mile.
However, our prior work[Footnote 29] and transportation officials we
talked with indicate that for rail transport to capture the market
share necessary to affect air travel, the distance between potential
nationwide passenger rail destinations must be short enough or trains
must travel at high enough speeds to make rail travel times competitive
with air travel times.[Footnote 30] Transportation officials we talked
with also stated that the realization of these benefits depends on a
reliable and extensive rail network that would provide competitive
service to air travel about travel time, frequency of service, and
passenger convenience. This situation has occurred in several cases in
Europe, where some national governments have established policies to
reduce the number of short-haul flights at their major airports and
have supported these policies by funding high-speed rail
infrastructure. For example, there has been a reduction of air service
between Paris, France and Brussels, Belgium--a popular short distance
city pair for travelers--due, in part, to the high-speed train service
linking Paris Charles de Gaulle airport and downtown Paris with
Brussels (see fig. 8). Air France has replaced five Paris-to-Brussels
flights with Thalys high-speed rail service.
Figure 8: Thalys High-Speed Train at the Paris Charles de Gaulle
Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As another example, Lufthansa established a code-share agreement with
Deutsche Bahn (the German national train company) between Frankfurt and
Stuttgart and between Frankfurt and Cologne. This code-share agreement
allows Lufthansa passengers arriving or departing at Frankfurt to
transfer onto trains for the first or final portion of their journey to
either Stuttgart or Cologne. It also allows passengers to check in for
flights or pick up their luggage at the main train stations in
Stuttgart and Cologne. Lufthansa officials stated that this service has
allowed them to reduce their flights between Frankfurt and Cologne and
reallocate resources to other markets.[Footnote 31]
In the United States, efforts have also been made to use rail service
to complement air service. For example, in March 2002, Continental
Airlines established a code-share agreement with Amtrak in order to
expand options and destinations for travelers using Amtrak and
Continental. Under this agreement, passengers arriving at Newark
airport can complete their journey on Amtrak to destinations such as
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With this code-sharing agreement,
Continental initially eliminated short-haul flights between Newark and
Philadelphia and provided connecting rail service into some markets
that were not served by Continental, such as Wilmington, Delaware, and
Stamford, Connecticut. However, Continental officials stated that in
April 2003, they reinstated limited air service between Newark and
Philadelphia because of market demand. As another example, Midwest
Airline officials said that the new Amtrak station at Milwaukee
airport, which opened in January 2005, will allow the airline to better
market its services to passengers from northern Illinois. This airline
is also discussing a potential code-sharing agreement with Amtrak.
Specific Benefits Can Be Difficult to Evaluate:
Measuring and forecasting the benefits of individual intermodal
projects can be challenging in part due to data quality limitations. In
our prior work,[Footnote 32] we identified data quality as a pivotal
concern in measuring and forecasting traffic flow, such as the number
of passengers using public transportation to get to the airport
compared to the number of passengers using private vehicles, as
reliable and complete data are not always available. This information
is generally collected through surveys of passengers at airports.
However, since these surveys can be very expensive to conduct, only
airports with significant financial resources conduct these surveys,
and then only every few years. Moreover, such surveys tend to result in
low response rates, which are often associated with biased estimates
due to differences between passengers who agree to participate and
those who do not participate in the survey.
Transportation officials at our 16 case study locations told us that
their intermodal capabilities have not been evaluated, and therefore
they are not able to quantify their benefits. This situation should
change for future intermodal projects that receive funds through the
New Starts program. FTA's Major Capital Investment rule, that went into
effect in April 2001, requires that New Starts grantees conduct "before
and after studies" on approved projects. Project sponsors will need to
present a complete plan for collection and analysis of information to
identify the impacts of the New Starts project and the accuracy of the
forecasts. As of June 2005, FTA has awarded nine full funding
agreements that will require these before and after studies. Those
intermodal projects at airports that use New Starts funding will have
to incorporate post-implementation evaluation into the project and face
these data quality challenges.
Intermodal Costs Vary Depending on Project Complexity and Scope:
Based on our interviews with federal and local transportation
officials, we found that intermodal project costs can vary
significantly, depending in part on the complexity and scope of the
project. We found that these projects may be as simple as placing a bus
stop at the terminal or as complex as developing a new rail transit
system with an airport station. In general, bus projects cost
significantly less than rail projects. For example, we previously
reported[Footnote 33] that the costs of bus-related projects on
separate dedicated busways average about $13.5 million per mile in
contrast to rail projects, which average about $34.8 million per mile.
The higher cost per mile for rail projects compared to bus-related
projects arises, in part, from the costs for rail projects associated
with constructing stations, structures, signal systems, power systems,
and maintenance facilities; relocating utilities; obtaining rights-of-
way; and purchasing vehicles. Local transportation officials agreed
that the costs of rail projects also vary depending on local
circumstances such as whether the project alignments will affect local
land-use restrictions or environmentally protected land and the extent
to which the project will be affected by airport security measures.
Table 6 provides examples of recently developed and planned rail
intermodal projects, their approximate costs, and funding sources. See
appendix VI for additional information on these projects.
Table 6: Examples of Intermodal Project Costs and Funding Sources:
(Dollars in millions).
Connection to existing system: Construction of a new Amtrak rail
station adjacent to and serving Milwaukee's General Mitchell
International Airport, and improvements to the existing rail line,
which already provided service between Milwaukee and Chicago;
Capital cost [A]: $6.8[B];
Funding sources:
* Two separate annual federal appropriations;
*
Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
Connection to existing system: Construction of a new centralized
parking and bus facility at Harrisburg International Airport with
planned Amtrak Service;
Capital cost [A]: $8.0[C];
Funding sources:
* Planned funding includes federal and state sources.
Extension of an existing system: 8.7-mile heavy rail line (Bay Area
Rapid Transit) extension south of San Francisco that includes a new
station at San Francisco International Airport;
Capital cost [A]: $1,552[D];
Funding sources:
* FTA;
* Bay Area Rapid Transit;
* San Francisco
International Airport;
* San Mateo County Transit Authority.
Extension of an existing system: 5.5-mile light rail line (Metropolitan
Area Express) extension to existing rail line to provide service
between city center and Portland (Oregon) International Airport;
Capital cost [A]: $154[E];
Funding sources:
* Tri-Met (local transit agency);
* Airport passenger
facility charges;
* City of Portland;
* Cascades Development
Corporation (a private land development corporation).
Development of a new system: New light rail system (Hiawatha Light
Rail) providing service between downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of
America, with 2 stations located at Minneapolis/St. Paul airport;
Capital cost [A]: $715.3[F];
Funding sources:
* FTA;
* Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant;
* State of Minnesota;
* Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority;
*
Metropolitan Airports Commission.
Development of a new system: Proposed California high-speed rail
corridor with potential connections at San Francisco, Los Angeles and
Ontario, California airports, by means of a people mover system, and a
station at Palmdale airport;
Capital cost [A]: $33,000 - 37,000[G];
Funding sources:
* Planned funding includes federal and state sources,
with state funding through a bond measure.
Source: GAO analysis of interviews conducted with, and documents
provided by, airport and transportation officials.
[A] Capital costs are approximations as reported by airport or local
transportation officials.
[B] Amount is expressed in 2005 dollars and includes the construction
of a new building, boarding platform, canopy, parking facility, and
several miles of rail improvements, including upgraded rail technology.
[C] Amount is expressed in 2004 dollars and includes the design,
engineering, and general construction of a four-level structure and
pedestrian bridges to the airport terminal and planned rail station.
[D] Amount is expressed in 2003 dollars and includes engineering,
design, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, facilities (four
stations) construction and system installation, vehicle acquisition,
and expansion and improvement of several existing maintenance and
storage yards.
[E] Amount is expressed in 2001 dollars and includes engineering,
design, vehicle acquisition, and construction and system installation.
[F] Amount is expressed in nominal dollars (1999-2004) and includes
costs for the engineering, design, acquisition of 24 vehicles,
construction and 12-mile system installation, 17 stations, and tunnel
construction to access the 2 airport stations.
[G] Amount is expressed in 2003 dollars. Project costs include right-
of-way, track and signals, grade crossing and separations, structures,
tunnels, electrification, stations, parking and other costs for all
state rail corridors combined.
[End of table]
Barriers Impede the Development and Use of Intermodal Capabilities:
A significant barrier to the development of intermodal capabilities is
the lack of specific national goals or funding programs to develop
intermodal capabilities at airports, as mentioned earlier in this
report. A number of other barriers also impede the development of
intermodal capabilities at airports, including the difficulty of
securing funding, disincentives for airport support, and geographical
and physical land constraints at airports. In addition, the use of
intermodal connections can be limited by the inability of the ground
connections to meet the preferences of airline passengers, many of whom
prefer to use private vehicles for trips to airports.
Difficulty of Securing Funding:
Almost all local transportation officials we interviewed agreed that a
barrier to developing intermodal capabilities using rail transit is the
difficulty of securing funding, which usually includes both federal and
local funds. Because this type of intermodal capability requires a
large supporting network, such as a light rail system, federal support
is often an important part of the funding package. We found that FTA's
New Starts program is a significant source of funding for intermodal
capabilities at airports that are part of a rail transit system. Under
this program, intermodal projects must compete with other transit
projects for funds, and grantees are selected through an evaluation
process that can take several years to complete prior to obtaining
final funding approval. Local transportation officials agreed that this
process can make it difficult to secure this part of the funding
package. An FTA official added that New Starts' rigorous rating process
and the increasing demand for its limited funds makes the process time-
intensive and competitive in nature.
Local transportation officials described other difficulties in securing
the use of passenger facility fees, commonly referred to as
PFCs.[Footnote 34] In particular, several local transportation
officials mentioned that the requirement that PFC funds be used for
projects on airport property, among other criteria, limits their use
for intermodal projects. However, even with this restriction, we found
that four airport authorities used PFC funds to develop or contribute
to intermodal projects at airports, as shown in table 7.
Table 7: Selected Examples of Intermodal Rail Projects Funded by PFC
Funds:
Dollars in millions[A].
Location: Portland, OR;
Project description: Light rail extension and new station at Portland
International Airport;
Funding amount: $43.
Location: Newark, NJ;
Project description: People mover system 1-mile connection from Newark
Liberty International Airport to new Northeast Corridor rail station;
Funding amount: $357.
Location: New York, NY;
Project description: People mover system 3-mile connection from John F.
Kennedy International Airport to two transit rail stations;
Dollars in millions[A]: Funding amount: $1,326.
Location: St. Louis, MO;
Project description: On-airport transit station at St. Louis Lambert
Field International Airport;
Funding amount: $4.
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
Note: These projects have been approved by FAA and airports have begun
collecting PFC funds. FAA has approved the use of PFC funds for
additional projects for which airports have not yet started collecting
PFC funds.
[A] Funding amounts are rounded to the nearest million.
[End of table]
Airlines, moreover, support these restrictions on the use of PFC funds.
Several airlines told us that the primary objective of PFCs is to fund
on-airport development and capacity improvements, and not ground-access
projects, which airlines believe should be funded through local and
state governments. In fact, airline officials stated that when PFCs are
used for intermodal projects, airport funding is depleted and less will
be available for other infrastructure projects that directly benefit
aviation operations, such as runway renovations.
Local transportation officials said it can also be difficult to secure
the local funds needed to develop an intermodal airport project. These
officials agreed that local funding typically comes from several
agencies, such as metropolitan transportation authorities, transit
agencies, and airport authorities--all with potentially different
project funding priorities. Local transportation officials agreed that
these differing priorities can make it difficult to build the unified
local support necessary to secure funding, especially when intermodal
projects are competing with other transportation or transit projects
for limited funds.
Disincentives for Airport Support:
In some cases, airports may have economic disincentives to commit to
the development of intermodal projects. For example, those airports
that derive a large portion of revenues from parking may view
intermodal projects--and the potential that passengers will access the
airport by transit rather than private automobile--as a potential
threat to that revenue. According to a 2003 airport association survey,
parking revenues make up between 17 and 29 percent of airports'
nonaviation operating revenues.[Footnote 35]
Geographical and Physical Land Constraints:
Geographical constraints, including physical and environmental issues,
can also add to the difficulty of developing intermodal projects at
airports. On the one hand, our prior work has found and local
transportation officials stated that densely populated urban areas
offer few alternatives for expansion or new project
development.[Footnote 36] On the other hand, it is these same densely
populated urban areas where rail connections to airports are more
likely to generate benefits that will justify the costs, as these areas
may have high levels of congestion and larger numbers of people willing
to use public transportation to access airports as a result.
Transportation planning officials in California stated that geographic
constraints were a barrier to developing route alternatives for the
state's proposed high-speed rail system. While one of their objectives
is to connect the system to the airports as directly as possible, they
realize that it may not be possible because some California airports
are located in areas that are difficult to access without requiring
significant disruptions that may include dislocation of established
commercial and residential sites.
As another example, BART officials said that because federally
protected wetlands are located adjacent to the San Francisco airport,
officials had to modify the transit route into the airport to ensure
there would be minimum impact on the wetlands. Since the proposed light
rail line into the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport crossed land owned by
various federal agencies, the process to gain the needed right-of-way
was a multi-agency effort that required significant coordination,
adding somewhat to the project planning time and costs.
Limitations of Existing Rail Network:
Unlike the rail network in some European countries, Amtrak's passenger
rail network is not extensive enough to provide convenient service to
many airports. For example, we noted previously in this report that
although 13 airports reported having a direct connection to Amtrak's
passenger rail service, only 1 reported that passengers could access
the station by automated people mover. In addition, even when rail
lines are accessible to the airport, the frequency of passenger trains
may be insufficient to draw airport passenger travel. Both airline and
rail officials indicated that for code-share agreements, airlines
require a maximum passenger transfer time between airplane and train of
less than 1 hour. This requirement translates to one train per hour
within the specific market, and Amtrak officials stated that they
provide that level of service in very few markets--many of which are
located on Amtrak's corridors serving highly populated metropolitan
areas. For example, although Amtrak track lines are adjacent to the
airport in Cleveland, Ohio, Amtrak officials stated that Amtrak trains
run only twice a day along this line, which is not frequent enough to
establish a code-share agreement with an airline. In contrast, in
Europe, train companies provide high-speed rail service between the
Frankfurt airport and Cologne every half hour, between the Frankfurt
airport and Dortmund every hour, and between Paris and Amsterdam
Schiphol airport approximately every hour.[Footnote 37]
Difficulty of Coordinating Along Longer Transportation Corridors:
In our prior work, we stated that transportation corridors that extend
across multiple state and local boundaries pose challenges for
intermodal transportation decision making due to coordination and cross-
jurisdictional issues.[Footnote 38] Getting the cooperation of and
coordination between these different officials can make the planning
and implementation of multistate and multiregion projects difficult.
During our interviews, we found that many intermodal projects included
multiple agencies, communities, and transportation modes--each with its
own priorities. For example, during the planning of the Seattle light
rail, Sound Transit officials noted that the alignment from downtown
Seattle to the Seattle airport ran through a number of surrounding
cities. This required three local cities to approve permits for the
construction of the project.
Inability of Ground Connections to Meet Airline Passenger Preferences:
The development and use of intermodal connections at airports can be
limited by the inability of the ground connections to meet the
preferences of airline passengers. According to transportation
research[Footnote 39] and local transportation officials, intermodal
capabilities are difficult to develop unless a demand for the service
exists. Demand for public transportation options to airports is
limited, as the vast majority of passengers still use private vehicles
to access the airport. For example, one study said that the ceiling on
public transportation use to access airports appeared to be about 10 to
15 percent, even at airports that had rail connections.[Footnote 40]
Transportation and airport officials told us that consumers'
preferences can affect the demand for intermodal options at airports,
such as the preference for seamless transitions from one mode to
another, a simplified process to handle baggage, transit schedules that
meet consumer demands, and clear, easy-to-follow information on
accessing transportation options--including signage at airports and
information at hotels on accessing transit to airports (see fig. 9 for
an example of signage).[Footnote 41] In addition, these officials
stated that passengers, particularly those traveling with large amounts
of luggage and children, may not consider using transit or rail systems
to complete their travel plans due to inconvenience.
Figure 9: Airport Sign Showing the Direction to the Amtrak Train
Station at Milwaukee's General Mitchell International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Two Key Strategies Could Help Address Intermodal Transportation
Planning and Financing Limitations:
Using our past work and our analysis of information obtained from
government and transportation officials in the United States and
Europe, we identified two strategies that could help public decision
makers improve intermodal options at airports, particularly direct
connections to local and nationwide rail systems.[Footnote 42] A
framework with key elements could assist in the consideration and
implementation of either strategy. The first strategy would be to
increase the funding flexibility of federal, state, and local
transportation agencies under U.S. transportation policy's focus on
local decisionmaking in order to encourage a more systemwide approach
to transportation planning and development. This strategy could help
overcome the difficulty of securing funding for intermodal projects at
airports, which local transportation officials identified most often as
a barrier to improving such capabilities. It would most likely lead to
a continued focus on the development of local intermodal connections
rather than a fully integrated nationwide system. The second strategy
would involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation policy's
long-time focus on state and local decisionmaking by increasing the
role of the federal government in planning and funding intermodal
projects in order to develop more integrated air and rail networks,
either nationwide or along particularly congested corridors. This
strategy would be closer to the intermodal development strategy
followed by the European Union and several European countries, or to
the strategy the federal government used to develop the interstate
highway system. Such a strategy could increase intermodal options and
American mobility through broad policy and funding changes, but the
high cost of rail investments and the resulting high costs of this
strategy would make it difficult to justify on a nationwide scale.
Key Components of a Framework Would Help Guide Either Strategy:
Building on the perspectives gained from our past work[Footnote 43] in
federal investment strategies and the work of transportation experts,
we developed a framework to help guide consideration of the two
strategies. This framework has three components:
* Set national goals for the system. These goals, which would establish
what federal participation in the system is designed to accomplish,
should be specific and measurable.
* Clearly define the federal role relative to state and local
transportation roles. The federal government is one of many
stakeholders involved in the development of intermodal capabilities at
airports. This component is important to help ensure that the federal
role supplements and enhances the participation of other stakeholders.
* Determine which funding approaches, such as alternatives to
investment in new infrastructure, will maximize the impact of any
federal investment. This component can help expand the ability to
leverage funding resources and promote shared responsibilities. Given
the current budgetary environment, and the long-range fiscal challenges
confronting the country, substantial increases in funding for
transportation projects will require a high level of justification.
In addition, either strategy would benefit from a process for
evaluating performance periodically to determine if the anticipated
benefits are accruing. Evaluations also provide a means to periodically
examine established goals, roles, and approaches, and a basis to modify
them, as necessary. Leading organizations have stressed the importance
of developing performance measures and linking investment decisions and
their expected outcomes to overall strategic goals and
objectives.[Footnote 44] While highway and transit projects can be
major components of intermodal projects at airports, in our prior work,
we found that there are no requirements for evaluations of highway and
transit projects receiving federal funds other than those receiving
funds through the New Starts program.[Footnote 45]
First Strategy: Providing Federal and State Transportation Agencies
Flexibility in Developing Intermodal Transportation:
In the first strategy, Congress could encourage the development of
intermodal capabilities at airports while continuing U.S.
transportation policy's focus on local decisionmaking by providing
federal, state, and local transportation agencies with additional
flexibility within current federal transportation programs that are
administered by FTA, FAA, and FHWA.
Establishing National Transportation Goals that Integrate Airports:
National transportation goals could be established to encourage the
development of airport intermodal transportation options. In doing so,
Congress can help chart a clear direction, establish priorities among
competing projects, and specify the desired results. At the federal
level, surface transportation goals are geared toward providing and
enhancing the mobility of the American public with a focus primarily on
roads, mass transit systems, and railroads. For example, under ISTEA
and TEA-21, Congress established goals to develop a national intermodal
ground transportation system that will move people and goods in an
efficient manner, but the goals did not explicitly include connecting
aviation to the ground transportation systems. Furthermore, the
national policy concerning intermodal planning of connections between
airports and ground transportation systems focuses on coordination and
does not set priorities or desired results for these types of
intermodal connections.[Footnote 46] A truly intermodal transportation
system would connect ground systems, aviation, and waterways. For
example, both the European Union and some individual European Union
member nation's transportation plans highlight the goal of developing
better connections between different transportation systems, including
air and rail services.
Defining the Appropriate Federal Role:
Since following this strategy would not involve a major shift in
transportation policy, it would most likely not involve a major shift
in the federal role in developing intermodal capabilities at airports.
The federal role would continue to be focused on funding and oversight
of locally determined and developed transportation projects. However,
since this strategy would include the goal of establishing a more
systemwide approach to transportation planning, the federal government
would need to determine the scope of its involvement in encouraging
such an approach.
Establishing a Systemwide Approach to Intermodal Funding:
Federal transportation funding, which is focused on individual
transportation modes, could be shifted to a more systemwide approach
across all modes and types of travel. Under the federal transportation
planning and funding structure, local transportation agencies tap into
federal funds for transportation projects through different federal
programs and agencies, based on the relevant mode. Each federal program
has specific requirements and criteria, which can limit how local
transportation can access and use funds from these programs. In
addition, intermodal projects at airports can involve multi-
jurisdictions, which can present challenges under the current
structure. For example, for passengers or airports to obtain the full
benefits of providing alternative transportation options, intermodal
capabilities need to be connected to large local transit or national
rail systems. Such systems often provide service to multi-jurisdictions
and, therefore, their planning and development require cooperation
among multiple transportation providers and planners, such as state
departments of transportation, local transit agencies, metropolitan
planning organizations, and city and county governments.
To break down the current funding stovepipes and promote intermodal
development, the federal government could consider several alternatives
for transportation planning and funding that might better focus on
these outcomes and promote better coordination between jurisdictions.
These alternatives include:
* Increasing the flexibility of current programs. The current system of
financing surface and aviation transportation projects limits options
for addressing intermodal capabilities. During our interviews,
officials highlighted that because federal, state, and local funding
comes from different sources such as the New Starts program and PFCs,
it is difficult to consider efficient and effective ways to enhance
intermodal capabilities at airports. Providing more flexibility in
funding across modes could help address this barrier.
* Applying different federal matching criteria for different types of
expenditures in order to provide a higher level of federal match for
projects that reflect federal priorities.
* Establishing a performance-oriented funding or reward-based system.
Federal funds would favor those entities that address national
interests and meet established intermodal goals. Federal support would
reward those states or localities that apply federal money to gain
efficiencies in their transportation systems, or develop intermodal
capabilities at local airports.
* Expanding support for alternative financing mechanisms. The public
sector could also expand its financial support for alternative
financing mechanisms to access new sources of capital and stimulate
additional investment in intermodal capabilities. These mechanisms
include both newly emerging and existing financing techniques such as
providing credit assistance to state and local governments for capital
projects and using tax policy to provide incentives to the private
sector for investing in intermodal capabilities. In some cases, when
use and benefits are predicted to be high, private sector revenues may
be an option.
* Aligning incentives for planning agencies to adopt best practices and
to achieve expectations. Aligning incentives for existing and new
programs or approaches to facilitate the use of better intermodal
transportation project planning and funding options could improve the
efficiency of federal transportation programs in enhancing intermodal
connections between surface and air transportation, especially in
multistate transportation corridors, where many planning agencies have
to cooperate in establishing priorities.
Benefits Likely to Be Focused on Local, Not Nationwide Travel:
While this strategy of encouraging a more systemwide approach to
transportation planning and development could address a number of
barriers to developing intermodal services at airports, it would likely
support the development of connections to local transit networks
instead of to a nationwide rail network. This strategy is based on
breaking down barriers with the current transportation planning
structure, which is geared toward local involvement. Local
transportation officials we interviewed stated that the focus of
developing intermodal capabilities at their local airports was to
provide greater access for the local community, instead of providing
links to nationwide networks. Therefore, since this strategy provides
local transportation agencies additional flexibility, we believe that
their emphasis will be on developing intermodal capabilities for local
access networks.
Second Strategy: Increasing the Involvement of the Federal Government
in Developing a Nationwide Intermodal Transportation System:
If Congress decides that a more aggressive intermodal development
strategy is required, it could increase the federal government's
involvement in developing a nationwide intermodal transportation
system, similar to efforts in the 1950s to develop the interstate
highway system. Such a strategy would involve a fundamental shift in
federal transportation policy's focus on state and local decisionmaking
for transportation projects and would be closer to the intermodal
development strategy followed by the European Union (and several
European countries) with the goal of promoting rail as a complement to
air transportation. For example, the European Union and individual
European nations are currently supporting the development of air-rail
networks through government funding of high-speed rail infrastructure.
In line with this focus, Germany and France have built new dedicated
high-speed rail lines that are used only for passenger service and some
of which include train stations at their largest airports. While Europe
provides examples of how to develop intermodal capabilities at
airports, significant differences in population density, geography, and
private vehicle costs between the United States and Europe would limit
the use of the European model in the United States. (See app. II for
more information on the development of air-rail connections in Europe.)
Establishing National Transportation Goals to Develop Intermodal
Capabilities:
Congress could establish national goals for the development of
intermodal capacities at U.S. airports that would increase the federal
government's role in developing a nationwide intermodal transportation
system that focuses on connecting air and ground transportation.
Congress has set a precedent for establishing national policy for large
nationwide transportation infrastructure with the development of the
interstate highway system. This system was primarily developed to
address (1) the public's demand for efficient long-distance travel, (2)
the needs of the military, and (3) national economic development
through the connection of metropolitan and industrial areas. While the
interstate highway system was focused on a single mode, the national
intermodal transportation goals could focus on all modes and the
connections between them. Therefore, the goals could include not only
the development of facilities and connections on airport property, but
also the development of a supporting transportation network to provide
air passengers the ability to reach their final destination.
Many European governments have emphasized intermodal connections
between air and rail within their national transportation policies,
with the goal of addressing limited airport capacity and environmental
issues. For example, the European Union's transport policy states that
improving the intermodal connections between European airports and the
high-speed rail network is a top priority. (See app. II for additional
information of trans-European transport network.)
Define the Federal Role in Planning Intermodal Capabilities:
The federal government could take a more active role--versus state and
local transportation agencies--in the planning of intermodal
connections between airports and other transportation modes. In terms
of planning, the interstate highway system provides an example of how
active involvement by the federal government could lead to the
development of a nationwide intermodal system. In that case, the
federal government provided project-specific oversight, laid out the
routes, oversaw construction, and ensured that the system was
adequately maintained. To develop a nationwide intermodal system that
focuses on connecting airports to a rail network of sufficient quality
to attract significant number of riders, the federal government could
potentially take on similar roles. The European high-speed rail network
is another example of governments taking an active role in developing
larger transportation networks that connect to airports. For example,
the French government plays a major role in developing its high-speed
rail system--Train à Grande Vitesse. There are four main participants
in the nation's rail network, including the central government,
regional governments, Réseau Ferré de France,[Footnote 47] and the
Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français.[Footnote 48] While the
ownership, management, and operation of the rail system is carried out
by the Réseau Ferré de France and Société Nationale des Chemins de fer
Français, the central government still defines the extent of the
network, gives its approval to major projects, participates in funding,
and has oversight authority for the construction and safety of these
projects. In addition, while no specific department deals with
intermodal capabilities at French airports, the French government set
up a working group in 2002 to look at developing more integration
between the two transportation modes.
Determining the Appropriate Federal Funding Sources:
For the federal government to take a more active role in developing
airport intermodal capabilities, it might also need to take on
additional federal funding responsibilities. This would be especially
true if the federal policy was to develop a system that promoted
connections between airport and high-speed rail networks, similar to
the systems that have been developed in Europe. To fully develop an
intermodal system that provides airline passengers with nationwide rail
options that are comparable to European systems and that could
potentially compete with air service, would require expanding and
improving the existing U.S. rail network and rail service. Except in
limited highly traveled corridors, Amtrak cannot provide the level of
service that airlines require, in part, because much of the U.S. rail
infrastructure is privately owned by freight companies and passenger
trains do not receive priority in scheduling. To accomplish improved
air-rail connections, the federal government would have to increase its
funding role due to the high cost of enhancing or expanding rail
service or developing high-speed rail corridors.
Congress has in the past provided significant funding for large
transportation projects that were deemed to be in the national interest
and were geared toward reaching national goals. For example, between
1954 and 2001, Congress apportioned over $370 billion for the
construction and preservation of the interstate highway system.
Increased federal involvement in the development of nationwide
intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports would be costly and could
require the implementation of a dedicated funding source. The full
costs of any intermodal capability would be dependent on how integrated
and expansive this network would be and whether it included additional
high-speed rail or focused on conventional passenger rail service. Our
prior work has shown that both choices are costly. In the past, we have
reported on Amtrak's precarious financial situation, for which Congress
has periodically provided large-scale infusions of federal funds for
capital expenses.[Footnote 49] Additional federal funds have been spent
to develop high-speed train service between Boston and Washington, D.C.
We found that through March 2003, a total of about $3.2 billion had
been provided--about $2.6 billion by the federal government and an
additional $625 million by commuter rail agencies and state
governments.[Footnote 50]
Unlike the capital investment in infrastructure for airports, highways,
and transit, which receive significant federal money from dedicated
funding sources, the national rail system's infrastructure is funded by
annual appropriations and must compete with other federal programs for
funds on an annual basis. Therefore, to establish any long-term
strategy to fund improvements between the national rail system and
airports could require the establishment of a dedicated funding source.
For example, in the past, it has been suggested that Amtrak could be
funded through a dedicated funding source, such as one of the federal
transportation trust funds. Even if a revenue source is established,
this new funding would face many of the same revenue challenges that
other transportation systems, such as highways, are facing as revenue
sources are eroded.
Both the European Union and European governments have invested
significant funds in the development of high-speed rail networks that
provide passengers the option of fast intercity travel. For example,
the European Union estimated in 2003 that the total cost of completing
the trans-European transport rail network would be around 350 billion
euros.
In addition, some European governments provide a significant portion of
funding for all new rail infrastructure. For example, the Swiss
government has established a vehicle tax on all Swiss and foreign
freight trucks using Swiss roads to help fund its rail network, among
other things. Two-thirds of the revenue collected from this tax is
allocated to improving the Swiss rail infrastructure. Germany has also
enacted a specific toll on freight vehicles based on a user charge for
actual mileage driven. The revenue collected from this toll will be
used to finance the Anti-Congestion Scheme for Federal Railway
Infrastructure program, among other programs.[Footnote 51]
Anticipated Benefits May Not Justify High Costs:
Given the high costs of this strategy, benefits high enough to justify
investment in intermodal facilities would likely be anticipated in a
limited number of places, at most. Both private and public benefits
could result from this investment. Users of the investment would
receive private benefits in the form of transportation services and
would be expected to pay some form of fee or user charge. How much
users would be willing to pay would depend on the value of the services
that they would receive from the intermodal facility, compared with the
benefits from alternative modes that they could also use for the same
trip and the prices they would have to pay for the alternatives. In
locations where there is highway congestion, a rail link to the airport
might be valuable to many travelers because it could offer a travel
option that might reduce travel time or make the travel time more
reliable. Similarly, if airport parking is expensive, an intermodal
link might have considerable value to travelers. However, such a link
might be of less value where there is little congestion and parking is
inexpensive; in such situations, we would not anticipate that many
travelers would be willing to pay much to use a new facility.
In addition to these private benefits, there may be public benefits
that users would not take into account in deciding how often to use the
facility and how much they would be willing to pay. The public benefits
could include reduced highway and air congestion, pollution, and energy
dependence. For example, if air passengers can access a nationwide rail
network directly at an airport, some passengers might travel to that
airport from other cities by train rather than on highways or short-
haul flights, which might reduce highway or airport and airway
congestion. However, the demand for such service is likely to be low
except in a few highly congested travel corridors where the distances
are short enough to make rail travel times competitive with air travel
times. Moreover, congestion-relief benefits would only be realized at
airports where either highways or airports are already at or near
capacity, because only at those airports would additional users have a
disproportionate, detrimental effect on the flow of automobile or
aircraft traffic. At airports that do not have substantial highway or
airport congestion, such benefits would not be realized. There might
still be some pollution and energy dependency benefits, but since the
number of travelers likely to use these facilities at such airports is
limited, these benefits will be limited as well. Public benefits could
also include "option value," the value that people place on having the
option to use something even though they are not currently using it. By
providing an alternative that would be available to travelers as an
option if their circumstances change, such as bad weather, investment
in intermodal facilities creates value that could also justify public
subsidy. The greater the number of potential users, and the greater the
likelihood that travelers might switch to the new facility, the greater
the option value.
The existence of public benefits, or externalities, is often cited as a
justification for public subsidies that would induce more people to use
a facility than if they had to pay the full cost. When the price can be
reduced to users due to subsidies, some additional travelers for whom
the private benefits would not be sufficient to justify paying an
unsubsidized price would also choose to use the facility. However, only
where both the private and the public benefits are large would the
appropriate subsidy be sufficient to cover the difference between what
users would be willing to pay and the substantial cost of the facility.
Given the high investment costs, these locations are likely to be
limited to airports where there is substantial ground and air
congestion and to a few highly congested travel corridors where the
distances are short enough to make rail travel times competitive with
air travel times.
Concluding Observations:
The limited nature of intermodal connections at major U.S. airports is
most likely the result of many factors. One underlying factor is a lack
of demand. Due to the inconvenience of transferring from airplane to
train or bus, potentially higher travel times, and out-of-pocket costs,
many American travelers in many parts of the country are likely to
continue to prefer car travel over transit to access the airport and
short-haul flights over connections to a nationwide rail system to
complete an overall journey. There is likely to be a greater demand for
such connections in a few highly traveled corridors where higher
private benefits to individual travelers and public benefits such as
reduced congestion on roadways would be more likely to result.
Moreover, in the context of federal transportation policy's emphasis on
local decision making, local officials in communities with strong local
bus and rail transit systems have worked to connect airports to these
systems. A federal strategy of encouraging a more systematic approach
to transportation planning--including alternative funding mechanisms--
could encourage state and local governments to consider the development
of additional intermodal connections at airports in the context of
other transportation investment decisions. At the same time, it is
clear that more quantitative evaluations of the benefits of intermodal
capabilities at airports could help to better inform state and local as
well as federal decision makers as they attempt to determine which
projects to develop with limited resources. The before and after
evaluation requirement for projects that receive funding through the
New Starts program is a positive step in this direction and could
potentially be more widely applied.
Agency Comments:
We provided drafts of this report to DOT and Amtrak for their review
and comment. DOT provided technical comments from FAA's Director of
Airport Planning and Programming, which we have incorporated in this
report as appropriate. Overall, DOT generally concurred with this
report. Amtrak had no comments on this report.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to interested congressional committees, the Secretary of
Transportation, the Administrators of FAA and FTA, and the President of
Amtrak. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov.]
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-2834 or [Hyperlink, siggerudk@gao.gov]. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VII.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Katherine Siggerud:
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report addressed the following questions: (1) What roles do
federal, state, and local governments and the private sector play in
developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? (2) To what extent
have intermodal services and facilities been developed at selected U.S.
airports? (3) What benefits, costs, and barriers exist for developing
additional intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? (4) What
transportation strategies, including lessons learned from the European
experience, may help public decision-makers improve intermodal
capabilities at U.S. airports?
To address these questions, we used a variety of methods and sources of
information. To determine the roles that federal, state, and local
governments and the private sector play in developing intermodal
capabilities at U.S. airports, we interviewed transportation officials
from the following Department of Transportation (DOT) offices: Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Office of Intermodalism.
We also interviewed officials from the American Bus Association,
Association of American Railroads, Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, Airports Council International-North American, American
Public Transportation Association, International Air Rail Organization,
Amtrak, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Midwest Airlines, and
Northwest Airlines. In addition, we interviewed officials from state
and local transportation offices, metropolitan planning organizations,
transit authorities, and airport authorities representing selected
airports, which are identified later in this appendix.
To determine the extent to which intermodal services and facilities
have been developed at major U.S. airports, we selected and
administered a Web-based survey to 72 airports from FAA's 2003 Air
Carrier Activity Information System[Footnote 52] database. These
airports accounted for approximately 90 percent of the enplanements for
calendar year 2003, and consist of all 33 large hub, all 35 medium hub,
and the 4 small hub airports that are located in the same metropolitan
area as a large or medium hub airport.[Footnote 53] Appendix V provides
the complete list of airports surveyed. We asked airport officials
about the local and nationwide bus and rail systems that are accessible
to their airports by regular, fixed-route shuttle service, an automated
people mover or walking. We also asked the airports if their capital
improvement plan included proposals to enhance the airport's
connections to local and nationwide transportation systems. Since
responses to surveys are often subject to nonsampling errors, we
attempted to minimize these errors by taking several precautions during
the questionnaire design and pretested the instrument with 8 medium and
large hub airports. We made changes to the content and format of the
final questionnaire as a result of these pretests. The questionnaire
was administered on the Internet from February 22 to March 31, 2005,
with two intervening e-mail messages and follow-up telephone contacts.
We received responses from all 72 airports,[Footnote 54] resulting in a
100 percent response rate. To ensure the accuracy of information
presented by the airport officials, we relied on Salk International's
Airport Transit Guide and follow-up questions at selected airports. We
are not reporting responses for two questions on the survey because we
determined that these responses were unreliable. During our pretests of
the survey questionnaire, some respondents gave incorrect answers to
questions about the existence of stations for either Amtrak or a
nationwide bus system within their metropolitan area (questions 5 and
13). Based on follow-up questions, we discovered that some pretest
respondents were unaware of some stations located within their
metropolitan area, especially in instances where there was no direct
access between the airport and these stations. In addition, some
respondents were unaware of the exact boundaries of their metropolitan
area. Despite these difficulties, we elected to leave these questions
in the survey because of their role in screening respondents and
setting the context for subsequent questions. The nature of the errors
were such that false negative responses would be unlikely to lead to
errors in subsequent questions. That is, it is unlikely that an airport
that actually had direct connections to a nationwide bus or rail system
would state that there was not a station for such a system in their
metropolitan area. We conclude that responses to the remaining
questions are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Appendix IV provides the survey results. The survey results are also
available on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://newwww.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-05-738SP/index.html]
To obtain information on the benefits, costs, and barriers in
developing intermodal capabilities at selected U.S. airports, we
conducted case study analysis of 16 selected airports. Airports for our
case studies were chosen based on airport size, planned or existing
types of intermodal service,[Footnote 55] and geographic location. We
adopted a case study methodology because, while the results cannot be
projected to the universe of airports, case studies are useful in
illustrating the range and complexity of intermodal capabilities the
airports implemented. We interviewed local and state transportation
officials, metropolitan planning organizations, transit authorities,
airport authorities, airlines and other key stakeholders at each of the
16 airports. The cities and airports where we conducted our case
studies are shown in table 8.
Table 8: Airports Selected for GAO Case Studies:
Airport: Baltimore-Washington International;
Geographic location: Baltimore, MD;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: General Mitchell International;
Geographic location: Milwaukee, WI;
Airport size: Medium.
Airport: John F. Kennedy International;
Geographic location: New York City, NY;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: La Guardia;
Geographic location: New York City, NY;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: Los Angeles International;
Geographic location: Los Angeles, CA;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: Metropolitan Oakland International;
Geographic location: Oakland, CA;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: Miami International;
Geographic location: Miami, FL;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: Minneapolis/St. Paul International;
Geographic location: Minneapolis, MN;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: Newark Liberty International;
Geographic location: Newark, NJ;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International;
Geographic location: San Jose, CA;
Airport size: Medium.
Airport: Ontario International;
Geographic location: Ontario, CA;
Airport size: Medium.
Airport: Portland International;
Geographic location: Portland, OR;
Airport size: Medium.
Airport: Ronald Reagan Washington National;
Geographic location: Arlington, VA;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: San Francisco International;
Geographic location: San Francisco, CA;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: Seattle-Tacoma International;
Geographic location: Sea-Tac, WA;
Airport size: Large.
Airport: Washington Dulles International;
Geographic location: Chantilly, VA;
Airport size: Large.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To determine what transportation strategies may help public decision
makers improve intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports, we interviewed
government, airline, rail, and airport officials from the European
Union, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands to obtain
descriptive information on their airport-rail connections. These
nations were selected based on research publications, which identified
airports within these countries as having best practices on intermodal
airport connections. We also reviewed and used information from our
past reports on areas including the interstate highway system, the
nationwide rail system, and transportation investment strategies. In
order to determine basic differences between the United States and
Europe that could affect the relevance of the European experience in
the United States, we gathered and analyzed information from intermodal
transportation experts and literature.
In addition, we obtained and analyzed information and documents from
DOT, the European Union, the National Research Council's Transportation
Research Board, the Transit Cooperative Research Program, and others.
We conducted our work between July 2004 and July 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Intermodal Connections at Airports in Europe:
While the European Union has developed a common transportation policy,
the actual implementation and development of transportation
infrastructure, including intermodal capabilities at European airports,
remains the responsibility of individual member nations. Their
experiences may provide examples of how intermodal connectivity could
be improved in the United States. However, significant differences
between the United States and Europe should be considered.
Role of the European Union in Developing Air-Rail Connections:
In 1992, the European Union established a transportation policy with
the guiding principle to open up the transportation market between
member countries. This policy included increasing competition within
the aviation industry, striking a balance between growth in air
transportation and the environment, and building new transportation
infrastructure. The European Commission's Directorate-General for
Transport and Energy is the transportation agency for the European
Union and is responsible for developing and implementing transportation
policy. This office carries out these tasks using legislative
proposals--which establish specific requirements or regulations that
member countries must implement--and program management including the
financing of certain transportation projects. While the European Union
has established a European Union-wide policy, individual member nations
are responsible for planning and funding not only European Union-
designated priority projects, but also their own individual
transportation priorities.
In July 1996, the European Union established guidelines for developing
a trans-European transportation network that comprises roads, railways,
airports, seaports, inland ports and traffic management systems that
serve the entire European Union. The guidelines included a list of
priority projects that can receive funding from the European Union. For
those priority projects, the European Union generally funded up to 50
percent of the project study costs and up to 10 percent of project
development costs.[Footnote 56] Member nations are primarily
responsible for planning, designing, funding, and building these
projects.
Role of Member Nations and Local Entities in Developing Air-Rail
Connections:
During our interviews with transportation officials in four European
countries, we found that national governments, local governments, and
private transportation companies--such as airport and rail companies--
all take part in the development of intermodal capabilities at
airports.[Footnote 57] At the European locations we visited, airports,
many of which are owned or operated by private airport management
companies, have taken the lead in planning and funding major intermodal
facilities on airport property. For example, Fraport, a private company
that manages Frankfurt's airport, and Deutsche Bahn, the German rail
company, invested over 300 million euros in building a station for long-
distance and high-speed trains at the Frankfurt airport.[Footnote 58]
Additionally, some European rail systems are also privately operated.
For example, both Germany and France have established private companies
to operate their nations' rail systems. However, the national
government still takes the lead in planning and funding the building of
the overall rail infrastructure, such as dedicated high-speed rail
tracks. Once this infrastructure is built, it is then turned over to
these private companies that operate and manage this infrastructure. At
the Frankfurt airport, Deutsche Bahn and Fraport funded the
construction of the long-distance train station, but all the track
infrastructure was funded by the German national government. We found
that local governments also are involved in providing intermodal
transportation services to airports, with local government-owned
transit agencies providing either rail or local bus service to the
airport. For example, the Rhein-Main Verkehrsverbund regional transit
system provides 230 daily connections and service to about 4,000
passengers per day from the Frankfurt airport.
Differences between the United States and Europe Limit Usefulness of
"European Model"
Examining international models can provide examples of how a more
active federal role can help in developing a nationwide rail network,
including intermodal capabilities at airports. However, significant
differences between the United States and other nations would limit the
use of these international models. Based on information we gathered
from intermodal transportation experts and research we reviewed, we
identified three basic differences between the United States and Europe
that affect the ability to use the European model in the United States.
* Population density. Experts and prior research highlight the greater
population density of European cities and that downtowns are major
destination points for passengers as key differences that affect the
use of intermodal systems. While some U.S. cities have population
densities comparable to European cities, in general, U.S. cities are
more decentralized. In addition, prior research has shown that European
cities generally have a greater downtown orientation for passengers as
compared to U.S. cities, and so intermodal systems providing direct
access to downtown will have a greater ability to draw
passengers.[Footnote 59]
* Geographic differences. Generally, distances between many major
cities in the United States are greater than in Europe. These greater
distances can affect intermodal transportation because many experts
believe that for intercity rail to be competitive with air travel, the
distance between cities needs to be within 2-3 hours total travel time
or 100-500 miles, depending on the speed of the train. One expert
stated that there are some areas in the United States--California, the
Northeast, and the Great Lakes--where it is possible that rail
transportation could provide competitive service within these areas.
* Lower vehicle use costs. In the United States, gasoline prices are
much lower than in Europe because of substantially lower taxes. In
addition, the rate of car ownership is generally higher. For both
reasons, people traveling to airports in the United States are more
likely to drive and leave their cars at the airports until they return
than in Europe, which could reduce the demand for (and therefore the
benefits of) more extensive intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports:
Intermodal projects are large capital projects that generally require
pooling money from different sources and different transportation
modes. The federal government can help finance local transportation
projects through federal transportation programs such as the New Starts
program and federal credit assistance programs such as the Department
of Transportation's (DOT) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act. State and locally generated money such as state
transportation trust funds, dedicated sales taxes, and highway tolls
have been used to match federal funds. In addition, airports have used
passenger facility charges (PFC) and airport revenue to fund rail
access at airports and public-private partnerships have been used to
attract private investment.
Federal Funding:
The New Starts program is used to select for federal funding new rail
transit projects, including those that connect to airports. New Starts
is the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) capital investment
program for fixed guideway systems and extensions. For selected
projects, a maximum of 80 percent federal contribution to total project
costs can be funded, but projects that request a maximum federal share
of 60 percent of the project's total cost receive higher priority. For
example, parts of the BART extension to the San Francisco International
Airport and the Hiawatha Light Rail Line to the Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport were funded through the New Starts program. Other
federal programs provide support for highway and transit systems that
may be connected to airports. For example, federal highway fuel taxes
are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and distributed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FTA to state transportation
departments and local transit operators. While most federal funding
sources and programs are linked to highway or transit uses, some
funding flexibility between highway and transit is allowed under
programs such as the Surface Transportation Program and the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, both of which have been
used to fund intermodal projects.
In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) provides grants to airports for planning and
development projects. The program is funded in part by aviation user
taxes, which are deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
Funds are allocated to airports with scheduled commercial service and
at least 10,000 enplanements each year.[Footnote 60] In terms of
promoting intermodal capabilities, AIP funds are generally used for
access roads to airports that are airport owned, on airport property,
and exclusively serve airport traffic.[Footnote 61]
Furthermore, DOT provides credit assistance for highway, transit,
passenger rail, and intermodal projects under the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. Credit assistance includes
direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. Project financing
must be repayable in part or in whole from tolls, user fees, or other
dedicated revenue sources.
Finally, Congress designates specific transportation programs and
projects for funding. For example, federal funds to Amtrak support
nationwide passenger rail service for operating and capital expenses.
Congress also designated funds for the construction of the Amtrak
station at the Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport.
State and Local Funding:
State and local funding for intermodal capabilities can provide
matching funds for federal programs such as New Starts and can derive
from several sources. These sources have included state and local
apportionments of the Highway Trust Fund, state and local gas taxes,
and motor vehicle taxes and registration fees. In addition, some states
have dedicated a percentage of the general sales tax to fund rail
transit projects.[Footnote 62] Some local governments and transit
agencies have also dedicated a portion of property tax or payroll tax
for rail projects to airports. Also, bridge, tunnel, and highway tolls
have in part funded automated people mover systems at John F. Kennedy
International Airport in New York and Newark Liberty Airport in New
Jersey. In addition, cities and counties can provide capital and
operating costs for rail projects. Further, local governments have
established special tax districts such as "transportation improvement
districts" that can tax businesses in order to capture the value added
to a business or property with close access to a rail project. In this
way, those who receive the benefits of increased economic activity or
increased property value contribute to project costs. For example, a
transportation improvement district was established to help fund the
proposed rail extension to the Washington Dulles International Airport
in Virginia.
Like the federal government, states have their own credit assistance
programs. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 allows up
to 10 states to capitalize transportation credit assistance banks to
provide loans and credit enhancement to eligible surface transportation
projects. For example, under this program, Florida used funds
authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to
capitalize its credit assistance bank, which funded in part the
development of the Miami Intermodal Center at Miami International
Airport.
PFCs and airport revenue are the primary sources of local airport
contributions to funding projects that provide rail access to airports.
For a project to be eligible to use PFCs, it must be airport owned, on
airport property, and be exclusively for the use of airport passengers
and employees.[Footnote 63] Airports apply to FAA for approval of both
the collection of the fees and the use of the fee revenue for specific
projects. FAA will generally approve an airport's proposal for the
collection or use of PFC funds as long as the project is eligible,
meets a program objective, and is adequately justified. Airport revenue
includes receipts from customer facility charges,[Footnote 64] parking,
terminal concessions, and airline landing fees and rentals. For
example, the Miami Intermodal Center will levy a customer facility
charge on car rentals to pay for its consolidated rental car facility.
The eligibility criteria for the use of airport revenue are similar to
PFCs, but projects must only be directly or substantially related to
the air transportation of passengers and property rather than for
exclusive use. FAA does not approve the use of airport revenue for a
particular project, unless an airport or airport user complains that
funds are being inappropriately used.
State and local governments have used federal funding, PFCs, and
airport revenue to back tax-exempt bonds. Also, Grant Anticipation
Notes backed by New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements[Footnote 65]
were used for the BART extension to the San Francisco airport. For on-
airport projects, General Airport Revenue Bonds have been issued by
airports backed solely by, or in combination with, PFCs and airport
revenue.
Private Sector Investment:
Private investment in intermodal capabilities has occurred through
public-private partnerships. For example, Portland International
Airport entered into a public-private partnership with the builder of
its light rail extension to the airport. In return, the builder has a
85-year lease on the property to develop retail or office space.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Survey Results:
Questions.
Local rail systems.
1. Is there at least one rail system designed for local transportation
within the metropolitan area where ( ) Airport is located? Please
consider local rail systems to include light rail, commuter rail, and
subways, but not to include nationwide rail networks, such as Amtrak;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 43;
Number of airports responding: No: 29;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 0.
2. For this local rail system (or systems), please consider the
stations that are most accessible to the airport. Is there regular,
fixed-route shuttle service from any of these local rail stations to
any of the airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 22;
Number of airports responding: No: 18;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 3;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 0.
3. Does the airport have a people mover (that is, an automated guideway
car or a moving sidewalk) that transports passengers from any of these
local rail stations to any of the airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding:Yes: 8;
Number of airports responding: No: 34;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 1;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 0.
4. Would it be convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk
from any of these local rail stations to any of the airport's
terminals?;
Number of airports responding:Yes: 11;
Number of airports responding: 31;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 1.
Nationwide rail network.
5. Is there at least one Amtrak station in the metropolitan area where
( ) Airport is located?[A];
Number of airports responding: Yes: 56;
Number of airports responding: No: 16;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 0.
6. Please consider the Amtrak station (or stations) most accessible to
the airport. Is there regular, fixed-route shuttle service from any of
these Amtrak stations to any of the airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 13;
Number of airports responding: No: 42;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 1.
7. Does the airport have a people mover (that is, an automated guideway
car or a moving sidewalk) that transports passengers from any of these
Amtrak stations to any of the airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 1;
Number of airports responding: No: 53;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 2;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 0.
8. Would it be convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk
from any of these Amtrak stations to any of the airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 0;
Number of airports responding: No: 56;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't Know: 0.
Local bus systems.
9. Is there at least one system of scheduled, fixed-route buses
designed for local transportation within the metropolitan area where (
) Airport is located? Please consider local bus systems to include
public transit buses, express buses, and bus rapid transit. Do not
consider either nationwide bus systems, such as Greyhound, or on-demand
transportation, such as taxi vans, hotel shuttles, or charter buses as
local bus systems;
Number of airports responding: Yes: Local rail systems: 70;
Number of airports responding: No: Local rail systems: 2;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: Local rail systems: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: Local rail systems: 0.
10. For this local bus system (or systems), please consider the bus
stops that are most accessible to the airport. Is there regular, fixed-
route shuttle service from any of these bus stops to any of the
airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 48;
Number of airports responding: No: 19;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 3;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 0.
11. Does the airport have a people mover (that is, an automated
guideway car or a moving sidewalk) that transports passengers from any
of these bus stops to any of the airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 6;
Number of airports responding: No: 58;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 6;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 0.
12. Would it be convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk
from any of these bus stops to any of the airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 56;
Number of airports responding: No: 14;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't Know: 0.
Nationwide bus systems.
13. Is there at least one station for a nationwide bus system, such as
Greyhound, within the metropolitan area where ( ) Airport is located?
Please do not consider local transit buses, charter buses, or shuttle
buses to be a nationwide bus system.[A];
Number of airports responding: Yes: 58;
Number of airports responding: No: Local rail systems: 14;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: Local rail systems: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: Local rail systems: 0.
14. Please consider the nationwide bus station (or stations) most
accessible to the airport. Is there regular, fixed-route shuttle
service from any of these nationwide bus stations to any of the
airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: Local rail systems: 10;
Number of airports responding: No: Local rail systems: 46;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: Local rail systems: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: Local rail systems: 2.
15. Does the airport have a people mover (that is, an automated
guideway car or a moving sidewalk) that transports passengers from any
of these nationwide bus stations to any of the airport's terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 1;
Number of airports responding: No: 55;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 2;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 0.
16. Would it be convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk
from any of these nationwide bus stations to any of the airport's
terminals?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 5;
Number of airports responding: No: 53;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't Know: 0.
Plans to build ground transportation facilities.
17. Does ( ) Airport have a Capital Improvement Plan?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: Local rail systems: 72;
Number of airports responding: No: Local rail systems: 0;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: Local rail systems: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: Local rail systems: 0.
18. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to
build a train station for a local rail system? Please consider local
rail systems to include light rail, commuter rail, and subways, but not
to include nationwide rail networks, such as Amtrak;
Number of airports responding: Yes: Local rail systems: 14;
Number of airports responding: No: Local rail systems: 55;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: Local rail systems: 3;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: Local rail systems: 0.
19. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to
build a train station for a nationwide train system, such as Amtrak?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 0;
Number of airports responding: No: 72;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 0;
Number of airports responding: Don't Know: 0.
20. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to
add stops for local transit buses? Please consider local bus systems to
include public transit buses, express buses, and bus rapid transit. Do
not consider either nationwide bus systems, such as Greyhound, or on-
demand transportation, such as taxi vans, hotel shuttles, or charter
buses as local bus systems;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 12;
Number of airports responding: No: 56;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 4;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: Local rail systems: 0.
21. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to
build a station for a nationwide bus system, such as Greyhound? Please
do not consider local transit buses, charter buses, or shuttle buses to
be a nationwide bus system;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 2;
Number of airports responding: No: 69;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 1;
Number of airports responding: Don't know: 0.
22. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to
build a people mover (that is, an automated guideway car or a moving
sidewalk) to connect any of the airport's terminals with ground
transportation facilities, such as bus stations or train stations?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 19;
Number of airports responding: No: 50;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 2;
Number of airports responding: Don't Know: 0.
23. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan have any other
proposals to improve passengers' access to trains and buses?;
Number of airports responding: Yes: 13;
Number of airports responding: No: 53;
Number of airports responding: Not applicable: 3;
Number of airports responding: Don't Know: 2.
Source: GAO.
[A] The answers to these questions are unreliable. See appendix I for
more details.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Survey Results on Existing and Planned Bus and Rail
Connections:
The 72 airports we surveyed reported different levels of connections to
air and rail systems. As shown in table 9, most airports had direct
connections to local bus or rail systems, while fewer had connections
to nationwide transportation systems. Twenty airports reported plans to
develop connections to local transportation systems, while only 2
reported plans to develop connections to a nationwide transportation
system.
Table 9: Existing and Planned Bus and Rail Connections at 72 Airports:
Airport (n=72): Albuquerque International Sunport;
Local bus (n=64): [Empty];
Local rail (n=27): ;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13):
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Austin-Bergstrom International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Baltimore-Washington International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): x;
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Bob Hope;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Bradley International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Buffalo Niagara International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Charlotte/Douglas International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Chicago Midway International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Chicago O'Hare International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Cleveland-Hopkins International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Dallas Love Field;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Dallas/Fort Worth International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): x;
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Denver International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Eppley Airfield;
Local bus (n=64): [Empty];
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): General Edward Lawrence Logan International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): General Mitchell International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): George Bush Intercontinental;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Honolulu International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Indianapolis International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty]; Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Jacksonville International;
Local bus (n=64): [Empty];
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): John F. Kennedy International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): John Wayne Airport-Orange County;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Kahului;
Local bus (n=64): [Empty];
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Kansas City International;
Local bus (n=64): [Empty];
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): La Guardia;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Lambert-St Louis International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Long Beach/Daugherty Field;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Long Island MacArthur;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Los Angeles International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Louis Armstrong New Orleans International;
Local bus (n=64): [Empty];
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Louisville International-Standiford Field;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Luis Munoz Marin International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Manchester;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): McCarran International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Memphis International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Metropolitan Oakland International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Miami International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Minneapolis/St. Paul International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Nashville International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Newark Liberty International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Norfolk International;
Local bus (n=64): [Empty];
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Ontario International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Orlando International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Orlando Sanford;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Palm Beach International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Philadelphia International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Phoenix Sky Harbor International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Pittsburgh International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Port Columbus International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Portland International;
Local bus (n=64): [Empty];
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Raleigh-Durham International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Reno/Tahoe International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Ronald Reagan Washington National;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Sacramento International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Salt Lake City International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): San Antonio International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): San Diego International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): San Francisco International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Seattle-Tacoma International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Southwest Florida International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Tampa International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): x;
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Ted Stevens Anchorage International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Theodore Francis Green State;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): x;
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Tucson International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Washington Dulles International;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): x;
Nationwide bus (n=12): x;
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): Westchester County;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): [Empty];
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Airport (n=72): William P. Hobby;
Local bus (n=64): x;
Local rail (n=27): [Empty];
Nationwide bus (n=12): [Empty];
Nationwide rail (n=13): [Empty];
Planned: local bus (n=12): [Empty];
Planned local rail (n=14): x;
Planned nationwide bus (n=2): [Empty];
Planned nationwide rail (n=0): [Empty].
Source: GAO.
Note: For existing connections, we considered a transfer point (such as
a bus stop or rail station) to be a direct connection to the airport
if: it was convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk to the
transfer point from any of the airport's terminals;
the airport had a people mover (that is, an automated guideway car or a
moving sidewalk) that transports passengers from the transfer point to
any of the airport's terminals;
or there was regular fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer
point to any of the airport's terminals.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Selected Airport Case Studies:
Airport and local transportation officials at each of our case studies
reported a number of primary benefits and primary barriers associated
with the development of intermodal facilities at the airport. As shown
in figure 10, the most commonly cited primary benefit for intermodal
facilities at the airport was providing alternative transportation
options for passengers, while the most commonly cited primary barrier
to developing such facilities was restrictions on the use of FAA funds.
A brief description of the intermodal facilities, plans for additional
facilities, and local stakeholders at each of the airports is presented
in this appendix.
Figure 10: Primary Benefits and Barriers Associated With Developing
Intermodal Facilities at Airports, According to Airport and Local
Transportation Officials:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Baltimore-Washington International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - Baltimore-Washington International Airport has
the following intermodal connections (see fig. 11).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport's
terminal.
* Local rail: Passengers can access three different local rail transit
systems. A station for Baltimore's local rail transit system is located
at the north end of the airport's terminal. A local commuter rail stops
at an Amtrak station that is located within two miles of the terminal
and can be accessed by a free shuttle bus from airport terminals. In
addition, a station for Washington, D.C.'s local rail transit system
can be accessed by an express bus from the airport's terminal.
* Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can access Amtrak at a station
located within two miles of the airport and connected to the terminal
by a free shuttle.
* Plans for additional facilities: The airport is evaluating the need
for and feasibility of developing a regional intermodal transportation
center and an automated people mover system that would connect the
airport to the Amtrak rail station, satellite parking lots, and a
consolidated rental car facility.
Key Local Stakeholders - The Baltimore-Washington airport is owned and
operated by the Maryland Aviation Administration, which is part of the
Maryland Department of Transportation. At the state level, the
department of transportation leads intermodal planning and coordination
between state transportation agencies through the airport's Access
Coordination Group. This group is comprised of various state and local
government agencies that coordinate project information and resolve any
problems or issues. The aviation administration is the lead agency in
planning and coordinating intermodal facilities at the airport with
federal agencies (such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
state agencies, local governments, private sector organizations, and
public stakeholders. Other key organizations include the Baltimore
Metropolitan Council, the metropolitan planning organization for the
Baltimore region, and Anne Arundel County, which regulates land
development on nonstate and federal property. The Maryland Transit
Administration provides local bus and rail transit service, and Howard
County Transit and Annapolis Transit provide local bus service. The
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority provides express bus
service to the Greenbelt station of Washington, D.C.'s local rail
transit system, Metro.
Figure 11: Intermodal Connections at Baltimore-Washington International
Airport:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of figure]
Los Angeles International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - The Los Angeles International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 12).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the Intermodal
Transit Center, which is connected to airport terminals by a free
shuttle.
* Local rail: Passengers can access the local rail transit system at a
station connected to airport terminals by a free shuttle.
* Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.
* Plans for additional facilities: The Los Angeles airport master plan
includes the development of an intermodal transportation center with a
direct connection to the local rail transit system. The plan also
includes the construction of automated people movers to connect the
intermodal transportation center to airport terminals.
Key Local Stakeholders - Los Angeles airport is owned and operated by
Los Angeles World Airports--a department of the City of Los Angeles--
and governed by the seven-member Board of Airport Commissioners. A
number of transit agencies--Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, Culver City Transit, Santa Monica Transit,
and Torrance Transit--provide local bus service from the airport to
various locations within the Los Angeles area. In addition, the airport
also operates a dedicated express bus service, Van Nuys FlyAway, which
transports passengers to and from the San Fernando Valley. The airport
is taking the lead to develop the intermodal transportation center with
a connection to the local rail transit system. Other state and local
transportation agencies, such as the Southern California Association of
Governments (a metropolitan planning organization) and the California
Department of Transportation, have played a limited role in planning
ground access to the airport.
Figure 12: Intermodal Connections at Los Angeles International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of figure]
Miami International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities --Miami International Airport has the following
intermodal connections (see fig. 13).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport's
passenger terminal.
* Local rail: No connections.
* Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.
* Plans for additional facilities: Construction has started on the
Miami Intermodal Center, located east of the airport's main terminal.
The first phase of the center will include the construction of a
consolidated rental car facility, a central bus and rail station, and
an automated people mover that will connect the center with the
airport. The entire first phase is scheduled to be under construction
or completed by late 2008. The second phase consists of the
construction of additional rail platforms for Amtrak and local rail.
Both phases are expected to be completed over a 20-year period.
Key Local Stakeholders - Miami airport is owned and operated by the
Miami-Dade Aviation Department, a county transportation agency. The
Florida Department of Transportation is the lead agency in the
development of the intermodal center. As the lead agency, the
department of transportation coordinates with other stakeholders--
including Miami-Dade Transit, which provides the county's bus, rail,
and other transit services; Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, which
oversees the operation and maintenance of five major county expressways;
the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is the
regional transportation planning body; and the Federal Highway
Administration--the lead federal agency--which ensures that
environmental concerns are addressed and facilitates coordination among
other affected federal agencies.
Figure 13: Intermodal Connections at Miami International Airport:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of figure]
Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - Milwaukee General Mitchell International
Airport has the following intermodal connections (see fig. 14).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at a bus stop
about 1 block from the terminal.
* Local rail: No connections.
* Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can access Amtrak at the Milwaukee
airport rail station located on the western perimeter of airport
property and connected to terminals by a free shuttle.
* Plans for additional facilities: A proposed commuter rail line
between downtown Milwaukee and Chicago would include a station near the
airport that would be connected to the airport by a free shuttle. In
addition, there is a proposal to develop a network of five
interconnected express bus routes in the Milwaukee area, with one route
directly serving the airport.
Key Local Stakeholders - The Milwaukee airport is owned and operated by
Milwaukee County. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation was the
lead agency in developing and securing funding for the construction of
the airport's Amtrak service and rail track improvements. In addition,
airport staff participated in the planning and construction of the rail
station. Amtrak and the Canadian Pacific Railway, which owns the track
next to the airport, were key stakeholders. Amtrak agreed to make the
additional stop on its Chicago-Milwaukee route, and Canadian Pacific
Railway agreed to allow the construction of the new station subject to
the Wisconsin Department of Transportation providing funding for track
improvements to maintain freight capacity. Local bus service is
provided by Milwaukee County Transit. Midwest Airlines, which is the
largest tenant at the airport, advocated the development of the
airport's rail station.
Figure 14: Intermodal Connections at Milwaukee General Mitchell
International Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities -The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport
has the following intermodal connections (see fig. 15).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport's
transit center, which is located adjacent to the airport's main
terminal (Lindbergh terminal).
* Local rail: Passengers can access the local rail transit system at
both of the airport's terminals. One station is located at the
airport's transit center, which is in the main terminal and accessible
by automated people mover. The second station, located outside of the
airport's other terminal, is connected to that terminal by a covered
walkway.
* Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.
* Plans for additional facilities: None reported.
Key Local Stakeholders - The Minneapolis/St. Paul airport is owned and
operated by Metropolitan Airports Commission. The Metropolitan Council
(a metropolitan planning organization), Metro Transit (the transit
operating division of Metropolitan Council), Metropolitan Airports
Commission, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation were the
major stakeholders in building the local rail system, including the two
stations at the airport. The Metropolitan Council is the owner of the
local rail system and received the federal funds used to build the
system. Metro Transit is the operator of the local rail system and
served as the coordinating agency during construction. The Metropolitan
Airports Commission managed construction of the rail tunnel and
stations on airport property and provided partial funding. State and
local governments, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation
and Hennepin County, provided significant funding for this project.
Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit also provide local bus
service to the airport.
Figure 15: Intermodal Connections at Minneapolis/St. Paul International
Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
Newark Liberty International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities -Newark Liberty International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 16).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at ground
transportation courtyards located at each of the airport's three
terminals.
* Local rail: Passengers can access two local rail transit systems at
an airport rail station that is connected to each airport terminal by
an automated people mover.
* Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can also access Amtrak at the
airport rail station.
* Plans for additional facilities: None reported.
Key Local Stakeholders - Newark airport is owned by the City of Newark
and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which also operates
the airport. The port authority was the lead agency in planning,
coordinating, and overseeing the construction of the automated people
mover and the airport's rail station. As the lead agency, the port
authority also coordinated with federal agencies such as FAA. New
Jersey Transit and Amtrak also participated in the development of the
airport's rail station and provide both transit rail service and
nationwide rail service from the airport rail station. In addition, the
Port Authority Trans-Hudson provides local rail transit service.
Continental Airlines, which is the largest tenant at the airport,
supported the use of passenger facility charges for this project.
Figure 16: Intermodal Connections at Newark Liberty International
Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
New York John F. Kennedy International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - New York John F. Kennedy International Airport
has the following intermodal connections (see fig. 17).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at a local transit
station connected to airport terminals by an automated people mover and
at airport terminals.
* Local rail: Passengers can access two local rail transit systems--a
New York commuter rail system and the New York City subway system--at
transit stations that are connected to airport terminals by an
automated people mover.
* Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.
* Plans for additional facilities: There are plans to develop rail
transit service from the airport to lower Manhattan, which would
include building new rail infrastructure.
Key Local Stakeholders - The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
operates Kennedy airport. The port authority was the lead agency in
planning, developing and implementing the automated people mover. As
the lead agency, the port authority coordinated with key federal
agencies, including FAA, and state and local agencies such as the New
York Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (the local
metropolitan planning organization), airlines, and the local community
provided input during the planning and implementation of the automated
people mover. In particular, the port authority worked with the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority to adopt a similar fare system to
assure that passengers could use one fare card to access both the
automated people mover and the rail transit system, and to develop the
infrastructure to facilitate transfers between the automated people
mover and the rail transit system.
Figure 17: Intermodal Connections at New York John F. Kennedy
International Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
Oakland International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - Oakland International Airport has the following
intermodal connections (see fig. 18).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport's
terminals.
* Local rail: Passengers can access the local rail transit system at a
station about 3 miles east of the airport and connected to airport
terminals by a shuttle. A fee is charged for this shuttle.
* Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can also access an Amtrak station
using the shuttle.
* Plans for additional facilities: There are plans to construct a 3.2
mile elevated automated people mover system that would connect the
airport to a local rail station.
Key Local Stakeholders - Oakland airport is owned and operated by the
Port of Oakland--a city agency. The airport is responsible for all
ground transportation systems on airport property and works closely
with the local rail transit agency, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART),
and the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District to provide public
transportation service. Other agencies involved in the development of
the planned automated people mover system include Alameda County, the
city of Oakland, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the
Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority, and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Figure 18: Intermodal Connections at Oakland International Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
Portland International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - Portland International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 19).
* Local bus: No connections.
* Local rail: Passengers can access a local rail transit system at a
station located at the west end of the airport terminal.
* Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.
* Plans for additional facilities: None reported.
Key Local Stakeholders - Portland airport is owned and operated by the
Port of Portland and is required by state and local regulations to
promote the development of alternate modes of transportation. The light
rail extension at the airport was funded, in part, by the Bechtel
Corporation in exchange for a lease agreement with the airport allowing
Bechtel to develop retail, office, and hotel sites on airport property.
TriMet, which provides transit service to three Oregon counties,
operates and owns the light rail extension, except for the portion of
the light rail extension that is on airport property. The portion on
airport property is owned by the Port of Portland and operated by
TriMet. The city of Portland provided additional funding, and Metro
(the region's metropolitan planning organization) included the light
rail extension in the Regional Transportation Plan and provided travel
demand forecasting. The Oregon Department of Transportation assisted in
coordinating a significant portion of the light rail extension on a
right-of-way in the median of an interstate highway.
Figure 19: Intermodal Connections at Portland International Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
(National airport) has the following intermodal connections (see fig.
20).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at both of the
airport's terminals.
* Local rail: Passengers can access a local rail transit system at a
station adjacent to the airport's main terminal and connected to that
terminal by an elevated crosswalk and the other terminal by a free
shuttle.
* Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.
* Plans for additional facilities: None reported.
Key Local Stakeholders - National airport is owned by the federal
government and leased to the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, which is responsible for its operation and development.
Plans to build a local rail transit station at the airport were
initiated in the 1960's when the local rail system was being designed.
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority operates and
maintains the local rail system and provides limited bus service to the
airport. Other key stakeholders include the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (the metropolitan planning organization), which
collects and processes air passenger survey data for the airport.
Figure 20: Intermodal Connections at Ronald Reagan National Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
San Francisco International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - San Francisco International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 21).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at most airport
terminals.
* Local rail: Passengers can access a local rail transit system at a
station located in one terminal and connected to other terminals by an
automated people mover.
* Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.
* Plans for additional facilities: None reported.
Key Local Stakeholders - The city and county of San Francisco own and
operate the San Francisco airport. San Mateo County Transit was the key
local agency that supported the development of the BART extension south
of San Francisco into San Mateo County. BART was the lead agency in
planning and coordinating the BART extension, while the airport managed
the design and construction of the airport station and guideway located
on airport property. The San Francisco airport provided funding to this
extension by signing an agreement with BART to pay up to $200 million
for the costs associated with the design and construction of the BART
train station, guideway, and operating systems on airport property. San
Mateo County Transit provides local bus service from the airport to San
Mateo and San Francisco counties.
Figure 21: Intermodal Connections at San Francisco International
Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
Airport has the following intermodal connections (see fig. 22).
* Local bus: No connections.
* Local rail: Passengers can access two local rail transit systems at
stations connected to airport terminals by a free shuttle.
* Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.
* Plans for additional facilities: There are plans to build an
automated people mover that would connect the local rail station, the
airport, and the local commuter rail station.
Key Local Stakeholders - The airport is owned and operated by the city
of San Jose. The Valley Transportation Authority, a public agency that
provides transit service, operates the shuttle that connects the
airport to the commuter rail and local rail stations. Additional
transit services to the airport are provided by a variety of local
agencies, including the city of San Jose and CalTrain. Private
operators also provide some transit services to the airport.
Figure 22: Intermodal Connections at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose
International Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 23).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the south end
of the airport's main terminal.
* Local rail: No connections.
* Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers may use a private shuttle operator
that charges a fee to connect to the Amtrak station.
* Plans for additional facilities: There are plans for a local transit
rail station to be developed at the airport to provide a connection to
a local rail transit system that is under construction. The station
will be located on the east side of the airport property, with
passengers being able to access the station using a walkway. In
addition, officials stated that a pedestrian bridge will be built to
connect the airport with a planned local transportation hub, which will
provide bus service by a number of local transit agencies. Completion
is scheduled by December 2009.
Key Local Stakeholders - Seattle-Tacoma airport is owned by the Port of
Seattle. Transit services are provided by two local agencies, King
County Metro Transit and a tri-county agency, Sound Transit. Sound
Transit not only provides regional bus service, but also operates the
regional commuter rail service and is constructing the local rail
transit system. Also involved in building the local rail transit
station at Seattle-Tacoma airport is the city of Sea-Tac, which will
permit all construction of the rail line within its city limits.
Figure 23: Intermodal Connections at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
Washington Dulles International Airport:
Intermodal Facilities - Washington Dulles International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 24).
* Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport's
main terminal.
* Local rail: Passengers can access the local rail system at a station
that is connected to airport terminals by a shuttle. A fee is charged
for this shuttle.
* Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can access nationwide bus service
at the airport's main terminal.
* Plans for additional facilities: There is a plan to extend the local
rail system to the airport. The Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit project
is a planned 23 mile extension of the local rail system that will
provide service to the airport. The rail extension project, if
completely funded, will be developed in two phases, with the airport
station planned for the second phase. Phase 1 (currently in preliminary
engineering) and phase 2 are scheduled for completion in 2011 and 2015,
respectively.
Key Local Stakeholders - The airport is owned by the federal government
but is leased to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which
is responsible for its operation and development. Local bus service is
provided by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which
also performs corridor-level planning. The Virginia Department of Rail
and Public Transportation is the project leader for the local rail
extension. The state coordinates with other stakeholders such as the
airport, the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments (the
regional transportation planning body), Fairfax and Loudoun counties,
and the Federal Transit Administration. Greyhound provides bus service
to parts of Virginia with connecting service as far as New York.
Figure 24: Intermodal Connections at Washington Dulles International
Airport:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Map is not to scale.
[End of Figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-2834:
Teresa Spisak (202) 512-2834:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above individuals, Mark Braza, Jennifer Clayborne,
Jay Cherlow, Bert Japikse, Jason Kelly, Rosa Leung, Maureen Luna-Long,
Grant Mallie, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Maria Romero, Tim Schindler, Jena
Sinkfield, John Smale, John Trubey, and Alwynne Wilbur made key
contributions to this report.
(542042):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Throughout this report, we define local agencies to include city,
county, and multi-county (regional) agencies.
[2] More specifically, we considered a transfer point (such as a bus
stop or rail station) to be a direct connection to the airport if: it
was convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk to the
transfer point from any of the airport's terminals;
the airport had a people mover (that is, an automated guideway car or a
moving sidewalk) that transports passengers from the transfer point to
any of the airport's terminals;
or there was regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer
point to any of the airport's terminals.
[3] Local transit rail includes commuter rail, light rail, subway
systems, and trolleys.
[4] More specifically, we considered a transfer point (such as a bus
stop or rail station) to be a direct connection to the airport if: it
was convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk to the
transfer point from any of the airport's terminals;
the airport had a people mover (that is, an automated guideway car or a
moving sidewalk) that transports passengers from the transfer point to
any of the airport's terminals;
or there was regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer
point to any of the airport's terminals.
[5] P.L. 102-240 (1991).
[6] P.L. 105-178 (1998).
[7] P.L. 108-176 (2003).
[8] The FAA Airport Improvement Program Handbook provides guidance on
coordination of intermodal airport projects. The FAA Airport
Improvement Program Handbook states that federally funded airport
access projects should be coordinated by the metropolitan planning
organization and listed in its transportation improvement program. It
also states that airports are encouraged to complete planning projects
that are consistent with system forecasts, ground access and air
quality studies, land use planning as well as other information,
procedures, plans or policies. A provision in Vision 100 requires that
large and medium hub airports provide metropolitan planning
organizations, upon request, copies of proposed changes to airport
layout plans or master plans showing certain projects (i.e., new
runways and runway extensions).
[9] Amtrak owns about 650 miles of track, primarily on the Northeast
Corridor between Boston, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.
[10] H.R. 1631 "The Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act
for the 21ST Century" was introduced in April 2005 and would, among
other things, authorize federal funds for a long-term rail
infrastructure program to improve and expand our nation's rail
infrastructure and develop a viable high-speed rail system.
[11] The European Union includes 25 countries that have reached
agreement in certain policy areas, such as transportation policy, and
operate as a single economic market.
[12] The most recent report is the European Union's White Paper,
European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide (Luxembourg: 2001).
[13] The Rail Air Intermodality Facilitation Forum included industry
experts for both the rail and air transportation modes.
[14] The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey operates three New
York area airports including John F. Kennedy International Airport, La
Guardia Airport, and Newark's Liberty International Airport.
[15] The portion of the light rail extension that is on airport
property is owned by the Port of Portland and operated by Tri-Met.
[16] Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 62, Improving Public
Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington, D.C.: 2000);
and Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 83, Strategies for
Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington,
D.C.: 2002).
[17] Use agreements deal with airside operations, which include landing
fees, and lease agreements include terminal and gate rents.
[18] For airports not governed by such agreements, rates are
established by ordinance or regulation.
[19] Airline lease agreements can include provisions known as "majority-
in-interest" that provide airlines with some control over an airport's
long-term financial obligations.
[20] We surveyed all 68 large and medium hub U.S. airports, and those
small hub airports (4 in total) that are located in the same
metropolitan statistical area as one or more large or medium hub
airports.
[21] We considered a transfer point (such as a bus stop or rail
station) to be a direct connection to the airport if (1) it was
convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk to the transfer
point from any of the airport's terminals;
(2) the airport had an automated people mover that transports
passengers from the transfer point to any of the airport's terminals;
or (3) there was regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer
point to any of the airport's terminals.
[22] The airports include Albuquerque International Sunport, Omaha's
Eppley Airfield, Jacksonville International, Kahului (Hawaii), Kansas
City International, Louis Armstrong New Orleans International, and
Norfolk International.
[23] Local bus service included public transit, rapid transit, and
nonstop, dedicated express bus service, such as the Van Nuys FlyAway or
Boston Logan Express.
[24] The survey questionnaire was administered from February 22 through
March 31, 2005. Subsequent to the close of the survey, Oakland,
California, airport also reported to us that passengers can access
Amtrak by shuttle as of June 6, 2005.
[25] Code sharing refers to the practice of airlines applying their
names and selling tickets to flights or rail service operated by other
carriers.
[26] The capital improvement plan is a planning document addressing
current and future airport capital needs.
[27] Ground transportation facilities include bus and train stations.
[28] GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving
Information on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing
Accountability for Results, GAO-05-172 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24,
2005).
[29] GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues for Consideration in
Developing an Intercity Passenger Rail Policy, GAO-03-712T (Washington,
D.C.: April 30, 2003).
[30] Our prior work examined intercity rail service in general. It did
not specifically state that these benefits would come from rail service
at airports. Therefore, the same benefit could be obtained from rail
service between stations not located at airports.
[31] Lufthansa officials stated that for this service to be competitive
there has to be a 45-minute maximum transfer time between the flight
arrival and the train's departure at Frankfurt. This requires a high
frequency of service and officials stated that it would require at
least one train every hour.
[32] See GAO-05-172.
[33] GAO, Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, GAO-01-165
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2001).
[34] PFCs are fees up to $4.50 paid by airport passengers, which are
used to finance airport capital improvements.
[35] Airports Council International-North America, The 2003 General
Information Survey (Washington, D.C.: 2003).
[36] GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning
and Financing Limitations, GAO-04-165 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2003).
[37] Service between Paris and Amsterdam Schiphol airport is provided
from 6:55 a.m. to 6:55 p.m. every day.
[38] GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment
Decisions, GAO-04-744 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004).
[39] Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 62, Improving Public
Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington, D.C.: 2001);
and Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 83, Strategies for
Improving Public Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington,
D.C.: 2002).
[40] Transportation Research Board Paper No. 00-0577, Use of Public
Transportation by Airport Passengers (Washington, D.C.: 1998).
[41] Other factors that might influence consumers' preference include
the travel times and out-of-pocket costs of different modes.
[42] While there is a potential for increasing intermodal options at
airports through expanding private bus services, the strategies
discussed focus on rail systems rather than the private bus industry as
the private bus industry uses existing road infrastructure, while rail
systems typically require the development of new rail infrastructure.
Many of the issues that limit expanded bus service at airports are
related to market demand, airport access points, and parking capacity
for buses, which are primarily local and airport issues.
[43] GAO, Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for
Infrastructure Investments, GAO-02-1033 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,
2002).
[44] GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-
Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998).
[45] See GAO-05-172.
[46] 49 U.S.C. § 47101.
[47] The Réseau Ferré de France is a public company, owned by the
French government, that owns and manages the French rail network.
[48] Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français operates the trains
on behalf of Réseau Ferré de France.
[49] From fiscal years 1976 through 2003, the federal government
provided Amtrak with over $26 billion (nominal dollars) in operating
and capital subsidies. This is equivalent to about $41.7 billion in
2002 dollars. See GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues for
Consideration in Developing an Intercity Passenger Rail Policy, GAO-03-
712T (Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003).
[50] In 2003, we reported that Amtrak had estimated it would require up
to $70 billion over 20 years to enhance or expand service or develop
high-speed rail corridors. See GAO-03-712T.
[51] The goal of this program is to increase the effectiveness of the
railway system and shift traffic from the nation's roadway system to
the railway system.
[52] The FAA Air Carrier Activity Information System database
categorizes airports by the number of annual enplanements.
[53] FAA categorizes the nation's commercial airports into four main
groups based on the number of passenger enplanements--large hubs,
medium hubs, small hubs, and nonhubs. The categories are based on the
number of passengers boarding an aircraft (enplaned) for all operations
of U.S. carriers in the United States. A large hub enplanes at least 1
percent of all passengers, a medium hub 0.25 to 0.99 percent, a small
hub 0.05 to 0.249 percent, and a nonhub less than 0.05 percent.
[54] We received one airport's response by fax.
[55] Planned or existing types of intermodal service include rail, bus,
and high-speed rail.
[56] The European Union's 10 percent funding of project development
costs is for sections of the projects that are linked to the trans-
European network objectives.
[57] Many European airports are either owned by private-for-profit
companies or are owned by regional or local governments and managed by
private-for-profit companies.
[58] The Frankfurt International Airport is owned and managed by
Fraport, a private airport management company. The state of Hesse, city
of Frankfurt, and German federal government own over 70 percent of
Fraport's shares.
[59] Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 62, Improving Public
Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington, D.C.: 2000).
[60] Funds are allocated to smaller airports at a fixed amount each
year based on their FAA-identified capital needs and to airports with
significant all-cargo operations based on the airport's cargo tonnage.
FAA also distributes a portion of AIP funds each year based on
discretionary considerations.
[61] The facility must be owned by the airport but can be leased to a
transit authority for operations and maintenance. In addition, the
facility must be located on property that is either owned by the
airport or included in an airport lease or easement agreement.
[62] In the case studies that we examined, the respective counties that
include the cities of Seattle, San Francisco, and Miami passed ballot
measures dedicating a portion of the sales tax for rail transit
projects.
[63] As with AIP grants, the facility must be owned by the airport but
can be leased to a transit authority for operations and maintenance. In
addition, the facility must be located on property that is either owned
by the airport or included in an airport lease or easement agreement.
[64] Customer facility charges are surcharges on car rentals that can
pay for the capital and operating costs of a transit system from a
consolidated rental car facility.
[65] A New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreement defines the project
including cost, scope, and schedule and commits a maximum level of
federal financial assistance subject to appropriation.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
