a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

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

GAO-05-727
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

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. 

Highlights of GAO-05-727, a report to the 

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 

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 

Home Airport

shuttle Airport Flight Airport Light rail Destination

Shuttle Airport

1-800-GoAirport

Source: GAO.

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. 
Page i GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Each Level of Government and the Private Sector Play a Role in 

Developing Intermodal Capabilities at U.S. Airports 11

Most Major U.S. Airports Have Direct Connections to Local 

Transportation Services, but Very Few Have Direct Connections 

to Nationwide Rail or Bus Systems 18

Development of Intermodal Capabilities May Provide a Range of 

Benefits; However, Substantial Costs and Barriers Affect their 

Development 25

Two Key Strategies Could Help Address Intermodal Transportation 

Planning and Financing Limitations 37

Concluding Observations 47

Agency Comments 48

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 50

Appendix II: Intermodal Connections at Airports in Europe 54

Role of the European Union in Developing Air-Rail Connections 54

Role of Member Nations and Local Entities in Developing Air-Rail 

Connections 55

Differences between the United States and Europe Limit Usefulness 

of “European Model” 55

Appendix III: Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports 57

Federal Funding 57

State and Local Funding 58

Private Sector Investment 60

Appendix IV: Survey Results 61

Appendix V: Survey Results on Existing and Planned Bus and Rail 

Connections 63

Appendix VI: Selected Airport Case Studies 66

Baltimore-Washington International Airport 68

Los Angeles International Airport 71

Miami International Airport 73

Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport 75

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 77

Newark Liberty International Airport 79
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

New York John F. Kennedy International Airport 81

Oakland International Airport 83

Portland International Airport 85

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 87

San Francisco International Airport 89

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport 91

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 93

Washington Dulles International Airport 95

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 97

Tables Table 1: Typical Steps in the Development of Intermodal 

Projects 12

Table 2: Federal Programs that Can Fund Intermodal Projects at 

Airports 15

Table 3: Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Local Bus 

Service 20

Table 4: Number of Airports with Direct Connections to 

Nationwide Bus Service 22

Table 5: Number of Airports with Capital Improvement Plan 

Proposals to Improve Passenger Access to Local and 

Nationwide Transportation Systems 24

Table 6: Examples of Intermodal Project Costs and Funding 

Sources 31

Table 7: Selected Examples of Intermodal Rail Projects Funded by 

PFC Funds 33

Table 8: Airports Selected for GAO Case Studies 52

Table 9: Existing and Planned Bus and Rail Connections at 72 

Airports 63

Figures Figure 1: Two Examples of Intermodal Connections for an Airline 

Passenger 7

Figure 2: German High-Speed Train at Frankfurt International 

Airport’s Long-Distance Train Station 10

Figure 3: People Mover Tracks from New York's Kennedy Airport 

Leading into New York’s Jamaica Train Station 13

Figure 4: The Number of Airports with Direct Connections to 

Various Numbers of Ground Transportation Modes 19

Figure 5: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Local Rail 

Systems 21

Figure 6: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Amtrak’s 

Nationwide Route Network 23
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 7: Train Station and Automated People Mover at Newark’s 

Liberty International Airport 26

Figure 8: Thalys High-Speed Train at the Paris Charles de Gaulle 

Airport 28

Figure 9: Airport Sign Showing the Direction to the Amtrak Train 

Station at Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International 

Airport 37

Figure 10: Primary Benefits and Barriers Associated With 

Developing Intermodal Facilities at Airports, According 

to Airport and Local Transportation Officials 67

Figure 11: Intermodal Connections at Baltimore-Washington 

International Airport 70

Figure 12: Intermodal Connections at Los Angeles International 

Airport 72

Figure 13: Intermodal Connections at Miami International 

Airport 74

Figure 14: Intermodal Connections at Milwaukee General Mitchell 

International Airport 76

Figure 15: Intermodal Connections at Minneapolis/St. Paul 

International Airport 78

Figure 16: Intermodal Connections at Newark Liberty International 

Airport 80

Figure 17: Intermodal Connections at New York John F. Kennedy 

International Airport 82

Figure 18: Intermodal Connections at Oakland International

Airport 84

Figure 19: Intermodal Connections at Portland International

Airport 86

Figure 20: Intermodal Connections at Ronald Reagan National 

Airport 88

Figure 21: Intermodal Connections at San Francisco International 

Airport 90

Figure 22: Intermodal Connections at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose 

International Airport 92

Figure 23: Intermodal Connections at Seattle-Tacoma International 

Airport 94

Figure 24: Intermodal Connections at Washington Dulles 

International Airport 96
Contents

Page iv GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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

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. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

July 26, 2005 Letr

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 
Page 2 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.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.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, 

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.
Page 3 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Page 4 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 
Page 5 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 
Page 6 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 service3

 to reach a final 

destination. Opportunities also exist for using intermodal service to access 

nationwide transportation systems, such as Amtrak. 

3

Local transit rail includes commuter rail, light rail, subway systems, and trolleys.
Page 7 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 1: Two Examples of Intermodal Connections for an Airline Passenger

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.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

Shuttle Airport

1-800-GoAirport

Local scenario

Nationwide scenario

Source: GAO.

Home Airport shuttle Airport Flight Airport Light rail Destination

Home Car Nationwide rail Airport Flight Nationwide rail Airport Destination

Mover

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.
Page 8 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)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),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.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-21.8

 The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created Amtrak 

to provide nationwide passenger rail service, and the federal government 

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). 
Page 9 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.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.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 policy11 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. 

9

Amtrak owns about 650 miles of track, primarily on the Northeast Corridor between 

Boston, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.

10H.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. 

11The European Union includes 25 countries that have reached agreement in certain policy 

areas, such as transportation policy, and operate as a single economic market.
Page 10 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 2: German High-Speed Train at Frankfurt International Airport’s LongDistance Train Station

Since 1992, the European Union has periodically published a common 

transportation policy12 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 

12The most recent report is the European Union’s White Paper, European Transport Policy 

for 2010: Time to Decide (Luxembourg: 2001).

Source: Fraport.
Page 11 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.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. 

13The Rail Air Intermodality Facilitation Forum included industry experts for both the rail 

and air transportation modes. 
Page 12 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Table 1: Typical Steps in the Development of Intermodal Projects

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. 

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 Jersey14 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). 

Step Description

Planning 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. 

Preliminary design and 

environmental review

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. 

Final design and right-ofway acquisitionStakeholders work together to finalize design plans, appraise and acquire needed property, and finalize 

project cost estimates.

Construction 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.

14The 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.
Page 13 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 3: People Mover Tracks from New York's Kennedy Airport Leading into New 

York’s Jamaica Train Station

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,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 

15The portion of the light rail extension that is on airport property is owned by the Port of 

Portland and operated by Tri-Met. 

Source: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 
Page 14 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.
Page 15 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Table 2: Federal Programs that Can Fund Intermodal Projects at Airports

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.

Program Description Example of use at airports

New Starts (FTA) 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. 

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

Congestion 

Mitigation and Air 

Quality (joint 

FHWA and FTA)

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.

Metro Transit Hiawatha Line service 

between downtown Minneapolis and 

the Minneapolis/St. Paul International 

Airport

Surface 

Transportation 

Program (FHWA)

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.

Miami Intermodal Center at the Miami 

International Airport 

Transportation 

Infrastructure 

Finance and 

Innovation Act of 

1998 (joint FHWA 

and FTA)

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.

Miami Intermodal Center at the Miami 

International Airport 

Airport 

Improvement 

Program

(FAA)

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 

enplanementsc

 at the airport and the remainder local. In fiscal year 2004, 

this program was funded at $3.4 billion.

We found no example of its use for 

intermodal projects

Passenger facility 

fee 

(FAA)

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 FAAapproved 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.

AirTrain automated people mover at 

New York’s John F. Kennedy 

International Airport and Newark’s 

Liberty International Airport 
Page 16 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 

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 governmen’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.16

16Transit 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).
Page 17 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.17 The ability of airlines to participate 

in decisionmaking depends on the specific airport and the structure of the 

lease agreement.18 For example, some airports have lease agreements that 

can require airports to obtain airline approval before making airport capital 

expenditure decisions.19

17Use agreements deal with airside operations, which include landing fees, and lease 

agreements include terminal and gate rents.

18For airports not governed by such agreements, rates are established by ordinance or 

regulation.

19Airline lease agreements can include provisions known as “majority-in-interest” that 

provide airlines with some control over an airport’s long-term financial obligations. 
Page 18 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to 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

Based on our survey of all large and medium and certain small hub U.S. 

airports,20 most airports have direct connections21 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 airports22 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.

20We 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. 

21We 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.

22The airports include Albuquerque International Sunport, Omaha’s Eppley Airfield, 

Jacksonville International, Kahului (Hawaii), Kansas City International, Louis Armstrong 

New Orleans International, and Norfolk International.
Page 19 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 4: The Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Various Numbers of 

Ground Transportation Modes 

Note: The four ground transportation modes included in our survey were local bus, local rail, 

nationwide bus, and nationwide rail.

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.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 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 

Number of airports

Source: GAO summary of data from 72 airports.

7

33

18

9

5

Number of ground transportation modes

23Local bus service included public transit, rapid transit, and nonstop, dedicated express bus 

service, such as the Van Nuys FlyAway or Boston Logan Express. 
Page 20 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 

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.

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.

Type of connection to local bus service

Number of

airports

Walking (convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk from bus 

stop to any of the airport's terminals) 56

Automated people mover that transports passengers from the transfer 

point to any of the airport’s terminals 6

Regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer point to any of the 

airport’s terminals. 48
Page 21 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 5: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Local Rail Systems

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. 

Baltimore-Washington

Glen Burnie, MD

Reagan National Washington Dulles Arlington, VA Chantilly, VA

Newark Liberty

Newark, NJ

MacArthur

Long Island, NY

Logan International

Boston, MA

La Guardia

New York, NY

Hartsfield

Atlanta, GA Dallas Love

Dallas, TX

Dallas/Ft. Worth

Ft. Worth, TX

Chicago Midway

Chicago, IL

Lambert-St. Louis

St. Louis, MO

Chicago O'Hare

Chicago, IL

Minneapolis/St. Paul

Minneapolis, MN

Philadelphia

Philadelphia, PA

Kennedy International

New York, NY

Theodore Francis Green

Warwick, RI

Portland International

Portland, OR

Source: GAO summary of data from 72 airports.

Local rail access by shuttle

Local rail access by automated people mover

Local rail access by walking

Bob Hope

Burbank, CA

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood

Fort Lauderdale, FL

Miami International

Miami, FL

Palm Beach

Palm Beach, FL

Los Angeles International

Los Angeles, CA

Oakland International

Oakland, CA

San Francisco International

San Francisco, CA

Norman Mineta International

San Jose, CA Cleveland-Hopkins

Cleveland, OH
Page 22 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 

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.

Thirteen airports report having a direct connection to nationwide 

passenger rail service, Amtrak, as shown in figure 6.24 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 

Type of connection to nationwide bus service

Number of

airports

Walking (convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk from a 

nationwide bus station to any of the airport's terminals) 5

Automated people mover that transports passengers from the transfer 

point to any of the airport’s terminals 1

Regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer point to any of the 

airport’s terminals 10

24The 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.
Page 23 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.25 

Figure 6: Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Amtrak’s Nationwide Route Network

Note: In addition, Oakland (CA) airport reported that passengers can access Amtrak by shuttle as of 

June 6, 2005.

25Code sharing refers to the practice of airlines applying their names and selling tickets to 

flights or rail service operated by other carriers. 

Bob Hope

Burbank, CA

Baltimore-Washington

Glen Burnie, MD

Newark Liberty

Newark, NJ

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood

Fort Lauderdale, FL

La Guardia

Chicago Midway New York, NY

Chicago, IL

Miami International

Miami, FL

General Mitchell

Milwaukee, WI

Palm Beach

Palm Beach, FL

Theodore Francis Green

Warwick, RI

Seattle-Tacoma

Seattle, WA

Sacramento

Sacramento, CA

Source: GAO summary of data from 72 airports.

National rail access by shuttle

National rail access by automated people mover

Amtrak

Philadelphia

Philadelphia, PA
Page 24 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Many Airports Are Planning 

to Improve Intermodal 

Connections to Local Rail 

and Bus Systems

Twenty airports reported that their airport capital improvement plan26

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, BaltimoreWashington 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

Source: GAO summary of data from 20 airports.

Note: Numbers do not add to 20 because some airports reported multiple proposals.

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.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. 

26The capital improvement plan is a planning document addressing current and future 

airport capital needs. 

Local transportation 

systems

Nationwide 

transportation systems

Bus Rail Bus Rail

Number of airports with plans to 

improve intermodal connections 12 14 2 0

27Ground transportation facilities include bus and train stations.
Page 25 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 postimplementation 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 

research28 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 

28GAO, 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).
Page 26 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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

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 

Source: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Page 27 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 work29 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.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 highspeed rail service. 

29GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues for Consideration in Developing an Intercity 

Passenger Rail Policy, GAO-03-712T (Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003).

30Our 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. 
Page 28 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 8: Thalys High-Speed Train at the Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport

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.31 

31Lufthansa 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. 

Source: © 2004 International Air Rail Organization.
Page 29 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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,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 

32See GAO-05-172.
Page 30 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 reported33 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. 

33GAO, Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, GAO-01-165 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 17, 2001).
Page 31 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Table 6: Examples of Intermodal Project Costs and Funding Sources

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. 

(Dollars in millions)

Project description Capital cost a Funding sources

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

$6.8b • Two separate annual federal appropriations 

• Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Construction of a new centralized parking and bus 

facility at Harrisburg International Airport with 

planned Amtrak Service

$8.0c • 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 

$1,552d • FTA

• Bay Area Rapid Transit

• San Francisco International Airport 

• San Mateo County Transit Authority

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

$154e • 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 

$715.3f • FTA 

• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant 

• State of Minnesota 

• Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority

• Metropolitan Airports Commission 

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 

$33,000 – 37,000g • Planned funding includes federal and state sources, with 

state funding through a bond measure 
Page 32 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.

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.34 In 

particular, several local transportation officials mentioned that the 

requirement that PFC funds be used for projects on airport property, 

34PFCs are fees up to $4.50 paid by airport passengers, which are used to finance airport 

capital improvements. 
Page 33 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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

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.

Airlines, moreover, support these restrictions on the use of PFC funds. 

Several airlines told us that the primary objective of PFCs is to fund onairport 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, 

Dollars in millionsa

Location Project description

Funding

amount

Portland, OR Light rail extension and new station at Portland 

International Airport $43

Newark, NJ People mover system 1-mile connection from Newark 

Liberty International Airport to new Northeast Corridor rail 

station $357

New York, 

NY

People mover system 3-mile connection from John F. 

Kennedy International Airport to two transit rail stations $1,326

St. Louis, MO On-airport transit station at St. Louis Lambert Field 

International Airport $4
Page 34 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.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.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 

35Airports Council International-North America, The 2003 General Information Survey

(Washington, D.C.: 2003).

36GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning and Financing 

Limitations, GAO-04-165 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2003).
Page 35 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.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 crossjurisdictional issues.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 

37Service between Paris and Amsterdam Schiphol airport is provided from 6:55 a.m. to 6:55 

p.m. every day.

38GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions, GAO-04-744

(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004).
Page 36 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 research39 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.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).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.

39Transit 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).

40Transportation Research Board Paper No. 00-0577, Use of Public Transportation by 

Airport Passengers (Washington, D.C.: 1998).

41Other factors that might influence consumers’ preference include the travel times and outof-pocket costs of different modes.
Page 37 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 9: Airport Sign Showing the Direction to the Amtrak Train Station at 

Milwaukee’s General Mitchell International Airport

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.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 

Source: GAO. 

42While 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.
Page 38 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 work43 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 

43GAO, Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for Infrastructure 

Investments, GAO-02-1033 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2002).
Page 39 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.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.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. Futhermore, the national policy concerning 

44GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32

(Washington, D.C.: December 1998).

45See GAO-05-172.
Page 40 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.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. 

4649 U.S.C. § 47101.
Page 41 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 
Page 42 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 highspeed 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 
Page 43 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 transEuropean 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 projectspecific 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 highspeed 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 highspeed rail system—Train à Grande Vitesse. There are four main 

participants in the nation’s rail network, including the central government,
Page 44 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

regional governments, Réseau Ferré de France,47 and the Société Nationale 

des Chemins de fer Français.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 

47The Réseau Ferré de France is a public company, owned by the French government, that 

owns and manages the French rail network.

48Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français operates the trains on behalf of Réseau 

Ferré de France.
Page 45 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.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.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. 

49From 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).

50In 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.
Page 46 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.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 

51The 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.
Page 47 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

times competitive with air travel times. Morever, 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 
Page 48 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 http://www.gao.gov.
Page 49 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

2834 or 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,

Katherine Siggerud

Director, Physical Infrastructure
Page 50 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

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 decisionmakers 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 System1

 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

1

The FAA Air Carrier Activity Information System database categorizes airports by the 

number of annual enplanements. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 51 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

in the same metropolitan area as a large or medium hub airport.2 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,3

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 

2

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. 

3

We received one airport’s response by fax. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 52 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 (GAO-05-738SP) are also 

available on the GAO Web site at http://newwww.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao05-738SP/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,4

 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

4

Planned or existing types of intermodal service include rail, bus, and high-speed rail.

Airport Geographic location Airport size

Baltimore-Washington International Baltimore, MD Large

General Mitchell International Milwaukee, WI Medium

John F. Kennedy International New York City, NY Large

La Guardia New York City, NY Large

Los Angeles International Los Angeles, CA Large

Metropolitan Oakland International Oakland, CA Large

Miami International Miami, FL Large

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Minneapolis, MN Large

Newark Liberty International Newark, NJ Large

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose 

International

San Jose, CA Medium

Ontario International Ontario, CA Medium

Portland International Portland, OR Medium

Ronald Reagan Washington National Arlington, VA Large
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 53 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Source: GAO.

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. 

San Francisco International San Francisco, CA Large

Seattle-Tacoma International Sea-Tac, WA Large

Washington Dulles International Chantilly, VA Large

(Continued From Previous Page)

Airport Geographic location Airport size
Page 54 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Appendix II

Intermodal Connections at Airports in Europe ApendxiI

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 Unionwide 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.1

 

Member nations are primarily responsible for planning, designing, funding, 

and building these projects. 

1

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.
Appendix II

Intermodal Connections at Airports in 

Europe

Page 55 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.2

 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.3

 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 

2

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. 

3

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.
Appendix II

Intermodal Connections at Airports in 

Europe

Page 56 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.4

• 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.

4

Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 62, Improving Public Transportation 

Access to Large Airports (Washington, D.C.: 2000).
Page 57 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Appendix III

Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports ApendxiI

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. 
Appendix III

Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports

Page 58 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.1

 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.2

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.3

 Some local 

governments and transit agencies have also dedicated a portion of property 

1

Funds are allocated to smaller airports at a fixed amount each year based on their FAAidentified 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.

2

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. 

3

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. 
Appendix III

Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports

Page 59 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.4

 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,5

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 

4

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.

5

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.
Appendix III

Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports

Page 60 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 Agreements6

 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 publicprivate 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. 

6

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.
Page 61 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Appendix IV

Survey Results ApendxiIV

Number of airports responding

Questions Yes No Not applicable

Don’t

know

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. 43 29 0 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? 22 18 3 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? 8 34 1 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? 11 31 0 1

Nationwide rail network

5. Is there at least one Amtrak station in the metropolitan area where ( ) Airport is 

located?a 56 16 0 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? 13 42 0 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? 1 53 2 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? 0 56 0 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. 70 2 0 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? 48 19 3 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? 6 58 6 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? 56 14 0 0
Appendix IV

Survey Results

Page 62 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Source: GAO.

a

The answers to these questions are unreliable. See appendix I for more details.

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 58 14 0 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? 10 46 0 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? 1 55 2 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? 5 53 0 0

Plans to build ground transportation facilities

17. Does ( ) Airport have a Capital Improvement Plan? 72 0 0 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. 14 55 3 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? 0 72 0 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. 12 56 4 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. 2 69 1 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?

19 50 2 0

23. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan have any other proposals to improve 

passengers' access to trains and buses? 13 53 3 2

(Continued From Previous Page)

Number of airports responding

Questions Yes No Not applicable

Don’t

know
Page 63 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Appendix V

Survey Results on Existing and Planned Bus 

and Rail Connections ApendxiV

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)

Local 

bus 

(n=64)

Local 

rail 

(n=27)

Nationwide 

bus (n=12)

Nationwide 

rail (n=13)

Planned

local 

bus 

(n=12)

Planned 

local rail 

(n=14)

Planned 

nationwide 

bus (n=2)

Planned 

nationwide 

rail (n=0)

Albuquerque International Sunport

Austin-Bergstrom International x

Baltimore-Washington International x x x x x x

Bob Hope x x x

Bradley International x

Buffalo Niagara International x

Charlotte/Douglas International x

Chicago Midway International x x x

Chicago O'Hare International x x x x

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International x x

Cleveland-Hopkins International x x

Dallas Love Field x x

Dallas/Fort Worth International x x x x x

Denver International x x

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County x

Eppley Airfield

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International x x x

General Edward Lawrence Logan 

International

x x

General Mitchell International x x x

George Bush Intercontinental x x

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International x x x

Honolulu International x

Indianapolis International x x

Jacksonville International x x

John F. Kennedy International x x
Appendix V

Survey Results on Existing and Planned Bus 

and Rail Connections

Page 64 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

John Wayne Airport-Orange County x

Kahului

Kansas City International

La Guardia x x x x

Lambert-St Louis International x x x

Long Beach/Daugherty Field x

Long Island MacArthur x x

Los Angeles International x x x

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International x

Louisville International-Standiford Field x

Luis Munoz Marin International x

Manchester x

McCarran International x

Memphis International x x x x

Metropolitan Oakland International x x

Miami International x x x x

Minneapolis/St. Paul International x x

Nashville International x

Newark Liberty International x x x x

Norfolk International

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International x x

Ontario International x

Orlando International x x

Orlando Sanford x x

Palm Beach International x x x x

Philadelphia International x x x x

Phoenix Sky Harbor International x x x

Pittsburgh International x

Port Columbus International x

Portland International x

Raleigh-Durham International x x

Reno/Tahoe International x x

Ronald Reagan Washington National x x

Sacramento International x x

Salt Lake City International x x

(Continued From Previous Page)

Airport (n=72)

Local 

bus 

(n=64)

Local 

rail 

(n=27)

Nationwide 

bus (n=12)

Nationwide 

rail (n=13)

Planned

local 

bus 

(n=12)

Planned 

local rail 

(n=14)

Planned 

nationwide 

bus (n=2)

Planned 

nationwide 

rail (n=0)
Appendix V

Survey Results on Existing and Planned Bus 

and Rail Connections

Page 65 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.

San Antonio International x

San Diego International x

San Francisco International x x

Seattle-Tacoma International x x x

Southwest Florida International x

Tampa International x x x

Ted Stevens Anchorage International x

Theodore Francis Green State x x x

Tucson International x

Washington Dulles International x x x x

Westchester County x

William P. Hobby x x

(Continued From Previous Page)

Airport (n=72)

Local 

bus 

(n=64)

Local 

rail 

(n=27)

Nationwide 

bus (n=12)

Nationwide 

rail (n=13)

Planned

local 

bus 

(n=12)

Planned 

local rail 

(n=14)

Planned 

nationwide 

bus (n=2)

Planned 

nationwide 

rail (n=0)
Page 66 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies ApendxiVI

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 67 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 10: Primary Benefits and Barriers Associated With Developing Intermodal Facilities at Airports, According to Airport and

Local Transportation Officials

Source: GAO analysis of information from airports and other transportation officials.

Primary barriers

Primary benefits

Restrictions on use of FAA funds 

Reductions in parking revenue

Limited local community support 

Geographic and physical barriers and 

airports right-of-way issues

Lack of convenience for air 

passengers 

Lack of funds

Lack of support from key airport 

stakeholders

Availability of inexpensive employee 

parking 

Insufficient transit and rail service

Higher costs due to federal regulatory 

requirements

Insufficient population density

Provides alternative transportation 

options for passengers 

Provides alternative transportation 

options for employees 

Expands potential employee or 

customer base

Makes efficient use of limited airport 

property 

Reduces traffic congestion at airports 

Provides economic benefits 

Alleviates parking and terminal 

curbside congestion

Provides non-residents with transit to 

downtown

Baltimore–

WashingtonLos Angeles

Miami

Milwaukee

Minneapolis/

St. Paul

Newark

New York KennedyOakland

Portland

San Francisco

San JoseSeattle-Tacoma

Washington

National

Washington

Dulles
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 68 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 69 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

provides express bus service to the Greenbelt station of Washington, D.C.’s 

local rail transit system, Metro.
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 70 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 11: Intermodal Connections at Baltimore-Washington International Airport

Note: Map is not to scale.

Terminal

To Baltimore

To Washington, D.C.

P

P

P

Amtrak/

MARC

Rail station: Amtrak service with 60 trains daily

 MARC service with 20 trains daily

Transit rail station: service every 20 minutes

Train tracks

Airport shuttle route and stop: service every 10-15 minutes in both directions

Parking

Public bus stop: service every 30-40 minutes

Access road

P

Source: GAO.

RS

I-95

P P

P

RS

<

<

<

<

<

>

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

< >
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 71 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 72 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 12: Intermodal Connections at Los Angeles International Airport

Note: Map is not to scale.

< >

Source: GAO.

Parking facilities 

Access road

Transit rail station: service every 20-25 minutes

Public bus stop: service approximately every 30-60 minutes

Van Nuys FlyAway stop: service every 15-30 minutes

P

P

International P

terminal

Terminals

Terminals

Airport shuttle route and stop: service every 12-15 minutes in both directions

I-405

I-105

SR

1

P

V

V

V

V V V V

V V > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

>

> > >

> >

>

>

> > >

> > >

< <

<

<

Imperial Highway

>
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 73 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 MiamiDade 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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 74 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 13: Intermodal Connections at Miami International Airport

Note: Map is not to scale.

< >

Train tracks

Transit rail station: Tri-Rail service every 30 minutes

Rail station

Planned Miami Intermodal Center

Parking/rental car facilities

Greyhound bus station

Source: GAO.

Terminal

MIC

Public bus stop: service every 20-30 minutes

Access road

NW 36th Street

P

P

P/R

Airport shuttle route and stop: Tri-Rail shuttle service every 20-30 minutes in both directions

RS

B

B

MIC

R

RS

RS Amtrak station

< <

<

<

<

<

< <

<

< < < < <

<

SR

112

SR

836

A

A

Planned automated people mover

Planned pedestrian walkway

A
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 75 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 76 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 14: Intermodal Connections at Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

Source: GAO.

P

P

P

P

P

P

To Milwaukee

RS

Terminal

Amtrak station

Train tracks

Public bus stop: service every 20-30 minutes

Parking facilities 

Access road

Airport shuttle route and stop: coordinated with Amtrak’s scheduled service 

Rail station: Amtrak service with seven trains daily

RS

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> < <

<

< <

<

< >
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 77 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 78 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 15: Intermodal Connections at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

Source: GAO.

To St. Paul

Access road

P Parking facilities

Automated people mover

Transit rail station: service every 10-20 minutes

Pedestrian walkway

Terminal

Transit center - Level 1 - Public bus stop

 Level T - Access to transit rail station

P P

P P

I-494

P

Terminal Tunnel

A

A

TC

A

At-grade station

At-grade

TC

Highway

5

Post Road

Underground

station

Tunnel
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 79 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 80 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 16: Intermodal Connections at Newark Liberty International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

R

P

P

P

Train tracks

Terminals

Access road

Public bus stops: service every 10-20 minutes

P/R Parking/rental car facilities

Rail station: Amtrak service hourly

 NJ Transit service every 20-30 minutes

Automated people mover: AirTrain service every 2-3 minutes in both directions

Source: GAO.

RS

RS

US

1&9

US

1&9

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

NJ

81
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 81 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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.
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 82 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 17: Intermodal Connections at New York John F. Kennedy International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

Transit rail station: subway - service every 3-10 minutes

 Long Island Rail Road service every 3-10 minutes

Source: GAO.

Terminals

Terminals

Terminals

Howard Beach station

Jamaica station

Automated people mover: AirTrain service to transit rail station approximately every 2-6 minutes

 (service between terminals only is provided on a separate track)

Parking/rental car facilities

Public bus stop: service approximately every 30 minutes

Access road

P/R

R

P

P

P

P

P

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A A

(subway)

(Long Island Rail Road)

A (subway)
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 83 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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 AlamedaContra 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.
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 84 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 18: Intermodal Connections at Oakland International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

Source: GAO.

To San Jose

To Oakland

Train tracks

Access road

Public bus stop: AC Transit service every 15-20 minutes

P

P

Parking

Rail station

Airport shuttle route and stop: AirBART service every 10-20 minutes

Transit rail stop: BART service approximately every 20 minutes

RS

RS

< >

<

<

<

<

<

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >

>

>

I-880

Terminals

Amtrak
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 85 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 86 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 19: Intermodal Connections at Portland International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

Source: GAO.

Gateway

transit

center

To Downtown

Terminal

To Vancover, WA

Access road

Public bus stop

P

P

P

Parking facilities

Light rail route and stop: Metropolitan Area Express service every 15-20 minutes

Airport way

I-84

I-205
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 87 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 88 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 20: Intermodal Connections at Ronald Reagan National Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

Transit rail stop: Metrorail service every 10-15 minutes

Airport shuttle route and stop: service every 5-10 minutes

Public bus stop: Metrobus service every 10-15 minutes

Access road

P

P

P Parking facilities

Pedestrian walkway

To Washington, D.C.

To Alexandria, VA

< >

Terminals

<

<

< < < <

< < <

< <

Source: GAO.

George Washington Memorial Parkway

P
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 89 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 90 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 21: Intermodal Connections at San Francisco International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

Terminals

Parking/rental car facilities

Train tracks

SR

101

Public bus stop: service every 15-30 minutes (daytime) and 30-60 minutes (nightime)

Source: GAO.

Terminals

Transit rail station

Rail station

Access road

P/R

R

P P

P

Automated people mover: AirTrain service every 2-5 minutes 

 (service between terminals only is provided on a separate track)

To San Francisco To San Jose

A

A A

A A

A

A

RS Caltrain

A

RS

A

Milbrae

BART

A
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 91 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 92 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 22: Intermodal Connections at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

Terminals

Airport shuttle and route stop: Airport Flyer service every 15-20 minutes in both directions

Parking

Rail station

Source: GAO.

Access road

P

P

P P

Santa Clara Caltrain station

SR

87

Train tracks

Transit rail station: service every 7-15 minutes

RS

RS

>

>

> >

>

> > > > >

>

> >> > > >

> > >

>

> >

< >

I-880
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 93 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 94 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 23: Intermodal Connections at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

Source: GAO.

To Tacoma

To Seattle

Access road

Public bus stop: service every 15-30 minutes

Pedestrian walkway

Pedestrian walkway: planned for 2010 completion

P Parking facilities

I-405

I-5

Transit rail stop: planned for 2010 completion

Terminal

SR

518

SR

99

P

XXX

XXX
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 95 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

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. 
Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Page 96 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Figure 24: Intermodal Connections at Washington Dulles International Airport 

Note: Map is not to scale.

To Washington, D.C.

Terminal

Source: GAO.

Falls Church Metro station

< >

Concourses

Public bus stop: express bus service every 30 minutes

P/R Parking/rental car facilities

P

P

P

R

P

P

P P

Access road

Airport shuttle route and stop: Washington Flyer service every 30 minutes

Transit rail station: service every 5-15 minutes

< < <

>

>

<
Page 97 GAO-05-727 Intermodal Transportation to Airports

Appendix VII

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

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)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548