Intermodal Transportation: A Variety of Factors Influence Airport-Intercity Passenger Rail Connectivity
Published: 2013-08-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Increasing passenger travel has led to growing congestion in the nation's air transportation system, and projections suggest that this trend is likely to continue. The integration of air and intercity passenger rail service, which is provided in the United States by Amtrak, has been suggested by some transportation experts as a strategy to increase mobility and reduce congestion in the United States. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 mandated that GAO review issues related to air-rail connectivity. This report discusses (1) the nature and scope of air-rail connectivity, (2) the benefits and costs of air-rail connectivity, (3) factors affecting the development and use of air-rail connectivity, and (4) potential strategies to improve air-rail connectivity.
GAO reviewed laws, strategic plans, and academic studies. GAO analyzed data to determine distances between Amtrak stations and large and medium hub airports and interviewed officials from DOT, and representatives from Amtrak, the airlines, and aviation and rail industry associations. GAO interviewed stakeholders at eight large and medium hub airports, which were selected based on geographic location and extent of connectivity with Amtrak. In addition, GAO surveyed experts from the aviation industry, rail industry, state and local governments, academia and the private sector about air-rail connectivity issues. The survey and results can be found at GAO-13-692SP .
GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOT and Amtrak provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Most major U.S. airports have some degree of physical proximity to intercity passenger rail stations, though only 2 airports are currently collocated with intercity rail stations. Specifically, 42 of the nation's 60 large and medium hub airports are located within 10 miles of Amtrak stations; 21 of the 42 airports are within 5 miles of Amtrak stations. At the 2 collocated airports, passengers can access Amtrak either via an automated people mover (Newark Liberty International Airport) or by walking (Bob Hope Burbank Airport). At some airports, such as Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, passengers can take a direct shuttle between the airport and the nearby Amtrak station, while at other airports, connections to Amtrak can be made through other modes of transportation. Studies and data, while limited, suggest that relatively few passengers in the United States use intercity rail to travel to and from the airport or through more integrated travel such as code-sharing agreements, whereby airlines sell tickets for Amtrak's service. The only existing air-rail code-sharing agreement in the United States is at Newark Airport. Amtrak and states are considering projects to expand intercity rail connectivity with airports, including as part of the construction of high-speed rail in California.
Air-rail connectivity may provide a range of mobility, economic, and environmental benefits, though the financial costs of building these connections could be substantial. Specifically, based on discussions with industry stakeholders, input from surveyed experts, and a review of academic literature, GAO found a general consensus that air-rail connectivity can provide a range of mobility benefits for travelers, though less agreement existed on the importance and extent of economic and environmental benefits. However, achieving these benefits could require significant trade-offs, because the costs of expanding the existing intercity passenger rail network and constructing viable connections can be significant. Given these costs, based on GAO's work, there are currently limited locations where benefits are high enough to justify funding to improve air-rail connectivity.
Air-rail connectivity remains limited in the United States, according to experts, as a result of institutional and financial factors, among other things. In particular, the limited nature of the existing intercity passenger rail network, including the frequency of service and connectivity to other transportation modes, remains an obstacle to developing and using air-rail connections. Securing funding for air-rail projects also remains a barrier. While funds from some federal grant programs can be used to help facilitate air-rail connections, there is no single funding source for air-rail projects.
There are strategies to improve air-rail connectivity, but adopting them involves trade-offs. Experts generally focused on, among other things, leadership, funding, and infrastructure improvements, though the effectiveness of these strategies may depend on a project's local characteristics. There has been little emphasis on air-rail connectivity by either the Department of Transportation (DOT) or Amtrak. Furthermore, experts noted that some of the strategies could be particularly challenging or costly to implement, such as in locations where the rail network was developed decades before airports. For example, increasing intercity passenger rail's frequency could improve air-rail connectivity but could also be expensive.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Mobility—the movement of passengers and goods through the  transportation system—is critical to the nation’s economic vitality and the  quality of life of its citizens. Mobility provides people with access to goods,  services, recreation, and jobs; provides businesses with access to  material, markets, and people; and promotes the movement of personnel  and material to meet national defense needs. However, increasing  passenger travel has led to growing congestion in the nation’s  transportation system, and projections of future passenger travel suggest  that this trend is likely to continue. For example, the Federal Aviation  Administration (FAA) estimates that the number of airplane passengers  using U.S. airports is expected to grow by 23 percent from over 730  million in 2011 to nearly 900 million by 2021. At the same time, intercity  passenger rail service, provided by the National Railroad Passenger  Corporation, or Amtrak, has been increasingly used by passengers to  travel between cities, as airlines have reduced the number of short- distance flights and airports have implemented heightened security  procedures in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. Amtrak’s  ridership has increased by nearly 55 percent over the last 15 years to  over 31 million riders in 2012, with nearly 27 million of these passengers  traveling over short distance corridors (which Amtrak defines as less than  750 miles), such as the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C.,  and Boston, Massachusetts, or the Cascades Corridor between Seattle,  Washington, and Portland, Oregon.
The integration of air and intercity passenger rail service has been  suggested by some transportation experts as a strategy to increase  mobility and reduce congestion in the United States based on  experiences in other parts of the world. For example, 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—and included improving connections between  airports and intercity passenger rail, also known as air-rail connections.  We reviewed intermodal connectivity at airports in 2005, and found that  air-rail connections involving intercity passenger rail were limited. Such  integration can be challenging, in part because of the costly long-term  investments that are needed to connect airports to intercity passenger rail  and difficulties in developing intermodal services and ticketing options  that are attractive to travelers. Furthermore, U.S. intercity passenger rail  service offers limited service in many heavily traveled corridors, and its  overall service has slower average speeds relative to other transportation  modes, often a result of delays from sharing track with freight rail and  commuter rail services.
In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress directed us  to examine issues related to air-rail connectivity. (1) the nature and scope of existing air-rail connectivity in the United  States; (2) the benefits and costs of developing air-rail connectivity; (3)  the factors that facilitate and hinder the development and use of air-rail  connectivity; and (4) potential strategies, including lessons learned from  other countries, that may help inform deliberations regarding air-rail  connectivity policy.
Pub. L. No.112-95, § 810, 126 Stat. 11,123 (Feb. 14, 2012). additional 17 experts in these fields through a review of academic  literature, our previous work, and interviews with stakeholders. We  developed and conducted a web-based survey in which we asked these  42 experts for their views on benefits of air-rail connectivity, factors that  facilitate and hinder its development and use, differences between air-rail  connectivity efforts in the United States and Europe, and strategies that  could improve air-rail connectivity. We conducted the survey in two  stages. The first round of the survey asked the experts to respond to five  open-ended questions about various aspects of air and intercity  passenger rail connectivity. We analyzed the responses provided by the  experts and developed close-ended questions for the second round of the  survey where we asked each expert to rate the ideas and other  information that came from the first part of the survey. The information  and perspectives that we obtained from the expert survey may not be  generalized to all experts that have an interest or knowledge of air-rail  connectivity issues. The full survey and responses are contained in an e- supplement to this report.
FAA has established airport hub size categories based on the number of passengers  boarding an aircraft (enplaned) for all operations of U.S. carriers in the United States. A  large hub commercial service airport has 1 percent or more of total annual passenger  boarding. A medium hub commercial service airport has at least 0.25 percent but less  than 1 percent of total annual passenger boarding. air-rail connectivity efforts at eight large and medium hub airports in the  United States, and interviewed various stakeholders at each site,  including airport authorities, state and local transportation agencies, local  transportation-planning organizations, and air and rail industry  associations. These eight airports were selected to include airports that  have recently planned, constructed, or completed an air-rail project and  are dispersed in various regions of the country. Lastly, we interviewed  officials from DOT and Amtrak, transportation experts, and  representatives from U.S. airlines and industry associations to obtain their  perspectives on air-rail connectivity issues.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to August 2013  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Additional information on our methodology and the experts who  participated in our survey are found in appendixes I and II, respectively.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: For the purposes of this report, an air-rail connection refers to a  connection between an airport terminal and an intercity passenger rail  station (in other contexts, an air-rail connection may refer to a connection  between an airport terminal and an intracity rail station that serves other  forms of local rail, such as commuter rail or a subway system). An air-rail  connection facilitates mobility between a rail station and an airport  terminal through a variety of modes and methods, such as an airport  shuttle, local transit connection, automated people mover or guideway  car, or by walking. Depending on the extent of the connectivity, intercity  passenger rail can perform three main roles for air passengers.
First, intercity passenger rail may serve as a short-distance  connection to the nearest local airport from a metropolitan area along  a more extensive intercity rail corridor.
Second, intercity passenger rail may serve as a competitive  alternative to air travel. For example, for distances less than 500  miles, our prior work has shown that intercity passenger rail,  particularly high-speed rail, offers some potential advantages over air  travel, including reduced times for security screening and baggage  checks.
Third, intercity passenger rail can serve as part of an integrated  intercity transportation solution with air travel, where the passenger  travels significant distances using both modes. For these types of air- rail connections, travel may be further integrated by code-sharing,  which refers to the practice of airlines applying their names and selling  tickets to rail service operated by other organizations, such as  Amtrak.
Amtrak provides intercity passenger service to 46 states and the District  of Columbia, operating over a 22,000-mile network, mainly using track  owned by freight railroads. Amtrak owns about 655 miles of rail lines,  primarily on the Northeast Corridor between Boston, Massachusetts, and  Washington, D.C. Most of Amtrak’s passengers travel within the  Northeast Corridor or over relatively short-distances, though Amtrak also  operates a number of long distance routes across the country. The speed  of service varies across the country. For example, according to Amtrak,  its Heartland Flyer service connecting Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and  Fort Worth, Texas, averages about 50 miles per hour (mph) over the 206- mile corridor while its Acela Express higher-speed service averages less  than 80 mph throughout the Northeast Corridor (reaching top speeds up  to 150 mph). While Amtrak’s Acela Express service is currently the fastest  intercity passenger rail service in the United States, California has begun  developing a 520-mile high-speed rail line designed to operate at speeds  up to 220 mph.
Transportation projects at airports are typically initiated and developed by  local transportation agencies, including some combination of state  departments of transportation, local planning bodies, and other local  agencies. While roles may vary, one or more state and local  transportation agency will generally take the lead in project development  and implementation. Airports typically are also heavily involved with  developing intermodal capabilities on airport property. This is especially  true if the project involves construction of a major intermodal facility. For  example, the Miami International Airport, working in cooperation with the  Florida Department of Transportation, has been one of the leaders in the  development of the Miami Intermodal Center, which will provide on-site  access to Amtrak, multiple other rail systems, local transit services, and a  rental car center through the use of an automated people mover. Airlines also play a role in developing 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 decision making.  The ability of airlines to participate in decision making depends on the  specific airport and the structure of the lease agreements between the  airport and airlines serving that airport. Amtrak generally becomes  involved in the planning process at airports when a state or local  government proposes a project that could potentially affect its intercity  passenger rail service.
An automated people mover is a guided transit mode with fully automated operation,  featuring vehicles that operate on “guideways” with exclusive right-of-way, such as an  automated monorail system. development. Additionally, FAA’s 2012 reauthorization legislation directs  the Secretary of Transportation to encourage airport planners to consider  passenger convenience, airport ground access, and access to airport  facilities during the development of intermodal connections on airport  property. Similarly, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act  of 2008 (PRIIA) authorized development of high-speed intercity  passenger rail corridors and the American Recovery and Reinvestment  Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) appropriated $8 billion to fund development of  these corridors and intercity passenger-rail projects. In June 2009, the  Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) established the High-Speed  Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program that provides discretionary  grants for high-speed or intercity passenger rail projects. In allocating  funds, PRIIA directed FRA to give greater consideration to projects that,  among other things, encourage intermodal connectivity among train  stations, airports, subways, transit, and other forms of transportation.  However, federal policy for surface transportation, aviation, and  passenger rail is established through separate legislation. For example,  the planning and funding for highway and transit projects are addressed  under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,planning and funding of U.S. airports is addressed under the FAA  Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and the planning and funding for  intercity passenger rail is addressed under PRIIA.
While the federal government does not provide funding specifically for air- rail connections, it has established a number of other funding  mechanisms that can be used to enhance elements of air-rail  connectivity. (See app. III.) Most federal funding for transportation  projects is provided through grant programs through the individual  specific modal administration and reserved for improvements specific to  that mode. For example, most direct federal financial support for airport  capital projects has been provided through grants from FAA’s Airport  Improvement Program (AIP). While AIP grants may be used to fund  intermodal projects, an airport’s use of its funds is generally restricted to  an airport project that is owned or operated by the airport sponsor and  that is directly and substantially related to the air transportation of  passengers or property. Airports have funded portions of light rail and  transit (such as subway or bus) using AIP funds at airports meeting these  restrictions. Funding for intercity passenger rail has been provided in the  form of operating and capital subsidies to Amtrak, as well as the HSIPR  grant program.
Federal oversight of air-rail projects is primarily divided across DOT’s  respective modal administrations, though DOT has established some  practices to coordinate oversight of intermodal projects. For example, for  an air-rail connection project, the aviation component is overseen by FAA,  while the rail component is overseen by FRA. As another example,  according to DOT, its Research and Innovative Technology  Administration (RITA) works closely with DOT’s modal administrations to  improve intermodal cooperation, solve transportation challenges that cut  across modal boundaries, and remove barriers to intermodal projects   In addition to these efforts, in 2012  through a variety of research efforts. DOT established a working group consisting of representatives from each  modal administration to track intermodal initiatives and projects. The goal  of the working group is to provide non-monetary resources such as  recommendations of policies to promote intermodal transportation  projects, including air-rail connectivity projects.
RITA is responsible for coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing DOT’s programs and  activities to identify research duplication and opportunities for joint efforts and to ensure  that research, development, and technology activities are meeting intended goals.
European Commission has periodically published a common  transportation policy in response to increased ground and air congestion,  as well as concerns about the dependence on oil and the level of carbon  emissions resulting from the current transportation system. A key  component of the European Commission’s transportation policy is  improving the connections between air and rail, thereby transforming  competition between those modes into complementary service using  high-speed train connections located at European airports. The current  European Commission transportation policy, adopted in 2011, aims to  connect all 37 core airports to the rail network, preferably through high- speed rail, and shift a majority of medium-distance passenger  transportation (which the European Commission defines as under 300  kilometers or 186 miles) to the passenger rail network by 2050.
Beyond these policy differences, our prior work has also noted that  differences related to population density, geography, and private  automobile use have contributed to differences in the development and  use of air-rail connections in Europe compared to the United States.  This prior work has highlighted 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.  Furthermore, distances between many major cities in the United States  are generally greater than in Europe, which can affect the ability of  intercity passenger rail to be competitive with air travel, depending on  price and the speed of service. In addition, private automobile use has  affected air-rail connections. Specifically, the rate of car ownership is  generally higher in the United States compared to Europe, while at the  same time, retail gasoline prices in the United States are much lower than  in Europe because of substantially lower taxes. Furthermore, in the  United States, surface transportation policy has primarily focused on  developing and improving highways, while the transportation policy of  European countries have placed a greater comparative emphasis on the  development of intercity passenger rail and public transportation.  Accordingly, people traveling to airports in the United States are more  likely than in Europe to drive and park their cars at the airports, which  could reduce the demand for (as well as the benefits of) intercity  passenger rail connections at U.S. airports.
Beyond Europe and the United States, the integration of air travel and  intercity passenger rail varies. For example, in Japan, air service and  high-speed intercity passenger rail compete and do not complement each  other as in Europe. The uniqueness of Japan’s transportation system  stems from the fact that two-thirds of its population, or almost 100 million  people, live in a narrow, densely populated corridor. Furthermore, Japan  has nearly 5,600 miles of private tollways, which makes intercity travel by  car expensive. In China, the Shanghai Railway Bureau and China  Eastern Airlines commenced operations of air-rail combined services in  May 2012 to and from Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport, marking  China’s first air-rail combined service. The service allows passengers to  transfer between domestic or international air services and train  operations with a single ticket.
section_title: Connectivity between Major Airports and Intercity Passenger Rail Remains Limited, as Does Passenger Usage
subsections: section_title: Most Major Airports Are near Intercity Passenger Rail Stations, but Air-Rail Connectivity is Rare
paragraphs: Most major U.S. airports have some degree of physical proximity to  intercity passenger rail stations; however, few are collocated with rail  stations. Specifically, our analysis found that 42 of the 60 large and  medium hub airports in the contiguous United States are located within 10  miles of an Amtrak station; 21 of the 42 airports are within 5 miles of a  station. (See fig. 1.) Newark Liberty International Airport and Bob Hope  (Burbank) Airport are the only airports where passengers can access the  Amtrak stations via an automated people mover (Newark) or by walking  (Burbank). Airline passengers at Miami International Airport will be able  to connect to Amtrak via an automated people mover upon completion of  the Miami Central Station in 2014. Amtrak officials noted that, in some  locations, it provides service that may operate in close proximity to an  airport, but may not have an Amtrak station near that airport.  Passengers at the nation’s other major airports have to rely on another  transportation mode such as shuttle, taxi, or transit (intracity rail, subway,  or bus) to connect to an Amtrak station and some passengers must make  multiple connections. For example, passengers at Baltimore/Washington  International Thurgood Marshall (BWI) and Milwaukee’s General Mitchell  International can take a free airport shuttle to and from Amtrak stations,  while passengers choosing to take public transportation to access Amtrak  from Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport would have to take  both a free shuttle and light rail. However, some officials we interviewed  told us that passengers are less willing to consider intermodal travel as  the number of modes needed to complete a single trip increases.
Stakeholders at many of the airports we visited have placed a greater  emphasis on intracity connectivity (or connections within a local  metropolitan region) to the airport through local rail or other transit, as  opposed to connectivity through intercity passenger rail. While a local  transit system may provide a connection between an airport and intercity  passenger rail, such a connection is generally not the primary goal. For  example, at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, officials are working  with the Dallas Area Rapid Transit agency to provide an intracity rail  connection to the airport from downtown Dallas by 2014. Officials noted  that an intracity rail connection was preferable to connectivity through  Amtrak because of the limited frequency of service provided by Amtrak in  the region, among other factors. When the extension is completed, airport  passengers would be able to connect to the Amtrak station located in  downtown Dallas through the intracity rail connection. Similarly, officials at  Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport in California noted that  policymakers should focus on connecting intracity rail to their airport,  rather than intercity passenger rail, in part, because the San Jose airport  is not a hub airport and most of its customers reside in the surrounding  San Francisco Bay area.
Amtrak and state transportation agencies are considering projects to  expand connectivity with airports. Amtrak’s strategic plan states that it will  increase connectivity with airports in key markets and has established a  strategic goal to increase the number of air-rail connections in the  Northeast Corridor from two to five by 2015. However, Amtrak officials  we spoke with stated that they do not believe Amtrak will achieve this  goal because of limited available funding for intercity passenger rail.  Some states, such as California, Illinois, and Texas, are looking at options  to enhance air-rail connectivity by developing high-speed rail connections  at nearby large and medium hub airports. For example, in addition to  Illinois’ development of high-speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis,  several options for possible future opportunities for improving Amtrak  passengers’ connectivity to Chicago O’Hare International Airport have  been proposed.
section_title: Few Passengers Use Air- Rail Connections
paragraphs: Studies and data, while limited, suggest that relatively few passengers  and airport employees use the limited air-rail connections available to  travel to and from U.S. airports. Ground access studies have shown that  intercity passenger rail is rarely used to connect to airports compared to  other modes of transportation. For example, a 2012 study stated that  Amtrak accounted for 3 percent of ground access mode share at Newark  Liberty International; 2 percent at BWI, and less than 1 percent at Bob  Hope Airport. By comparison, another study observed that at some  European airports with direct air-rail connections, long-distance intercity  passenger rail accounts for 20 to 25 percent of the ground access mode  share.for public transportation options to airports is limited, as the vast majority  of passengers still use personal automobiles to access the airport.
section_title: Collocated Airport Terminals and Rail Stations Allow for Code Sharing
paragraphs: The only current code-sharing agreement for air and rail travel in the  United States is at Newark Liberty International Airport, though code- sharing has been implemented or explored at other airports. The code- sharing agreement between United Airlines and Amtrak allows  passengers to make reservations with United Airlines for both air and rail  travel, and Amtrak provides the connecting service on its trains between  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Wilmington, Delaware; Stamford or New  Haven, Connecticut, and to anywhere United Airlines flies from Newark  Liberty International Airport. According to Amtrak data, about 24,000  passengers a year take Amtrak to Newark to connect to United Airlines  flights, with 90 percent of those passengers originating from Philadelphia.  However, United Airlines representatives pointed out that most  passengers at the Newark Liberty International Airport rail station—which  Amtrak estimated at over 120,000 passengers in fiscal year 2012—are  not traveling through the code-share agreement. No additional code  share agreements are currently planned between Amtrak and other  airlines we contacted. Representatives from the airlines and Amtrak told  us that code-sharing agreements are generally most effective when the  rail station is located at the airport and within a high-traffic rail corridor,  which is the case with Newark Liberty International Airport and the  Northeast Corridor. As previously noted, few rail stations are collocated  with a major airport. Both airline and Amtrak officials indicate that for  code-share agreements, airlines require frequent rail service with  minimum passenger transfer time between modes. Amtrak officials stated  that they provide that frequency of service in very few markets, generally  located on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor serving highly populated  metropolitan areas.
section_title: Air-Rail Connectivity May Provide a Range of Benefits for Passengers and Others, but Costs Can Be Significant
subsections: section_title: Benefits
paragraphs: We found that air-rail connectivity has the potential to provide a range of  mobility, economic, and environmental benefits. In our discussions with  stakeholders, including state departments of transportation, local  transportation-planning organizations, and airlines; our review of  academic literature; and the expert opinions obtained from our survey, we  found that a general consensus exists that air-rail connectivity can  provide a range of mobility benefits for travelers; however, we found less  agreement exists on the importance and extent of other types of benefits,  including economic and environmental benefits. Table 1 shows the  benefits most frequently cited as “very important” by the experts, five of  which focus on mobility benefits. However, our review suggests that the  particular benefits for a given project are generally site-specific, and  depend on the particular characteristics of the rail operators, the airports,  and underlying regional characteristics. As a result, the benefits we  identified through our work are not generalizable to all air-rail  connections.
Air-rail connections can potentially provide mobility benefits, such as  increased options for passengers connecting to the airport, and improved  convenience for airport and airline customers. Specifically, over half of the  experts responding to our survey agreed that increasing passenger  convenience and travel options were “very important” benefits of air-rail  connectivity, and airport representatives cited both benefits as driving  factors for intermodal projects at a number of our site visits. For example,  representatives at Miami International Airport noted that in the 1980s a  lack of ground transportation options, including connectivity to rail, had  reduced passenger traffic at the airport. Beginning in 2001, the Florida  Department of Transportation began to construct an intermodal center,  which will provide passenger access to the airport through multiple  ground transportation modes, including intercounty and intercity  passenger rail. According to airport representatives, directly connecting  Amtrak service to the airport will provide an additional option to  passengers connecting to the airport and encourage passengers to be  more willing to try other non-automotive forms of transportation.  Construction of the new Amtrak terminal (Miami Central Station) began in  2011, and representatives anticipate the terminal will be completed in  2014. (See fig. 2.) Furthermore, air-rail connections can provide airport  access to commuter trains in addition to intercity trains operated by  Amtrak, as many of the Amtrak stations located near airports are served  by both types of services. In addition, rail connectivity to airports has the  potential to improve the passenger experience traveling to the airport. In  particular, half of the experts (22 of 41) rated increased reliability of travel  to the airport, and nearly half (18 of 40) rated reductions in the travel time  to and from the airport as very important benefits of air-rail connections.  Representatives from the airlines and airports we interviewed noted that  their employees might also similarly benefit from an air-rail connection,  specifically by providing increased options to and from the airport and  improved convenience for airport and airline employees. However,  representatives from one airline cautioned that the extent of any benefits  would depend upon the cost of the air-rail connection and how such a  connection was funded.
Air-rail connections also have the potential to provide economic benefits  for some transportation operators, such as an increased customer base.  We found that some of the experts (16 of 40) participating in our survey  and a majority of the stakeholders at six of our eight site visits highlighted  the potential for intercity rail to access populations outside of the major  metropolitan area served by a large or medium hub airport. Specifically,  the experts and stakeholders noted that an air-rail connection may  increase an airport’s or airline’s passenger base by attracting additional  passengers from outside an airport’s local market, thus potentially  generating additional revenue for airports and airlines in that metropolitan  area. Some studies suggest that the existence of an air-rail connection  affects a passenger’s choice of airport in areas where multiple options  exist. In particular, a recent study of passengers using Amtrak to connect  to General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee found that  approximately one-third of passengers reported that they would have  used one of the two Chicago area airports if the Amtrak-Mitchell Airport  connection was not available. In addition, Amtrak service can also  complement existing rail connections made by commuter rail, offering  additional frequencies between points served by the commuter trains.  However, where transit already offers a connection between a city center  and airport, stakeholders at two of our eight site visits noted that an  intercity passenger rail connection to the airport may potentially compete  with transit service in the same area, thus limiting any increase in airport  or airline customers and benefits from enhanced connectivity.
In addition, air-rail connectivity could allow for the substitution of rail  service for short-haul flights, freeing up capacity for long-haul flights and  reducing airport and airspace congestion, though the importance of this  benefit varies depending on the airport and the rail service’s operating  characteristics. Specifically, nearly half of the experts (19 of 41) in our  survey and stakeholders at three of our eight site visits noted that the  potential replacement of short-haul flights by rail was a “very important”  potential benefit of air-rail connectivity. Our prior work has found that  intercity passenger rail, particularly high-speed rail, could serve as a  substitute for air service for distances of up to 500 miles. Our previous work on intercity passenger rail has found that for rail transportation to  capture the market share necessary to reduce air travel congestion, the  distance between cities must be short enough to make rail travel times  competitive with air travel times (at comparable costs and levels of  comfort). In practice this has been observed to a great extent in the  Northeast Corridor, where a number of major urban areas are located  within close proximity and where there are significant constraints on the  capacity within the air transportation system. For example, Amtrak’s  share of the air-rail market for trips between Washington, D.C., and New  York City has increased from 37 percent to 75 percent since the  introduction of the higher speed Acela Express service in 2000. However,  studies of air-rail connections in other countries suggest that the complete  abandonment of air service in response to the introduction of rail service  serving the same markets is rare. Furthermore, this benefit may be  limited given that most airports in the United States are not currently  capacity-constrained, though we have previously reported that FAA  projects that a number of airports will be significantly capacity-constrained  and thus congested within the next 15 years. For example, officials from  Chicago O’Hare International Airport stated that because their airport is  not capacity-constrained, the benefits from a direct connection with  Amtrak would be limited. Amtrak officials noted that they are exploring  options to connect to Chicago O’Hare International Airport, but noted that  it was premature to speculate on the benefits of such a connection,  particularly given Amtrak’s ongoing efforts to upgrade track speeds to  major cities from Chicago.
Over one-third of the experts participating in our survey rated  environmental benefits, including reduced carbon emissions (17 of 41),  and reduced energy use (15 of 40), as “very important” benefits of air-rail  connectivity. For the European Commission, enhancing air-rail  connectivity has been embraced as part of its strategy to reduce  greenhouse gases, including carbon emissions, by 60 percent by 2050  while improving mobility. However, academic studies vary on the extent  to which environmental benefits can be achieved from increased air-rail  connectivity. For example, energy savings from high-speed rail  connectivity may depend, in part, on the extent that passengers use rail to  connect to the airport rather than other automotive transportation.  Studies have also suggested that the substitution of long-distance flights  for short-haul flights that have been replaced by rail service could  potentially increase carbon emissions.
section_title: Costs
paragraphs: Expanding the current intercity passenger rail network and connecting it  to airports would be expensive. However, the costs of facilitating  connections between intercity passenger rail stations and airports could  vary significantly, depending in part on the complexity and scope of the  project. (See table 2.) Air-rail connectivity efforts may be as simple as  providing shuttle bus service between the Amtrak station and the airport  terminal or as complex as relocating the intercity passenger rail station  closer to the airport and integrating it into a multimodal transportation  center. For example, BWI Airport operates a free passenger shuttle  between the nearby Amtrak station and the airport terminal, at a cost of  $2 million per year. In addition to the shuttle service, the Maryland Transit  Administration has used $9 million from the HSIPR grant program to  make BWI Airport Amtrak station improvements, including planning for  track and rail station upgrades. In contrast, the development of the Miami  Intermodal Center—which includes construction of a rail station  collocating Amtrak, commuter rail, and heavy rail transit access at Miami  International Airport, a rental car facility, and an automated people  mover—is estimated to cost approximately $2 billion. Depending upon the  scope of new infrastructure, project costs may include constructing  stations, structures, signal systems, power systems, and maintenance  facilities; relocating utilities; and obtaining rights-of-way, among other  things. In addition to infrastructure costs, on-going operation and  maintenance costs can be high for states and local transportation  agencies. For example, airport officials estimate that the automated  people mover system that connects Newark Liberty International Airport  and the nearby Amtrak station costs $26 million per year to operate and  maintain. Furthermore, PRIIA requires that operating and capital costs be  allocated among the states and Amtrak in connection with the operation  of certain Amtrak routes. Absorbing such costs could be challenging for  states and localities as they continue to face near-term and long-term  fiscal challenges resulting from increasing gaps between revenue and  expenditures.
In addition to the direct financial costs of constructing, operating, and  maintaining air-rail connections, economic costs may arise due to impacts  on other transportation modes. For example, representatives from the  Association of American Railroads noted that there is limited additional  capacity on the freight rail lines shared between Amtrak and the freight  railroads. Accordingly, these representatives stated that any additional  intercity passenger traffic initiated to enhance air-rail connectivity on  existing freight rail lines could increase the cost and reduce the timeliness  of freight shipped on these lines. In such an event, Amtrak and the freight  railroads may have to revisit agreements over the usage of the freight rail  lines, which can be a lengthy and costly process for all stakeholders.  Alternatively, Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail service operators  may need to acquire additional right-of-way and construct additional  tracks to accommodate increased connectivity between airports and  intercity passenger rail, which, as discussed previously, could increase  the cost of providing air-rail connectivity. Similarly, representatives from  two of the four airlines we interviewed stated that developing intercity  passenger rail service that provides an alternative to air travel could affect  their profitability.
As with many large capital projects, committing financial resources for air- rail projects may also impose opportunity costs as a result of delaying or  deferring other projects or initiatives. Specifically, the financial cost of air- rail connectivity projects could affect the ability of governmental entities to  pursue other types of transportation projects, particularly in the current  fiscal environment. For example, one airline representative we  interviewed noted that air travel is in direct competition for resources with  other modes of transportation and suggested that any federal funds  provided to enhance air-rail connectivity could come at the expense of  funding for other programs, including the Next Generation Air  Transportation System (NextGen) air traffic control modernization  initiative.
Given the high potential costs of air-rail connections, it is likely that only a  limited number of places could demonstrate potential benefits high  enough to justify improved air-rail connectivity investments. For example,  if air passengers could 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 aviation congestion. However, the demand for  such service is likely to be low except in a few highly congested travel  corridors, such as the Northeast Corridor, where the distances are short  enough to make rail travel times competitive with air travel times. At  airports that do not have substantial highway or airport congestion, such  benefits would not be realized. There might still be some emission and  energy benefits, but since the number of travelers likely to use these  facilities at such airports is limited, these benefits will be limited as well.  Amtrak officials noted that costs and benefits are relative to the scope  and complexity of each air-rail connectivity option. For example, they  noted that providing an air-rail connection that serves both intercity and  local commuter rail, such as those provided by many of Amtrak’s airport- adjacent stations, can provide benefits that might not be justified if the  station was served only by intercity rail. Furthermore, Amtrak officials  noted that exploring air-rail integration early during the planning and  development of an airport can help reduce the overall cost of developing  air-rail connectivity, while still achieving substantial mobility benefits.
section_title: Air-Rail Connectivity Is Influenced by a Variety of Factors
paragraphs: Based on input from our expert survey; discussions with stakeholders,  including state departments of transportation, local transportation  planning organizations, airports, and airlines; and our review of academic  literature, we identified five categories of factors that can greatly affect air- rail connectivity, including the degree of leadership and collaboration  among stakeholders, resource availability, the extent of passenger  demand for air-rail connectivity, the ease of the air-rail connection, and  the passenger rail service operating characteristics. (See table 3.)
The degree of leadership and the extent of stakeholder collaboration  across air-rail projects can affect project development. Specifically,  almost half of the experts (18 of 40) rated the lack of leadership as greatly  hindering air-rail connections. Stakeholders we interviewed during our site  visits told us that when there is an absence of leadership, stakeholders  are unlikely to assume roles outside of their typical responsibilities and  interests, a limitation that makes project development more difficult.  Conversely, leadership that helps build bridges across stakeholder  groups can help develop a shared vision and foster collaboration, thereby  facilitating project development.
However, we found there is limited federal leadership for air-rail projects,  and no modal administration has a primary responsibility to oversee air- rail projects, as responsibilities for transportation projects are segmented  by mode. Furthermore, according to an academic study and stakeholders  we interviewed, the United States is lacking a national policy framework  and vision to guide investment in the needed infrastructure to develop air- rail connections. For example, FRA’s High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan  does not address connectivity between airports and intercity passenger  rail. In addition, while DOT’s 2012-2016 strategic plan broadly discusses  connectivity between airports and intercity passenger rail, DOT has not  established any specific goals for air-rail connectivity.with our previous work that concluded that the absence of specific   This is consistent  national goals to develop intermodal capabilities at airports is a significant  barrier to developing air-rail connections. For example, half of the  experts (20 of 40) rated integration of air-rail connections into an overall,  multi-modal transportation plan or strategy as an approach that would  greatly facilitate air-rail connectivity in the United States. In addition,  officials we interviewed and over half of the experts (23 of 39) said that  communication, collaboration, and consensus among stakeholders such  as airlines; rail operators; airport management; and local, state, and  federal government officials could greatly facilitate air-rail connectivity.
subsections: section_title: Resource Availability
paragraphs: Resource availability, including funding, right-of-way, and access to  existing infrastructure can greatly affect the development of air-rail  connectivity. As previously noted, the costs of linking existing intercity  passenger rail infrastructure and airports can be significant, depending in  part on the complexity and scope of the project. Slightly over half of the  experts (21 of 40) rated the financial cost of a project as greatly hindering  project development, while nearly three-fourths (29 of 40) rated  availability of funding as greatly facilitating project development. In  addition, about two-fifths of the experts (16 of 39) rated the level of  funding for intercity passenger rail as a very important factor contributing  to differences in air-rail connectivity development and use between the  United States and Europe.
We found a number of barriers exist to securing funding for air-rail  connectivity projects. For example, transportation officials and  stakeholders we interviewed told us that the limitations on use of funds  from federal grants and airport revenue collected from passenger facility  charges are significant barriers. Furthermore, as noted previously in this  report, the federal government does not provide funding dedicated to the  development or operation of air-rail connections. If the trend of  decreasing federal transportation funding over the past three decades  continues, air-rail project sponsors may need to increasingly rely on state  funds for air-rail connection projects. In addition, our prior work also  identified challenges of funding intercity passenger rail projects. The  federal government has recently begun to pursue investment in high- speed passenger rail through the FRA’s HSIPR grant program, and to  date has obligated about $9.9 billion for 150 high-speed and intercity  passenger rail projects from funds appropriated in fiscal years 2009 and  2010—with more than one-third of the amount obligated designated for  the high-speed rail project in California. While this funding will allow many  projects to begin construction, it is not sufficient to complete them.  Furthermore, Congress has not appropriated any funding for the HSIPR  program since fiscal year 2010.
The availability of other resources can also greatly affect the development  of air-rail connectivity projects. Three-fifths of the experts (24 of 40) rated  the lack of availability of land or physical space for direct air-rail projects,  including the lack of existing intercity passenger rail infrastructure (e.g.,  tracks and stations) and rights of way, as factors that greatly influence the  development of air-rail connections.
section_title: Passenger Demand
paragraphs: Passenger demand for air-rail connectivity has a significant role in  developing and using such connections. Approximately half of the experts  rated passenger volume and demand as a factor that can either greatly  facilitate (if sufficient) (21 of 39) or hinder (if lacking) (20 of 40) air-rail  connectivity projects. However, as mentioned previously in this report,  there is limited data on the demand for intercity passenger rail.  Furthermore, it is often difficult to estimate ridership demand. As we have  previously reported, limited data and information, especially early in a  project before specific service characteristics are known, make  developing reliable ridership demand forecasts difficult. Research on  ridership forecasts for rail infrastructure projects around the world have  shown that ridership forecasts are often overestimated. Furthermore,  there are no industry standard or established criteria for developing or  evaluating intercity passenger and high-speed rail ridership forecasts.
section_title: Ease of Connection
paragraphs: Over three-quarters of the experts (31 of 40) rated close proximity  between the airport terminals and rail stations as greatly facilitating air-rail  connectivity. Connections that are easy to use and provide direct  connection between the airport terminal and the rail station can greatly  affect the development of air-rail connectivity. Officials we interviewed  noted that air-rail connections should be designed to meet the needs of  airport and intercity passenger users. Accordingly, they underscored that  connections should be designed to make the experience as easy and  seamless as possible for the traveler. Similarly, over half of the experts  (21 of 39) rated the availability of information, including signage, about a  connection as greatly facilitating air-rail connectivity. We found 20 of the  60 major airports in the contiguous United States included information  about Amtrak on their respective websites, and 14 of the 20 airports  provided specific instructions on how passengers could connect to or  from Amtrak.
section_title: Rail Service Operating Characteristics
paragraphs: Nearly two-thirds of the experts (26 of 40) and many of the stakeholders  at our site visits cited frequency and reliability of rail service as factors  that greatly influence air-rail connectivity. Stakeholders we interviewed  noted that for the air-rail connection to be viable, the passenger rail  operator needs to provide frequent service to multiple locations beyond  the airport. The frequency of Amtrak service is highly variable across the  nation. Similarly, a number of stakeholders we spoke with noted that the  reliability of Amtrak service, specifically its on-time performance, affects  the use of intercity passenger rail for travel, both between cities and to  and from the airport. In addition, over half of the experts (25 of 40) rated  the availability of high-speed intercity passenger rail service to connect to  an airport as greatly facilitating an air-rail connectivity project. However,  representatives from three of the four airlines we interviewed viewed high- speed rail as a potential competitor in diverting passengers away from, as  opposed to feeding into, the airport.
section_title: Strategies to Improve Air-Rail Connectivity May Require Substantial Coordination and Funding
paragraphs: Experts participating in our survey suggested five key areas where  implementing strategies could help improve air-rail connectivity: vision,  coordinated planning, funding, infrastructure, and awareness and  marketing of connections. We asked these experts to identify potential  strategies, and then rate these strategies in terms of both their  importance and their feasibility. Some of the strategies that experts rated  as more important were also seen as less feasible. (See table 4.) In  discussing these strategies with other stakeholders and reviewing  academic studies, we found that a number of strategies were inter- related. For example, some of the strategies that experts suggested to  improve connectivity, such as increasing connections with other  transportation modes, could be related to the implementation of other  strategies, such as providing additional funding for air-rail connections.
Experts stated additional study of the demand for air-rail connectivity, as  well as lessons learned in other countries, could help Amtrak and DOT  clarify needs and develop priorities within their existing goals related to  enhancing connectivity. Connectivity across modes has been emphasized  broadly by DOT and Amtrak, though there has been limited emphasis  placed by either for connectivity between airports and intercity passenger  rail. For example, in its 2012-2016 strategic plan, DOT’s goal of  encouraging livable communities emphasizes connectivity across modes,  and identifies connectivity between intercity passenger rail and transit and  continued investment in the intercity passenger rail network as means to  achieve that goal. DOT’s strategic plan also notes that DOT will continue  to work with Amtrak, states, freight railroads, airports, and other key  stakeholders to ensure intercity passenger rail is effectively integrated  into the national transportation system, though the department has not  established any specific goals for air-rail connectivity. Similarly, DOT’s  most recent update to its national rail plan, published in September 2010,  encourages the integration of policies and investments across modes,  including air transportation, to provide convenient options for accessing  the passenger rail network, but does not establish specific goals or  timelines for increasing air-rail connectivity. Amtrak’s strategic plan has  set a goal of connecting to three additional airports in the Northeast  Corridor by 2015 as part of its efforts to increase intercity passenger rail  connectivity with other travel modes in key markets, but Amtrak officials  we spoke with stated that they do not believe Amtrak will achieve this  goal because of limited available funding for intercity passenger rail.
Should DOT, Amtrak, or Congress choose to develop a more  comprehensive approach to air-rail connectivity, experts we surveyed  identified further study of passenger preferences and demand as one of  the most important and most feasible steps policymakers could take to  improve air-rail connections. For example, half of the experts (20 of 40)  rated additional study of ridership preferences across all modes as very  important to informing the federal government’s air-rail strategy. As  previously noted, limited data on passenger preferences and demand for  air-rail connectivity exists. For example, one expert emphasized that  because passenger demand for air-rail connectivity varies across the  country, additional study of passenger preferences at the local level could  help identify approaches tailored to the specific needs of the area, noting  that there is no “one size fits all” approach to air-rail connectivity.  Furthermore, 24 of 40 experts rated studying lessons learned and policy  responses from other countries as “very important” toward improving  understanding of air-rail connectivity issues, though as previously  discussed, air-rail connectivity approaches vary widely outside the United  States.
subsections: section_title: Collaborative Planning
paragraphs: Experts in our survey and stakeholders at seven of our eight site visits  highlighted the importance of coordinated transportation planning  between airports and intercity passenger rail, which could help  stakeholders develop multimodal solutions and facilitate problem solving.  Amtrak officials noted that if airports, Amtrak, and other transportation  stakeholders begin to plan for integration early, the costs of connecting air  and rail transportation become part of a larger intermodal strategy and  can provide benefits. Accordingly, both Amtrak officials and experts  highlighted the importance of planning an intercity passenger rail  connection as part of an overall ground access strategy. For example, 17  of 40 experts rated planning air-rail connections to the airport during the  initial establishment of intercity passenger rail service as very important.  Amtrak officials noted that planning for intercity rail connections at airports  during the initial development of the airport can help minimize the  incremental cost of making a connection while providing substantial  benefits from air-rail connectivity. However, in many locations, particularly  in the Northeast Corridor, the rail network was developed decades before  the airport. In addition, such an approach may not be feasible, as federal  funding and oversight is segmented by mode, a segmentation that can  lead to competition, rather than collaboration for funding. Furthermore,  collaboration across stakeholder groups can be a time-intensive process  and may not necessarily change the willingness of stakeholders to  collaborate.
section_title: Funding and Flexibility
paragraphs: Experts we surveyed and stakeholders at six of our eight site visits we  interviewed highlighted the importance of securing funding for air-rail  connectivity projects. Because of the often substantial cost of the physical  infrastructure to support air-rail connections, stakeholders at four of our  eight site visits noted that the federal government may have to provide  most of the funding to make development possible. Over half of the  experts in our survey (22 of 41) as well as other stakeholders at five of  our eight site visits suggested that dedicated funding for air-rail  connections could help increase the number of connections between  airports and intercity passenger rail. Alternatively, nearly half (17 of 41) of  the experts in our survey suggested that increased funding for intercity  passenger rail is a very important strategy related to increasing Amtrak’s  ability to connect to airports. However, the current fiscal environment  presents challenges to increasing federal funding for discretionary  programs though some existing grant and loan programs—such as the  HSIPR, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery  (TIGER), and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of  1998 (TIFIA) programs—have some flexibility to fund air-rail connections  if such a connection is a state or local priority. As previously noted,  additional funding for air-rail connections could require tradeoffs with  other transportation projects. With limited existing funds available for air- rail projects, two stakeholders we interviewed suggested that the federal  government should focus on a few air-rail projects of national  significance, rather than a number of smaller projects throughout the  entire nation. Similarly, one stakeholder suggested that the federal  government provide money for a few projects to demonstrate the potential  benefits of air-rail connectivity, before moving forward on a nationwide  program.
Stakeholders at four of our eight site visits also suggested that providing  additional flexibility in permitted expenditures among existing federal  programs could help improve airport connectivity via rail. In particular,  they suggested changes to the airport passenger facility charge authority  as well as to the AIP grant program. Among the funding strategies  evaluated in our expert survey, experts generally rated the strategy of  relaxing the restrictions on passenger facility charges among the most  feasible strategies. Airport operators may currently use funds collected  from air passengers through passenger facility charges to fund rail access  at airports, if the project is owned by the airport, located on airport  property, and used exclusively by airport passengers and employees.  However, easing these restrictions on use of passenger facility charges  faces obstacles. Specifically, use of passenger facility charge revenues is  limited by law to airport-related projects. Such a change would require  legislative action by the Congress, and changes to the passenger facility  charges program have been opposed by the airline industry. For  example, representatives from one airline we spoke with stated that the  airline was fundamentally opposed to using funds collected through  passenger facility charges to pay for airport and intercity passenger rail  connections because, in their view, the federal government should not tax  airline passengers to fund other transportation modes. Stakeholders at  three of the eight airports we spoke with suggested that Congress could  allow additional flexibility in the use of funds from transportation grant  programs, including the AIP program, which is funded through a variety of  aviation excise taxes. While AIP grants may currently be used to fund  projects promoting air-rail connectivity on the airport property, like the  passenger facility charges, program funds may only be used to fund  airport-related projects. Again, however, airlines we spoke with opposed  easing existing limitations on the use of AIP grants for airport projects that  may benefit non-aviation passengers, and any change to the AIP program  to broaden the use of these grants would require congressional action.  Furthermore, as previously noted, the commitment of financial resources  for air-rail projects may also impose opportunity costs as a result of  canceling or delaying other projects or initiatives that could be funded by  these federal programs.
section_title: Infrastructure Connectivity
paragraphs: Experts in our survey suggested that increasing the size and operation of  the existing intercity passenger rail network could help encourage the  development and use of intercity passenger rail to access airports.  Specifically, 23 of 39 experts cited the size and the extent of the intercity  passenger rail network as a very important factor resulting in differences  between air-rail connections in the United States and Europe.  Accordingly, over two-thirds of the experts in our survey (27 of 40)  suggested that developing rail connections to transit and other forms of  public transportation could help encourage the use of rail to the airport,  and over half of the experts (22 of 40) stated that additional connections  to city centers and urban attractions are very important strategies to  consider. DOT has taken some steps to increase the intercity passenger  rail network, most notably through the HSIPR grant program, which, FRA  officials noted, placed emphasis on using funds available for intercity  passenger rail infrastructure to establish and enhance connections  between major metropolitan areas. Additionally, stakeholders we  interviewed at six of our eight sites noted that increasing the frequency of  intercity passenger service in existing corridors could encourage greater  use of rail to connect to the airport. For example, one stakeholder noted  that passengers are much less likely to use rail if departure times are  hours apart, as opposed to minutes. However, even in corridors that have  existing intercity passenger rail service, increasing the frequency of  service can be challenging due to both the cost and, as previously  discussed, the shared usage of the infrastructure with the freight  railroads. Furthermore, as discussed previously, stakeholders we spoke  with stated that there is limited demand for public transportation options to  connect to the airport, and thus it is unclear whether increasing the  frequency of service will increase passenger use of intercity rail service to  connect to airports.
section_title: Awareness of Air-Rail Connections
paragraphs: While building the infrastructure to support new air-rail connections can  be expensive and time-intensive, our work identified a few low cost  options that could help increase passenger awareness, and thus usage,  of existing air-rail connections. For example, Amtrak station operators and  airport officials could take steps to increase awareness of existing  connections between the two modes, using additional or more  prominently placed signage and information kiosks. For example, at the  BWI Airport Amtrak Station, signs and information direct customers  exiting the station platform to the bus shuttle service connecting the two  modes. (See fig. 3.) Similarly, in Burbank, officials stated that the use of  signage highlighting the walking path between the Burbank rail station  and the airport has helped, in part, to make the connection between the  two modes easier for passengers to use. These officials also noted that  even with signage, an air-rail connection often required frequent and  reliable service from an intercity passenger rail operator. As another  option, Amtrak could highlight the connections to the airport from each  station on its website, thus providing an additional source of information  to travelers beyond what is available at the airport or rail station.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this product to DOT and Amtrak for comment. DOT  and Amtrak provided technical comments on the draft, which we  incorporated as appropriate. DOT and Amtrak did not have any  comments on the e-supplement.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation,  the President of Amtrak, and the appropriate congressional committees.  In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO website  at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)  512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page   of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addressed the following objectives: (1) the nature and scope  of existing air-rail connectivity in the United States; (2) the benefits and  costs of developing air-rail connectivity; (3) the factors that facilitate and  hinder the development and use of air-rail connectivity; and (4) potential  strategies, including lessons learned from other countries, that may help  inform deliberations regarding air-rail connectivity policy. This report  focused on air-rail connections between an airport terminal and an  intercity passenger rail station. In other contexts, an air-rail connection  may refer to a connection between an airport terminal and an intracity rail  station that serves other forms of local rail, such as commuter rail or a  subway system.
To address our objectives, we obtained and analyzed information from a  variety of sources. We reviewed and synthesized information from our  body of work and relevant academic literature on intermodal  transportation, air-rail connectivity, and air-rail code share agreements in  the United States and internationally. We reviewed citations identified  through a search of databases containing peer-reviewed articles,  government reports, and “gray literature,” including Transport Research  International Documentation, Social SciSearch, and WorldCat.  Publications were limited to the years 2004 through 2012. After an initial  review of citations, 48 articles were selected for further review. To collect  information on the articles, we developed a data collection instrument to  gather information on the articles’ scope and purpose, methods, findings,  and their limitations, and additional areas for follow-up, including a review  of the bibliography to determine the completeness of our literature search.  To apply this data collection instrument, one analyst reviewed each article  and recorded information in the data collection instrument. A second  analyst then reviewed each completed data collection instrument to verify  the accuracy of the information recorded. We summarized the findings  and limitations of the articles based on the completed data collection  instruments, as well as areas for additional research identified in the  articles. In addition, we also reviewed federal laws related to air and  intercity passenger transportation and strategic plans from Amtrak and  the Department of Transportation (DOT).
We interviewed officials from DOT and Amtrak, transportation experts,  and representatives from U.S. airlines and industry associations to obtain  their perspectives on air-rail connectivity issues. We reviewed completed,  ongoing, and future air-rail connectivity efforts at eight airports in the  United States, and interviewed a variety of stakeholders at each site,  including airport authorities, state and local transportation agencies, local  transportation planning organizations, and air and rail industry  associations. (See table 5.) These airports were selected to include  airports that have recently planned, constructed, or completed an air-rail  project and are dispersed in various regions of the country. Our findings  at these sites were selected as part of a judgmental, non-probability  sample of air-rail connectivity efforts at airports, and cannot be  generalized to all airports.
We also analyzed Amtrak’s distance and connectivity to the 28 large and  32 medium hub airports located in the contiguous United States based on  the 2011 Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Carrier Activity Information  System database. We limited our analysis to these 60 airports because  they accounted for approximately 86 percent of U.S. passenger  enplanements for calendar year 2011. We determined the linear distance  for each of the 60 airports and the nearest Amtrak station based on  information from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the National  Transportation Atlas Database for 2012. Based on the use of both as  widely accepted federal statistical data sources, we determined these  data to be generally reliable for our purpose, which was to provide context  on existing air-rail connectivity. Linear distance is the distance measured  between two points using their latitude and longitude. This may  understate the distance a passenger may have to travel because it does  not account for actual travel routes (e.g., a route that crosses a bridge or  avoids buildings or other obstacles along the passenger’s route). The  actual distance that a passenger may travel also depends on the selected  transportation mode, local roads, or route selected. We used the linear  distance calculations to determine the number of airports with an Amtrak  station within 5, 10, 20, and over 20 miles. (See app. IV.) To determine  the modal connectivity between airport and Amtrak stations, we  systematically reviewed the airport websites’ ground transportation page  and Amtrak System Timetable for Winter/Spring 2013 for information on  how passengers can access Amtrak to and from the airports.
To obtain additional insight on issues related to air-rail connectivity, we  collaborated with the National Academy of Sciences to identify 25 experts  from the aviation and rail industries, Amtrak, state and local governments,  academia, and the private sector. These experts were selected based on  their knowledge of one or more of the following topic areas:  intermodalism, airlines and the air travel industry, airport operations, the  rail industry, and passenger travel. We identified 17 additional experts in  these fields through a review of academic literature, our previous work,  and interviews with stakeholders. (See app. II for a list of these experts.)  We conducted a web-based survey in which we asked these 42 experts  for their views on the benefits of air-rail connectivity, factors that facilitate  and hinder the development and use of air-rail connectivity, differences  between air-rail connectivity in the United States and Europe, and  strategies that could improve air-rail connectivity. We employed a  modified version of the Delphi method to organize and gather these  experts’ opinions. Experts were sent an email invitation to complete the  survey on a GAO web server using a unique username and password.  The survey was conducted in two stages. The first stage of the survey— which ran from January 16, 2013, to February 19, 2013—asked the  experts to respond to five open-ended questions about various aspects of  air-rail connectivity based on our study objectives. To encourage  participation by our experts, we stated that responses would not be  individually identifiable and that results would generally be provided in  summary form. We received a 95 percent (40 of 42) response rate for the  first stage of the survey. After the experts completed the open-ended  questions, we performed a content analysis of the responses to identify  the most important issues raised by our experts. Two members of our  team independently categorized experts’ responses to each of the  questions. Any disagreements were discussed until consensus was  reached. We analyzed the responses provided by the experts and  developed close-ended questions for the second stage of the survey  where we asked each expert to evaluate the ideas and other information  that came from the first part of the survey. Because this was not a sample  survey, it had no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of  conducting any survey can introduce non-sampling errors, such as  difficulties interpreting a particular question, which can introduce  unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps to minimize  non-sampling errors by pre-testing the questionnaire with 5 experts. We  conducted pretests to help ensure that the questions were clear and  unbiased, and that the questionnaire did not place an undue burden on  respondents. An independent reviewer within GAO also reviewed a draft  of the questionnaire prior to its administration. We made appropriate  revisions to the content and format of the second survey questionnaire  based on the pretests and independent review. The second stage of the  survey was administered on the Internet from March 25, 2013, to May 15,  2013. To increase the response rate, we followed up with emails and  personal phone calls to the experts to encourage participation in our  survey. We received responses from 41 of 42 experts, resulting in a 98  percent response rate. The information and perspectives that we obtained  from the expert survey may not be generalized to all experts that have an  interest or knowledge of air-rail connectivity issues. The full survey and  responses are available at GAO-13-692SP.
We provided a draft of this report to Matthew A. Coogan, director of the  New England Transportation Institute for review and comment, based on  his expertise on air-rail connectivity issues similar to those in our report.  Mr. Coogan was selected based on his extensive past and on-going  research on similar topics related to air-rail connectivity issues in the  United States. He provided technical comments, which we incorporated  as appropriate. We conducted this performance audit from August 2012  to August 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Experts Participating in GAO’s Survey on Air-Rail Connectivity
paragraphs: Affiliation  Resource Systems Group, Inc.
LeighFisher, Inc.
section_title: Appendix III: Examples of Potential Federal Financing and Funding Sources for Air-Rail Projects
paragraphs: Appendix III: Examples of Potential Federal  Financing and Funding Sources for Air-Rail  Projects Description  Provides grants to airports for planning and developing projects  through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 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 air-rail  connections, these funds may be used for projects that are on airport  property or right-of-way owned or controlled by the airport, airport  owned, and exclusively serves airport traffic. In fiscal year 2013, this  program was funded at $3.1 billion. For fiscal year 2011, $400  million in unobligated funds were rescinded.  Authorizes commercial service airports to charge airline passengers a  boarding charge of up to $4.50 to be collected by the airlines, after  obtaining FAA approval. The fees are used by the airports to fund FAA  approved projects that are on airport property, airport-owned, and  exclusively serve airport traffic. These projects must enhance the  safety, security, or capacity of air travel; reduce the impact of aviation  noise; or increase air carrier competition. In calendar year 2012, $2.8  billion in fees were collected under this program.
Example of use for air-rail  projects  GAO found no example of its  use for air-rail projects.
Provides direct loans and loan guarantees to railroads, state and local  governments and Amtrak, among other entities, to finance the  development of railroad infrastructure, including the development of  new intermodal or railroad facilities. The program, administered by  FRA, is authorized to provide up to $35 billion in loans or loan  guarantees for eligible projects.
GAO found no example of its  use for air-rail projects.
Provides discretionary grants through DOT, awarded on a competitive  basis, to fund merit-based transportation projects expected to have a  significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. Each  project is multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional, or otherwise challenging to  fund through existing programs. Eligible projects include capital  investments in roads, highways, bridges, or transit; passenger and  freight rail; and port infrastructure; as well as bicycle and pedestrian- related improvements. In fiscal year 2013, this program was funded at  $474 million.
GAO found no example of its  use for air-rail projects.
Description  Provides federal credit assistance for surface transportation projects  jointly through the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit  Administration, and FRA. Project sponsors may include public, private,  state, or local entities. Projects eligible for credit assistance include  intercity passenger rail facilities and vehicles, such as those owned by  Amtrak, as well as projects otherwise eligible for federal assistance  through existing surface transportation programs. In fiscal year 2013,  this program was funded at $750 million.
Example of use for air-rail  projects  Miami Intermodal Center at  Miami International Airport  In fiscal year 2013, approximately $3.4 billion was made available for obligation for the AIP program.  On May 1, 2013, the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013 was enacted. It authorized the Secretary of  Transportation to transfer an amount, not to exceed $253 million, from the AIP program to the FAA  operations account that the Secretary of Transportation determines to be necessary to prevent  reduced operations and staffing of the FAA during fiscal year 2013. Pub. L. No. 113-9, 127 Stat. 443.  23 U.S.C. §§ 601-609.
section_title: Appendix IV: Distances between Large and Medium Hub Airport Terminals and Amtrak Stations in the Contiguous United States
subsections: section_title: Distance between airport and nearest Amtrak station 0 to 5 miles (21 airports)
paragraphs: More than 5 miles to 10 miles (21 airports)
section_title: Distance between airport and nearest Amtrak station
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact listed above, Teresa Spisak (Assistant Director),  Matt Voit, Rosa Leung, Paul Aussendorf, Leia Dickerson, Patrick Dudley,  Lorraine Ettaro, Jessica Evans, Kathleen Gilhooly, Delwen Jones,  Richard Jorgenson, Jill Lacey, John Mingus, and Josh Ormond made  major contributions to this product.