Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities
Published: 2005-07-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: With the number of airplane passengers using U.S. airports expected to  grow from over 688 million in 2004 to almost 1 billion by the year 2015,  ground access to U.S. airports has become an important factor in the  development of our nation’s transportation networks. Since most travelers  use cars, whether privately owned or taxis, to get to the airport, local cities  and communities will face increased congestion on their airport access  roads and highways. Moreover, increases in passenger air travel and the  difficulty of building new airport capacity will place greater strains on our  nation’s airport runway and air space capacity. Increased road congestion  and the strain on airport capacity can both have a number of negative  economic and social effects, including wasting travelers’ time and money,  degrading air quality, slowing commerce, and increasing energy  consumption. These effects are especially problematic in areas and  transportation corridors that are already heavily congested.
While the U.S. passenger transportation system consists of a number of  different transportation modes, including mass transit, roads, aviation,  waterways, and railroads, U.S. transportation policy has generally  addressed the negative economic and social effects of congestion from the  standpoint of individual transportation modes and local government  involvement. Compared to the United States, European transportation  policy has increasingly focused on intermodal transportation—that is, a  system that connects the separate transportation modes and allows a  passenger to complete a journey using more than one mode. This focus has  included improving the connections between airports and other  transportation modes—particularly rail—as a possible means to address  congestion and other issues without sacrificing economic growth. The  European experience in this area might provide important lessons for the  United States.
To determine how the mobility of the American public might be improved  through enhanced rail, transit, and bus connections to airports and at what  costs, this report addresses the following questions: (1) What roles do  federal, state, and local governments and the private sector play in  developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? (2) To what extent have  intermodal services and facilities been developed at selected U.S. airports?   (3) What benefits, costs, and barriers exist for developing additional  intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? and (4) What transportation  strategies, including lessons learned from the European experience, may  help public decisionmakers improve intermodal capabilities at U.S.  airports?
Throughout this report, we defined intermodal transportation as direct  connections for passengers traveling between airports and local public  transit systems and nationwide rail and bus systems. 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.   To address the four questions, we obtained and analyzed information from  a variety of sources. We surveyed all large and medium and selected small  hub U.S. airports to obtain information on the extent intermodal services  and facilities have been developed. These 72 airports accounted for  approximately 90 percent of the enplanements for calendar year 2003.  We  conducted semi-structured interviews with key government transportation  officials, airport officials, and private sector transportation representatives  to obtain information for case studies of 16 U.S. airports located in the Los  Angeles and San Francisco areas and San Jose, California; Miami, Florida;  Baltimore, Maryland; Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota; the New York City  area; Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; the Washington, D.C., area;  and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We also met with officials from the Federal  Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),  Amtrak, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Office of  Intermodalism, transportation experts, and industry associations. We  interviewed officials from the European Union, France, Germany,  Switzerland, and the Netherlands to obtain descriptive information on their  airport-rail connections. In addition, we obtained and analyzed information  from our past reports, as well as documents from DOT, the European  Union, and research organizations. We conducted our work from July 2004  through July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Additional information on our scope and methodology  appears in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The United States’ passenger transportation system consists of a number of  different modes, including mass transit systems, roads, aviation,  waterways, and railroads—each of which plays a critical role in providing  the American public with the mobility needed to sustain the nation’s  economic viability. Intermodal transportation refers to a system that  connects the separate transportation modes and allows a passenger to  complete a journey using more than one mode. An efficient intermodal  capability provides a passenger with convenient, seamless transfer  between modes; the ability to connect to an extended transportation  network; and high frequency of service among the different modes. As  shown in figure 1, an intermodal connection at an airport might involve a  passenger arriving at the airport by private shuttle service, flying to another  airport, and then transferring to local transit rail service to reach a final  destination. Opportunities also exist for using intermodal service to access  nationwide transportation systems, such as Amtrak.
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.
Historically, federal transportation policy has focused almost exclusively  on individual modes rather than intermodal connections. Federal  transportation funding programs are overseen by different agencies within  DOT—FAA oversees aviation, FTA transit, Federal Railroad Administration  railways, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highways—and no  specific federal funding programs have been established that target  intermodal projects for passengers at U.S. airports. In the United States, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)  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), 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. 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. The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created Amtrak  to provide nationwide passenger rail service, and the federal government  has provided funding for both capital and operating expenditures to  Amtrak. Amtrak operates a 22,000 mile passenger rail system, primarily  over tracks owned by freight railroads. 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. The corridors are dispersed throughout the  country and include service between some of the largest U.S. cities. For  example, the Northeast Corridor provides service between Washington,  D.C., New York, and Boston, and the Pacific Northwest Corridor provides  service between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, Canada.
In comparison to U.S. transportation policy, European Union policy 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.
Since 1992, the European Union has periodically published a common  transportation policy in response to increased ground and air congestion  that has resulted from the unequal growth of road and air traffic compared  with rail and maritime traffic. This growth in air traffic and the capacity  constraints at most key European airports have caused the European  Union to examine the potential of intermodal transportation. A key  component of the European Union's intermodality policy is improving the  connections between air and rail, thereby transforming competition  between those modes into complementary service using high-speed train  connections at European airports. While the European Union has  developed a common transportation policy and provides limited funding  for transportation networks that can connect to airports, the actual  implementation and development of transportation infrastructure remains  the responsibility of individual member nations. For example, a priority  European Union project is the construction of a high-speed rail network  across Europe that will connect key airports, such as Brussels, Frankfurt,  Cologne/Bonn, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Amsterdam Schiphol. Although  this project crosses a number of member states and is one of the European  Union’s priority projects, individual member states are responsible for  funding the majority of the infrastructure and overseeing the construction  of sections within their borders. For example, Belgium is responsible for  providing the infrastructure from Brussels to the borders of France,  Germany, and the Netherlands. In addition, in 2003, the European Union  established the Rail Air Intermodality Facilitation Forum with the objective  of developing recommendations to encourage the integration of rail and air  service regarding operations, ticket sales, and legal issues. (See app. II for  additional information on intermodal connections at European airports.)
section_title: Each Level of Government and the Private Sector Play a Role in Developing Intermodal Capabilities at U.S. Airports
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: State and Local Governments Have the Primary Responsibility for Developing Intermodal Capabilities
paragraphs: 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.
During our research at 16 airports, we found three common themes  regarding the roles of various stakeholders, although the extent of different  stakeholders' involvement varied among projects. First, almost all airports  are heavily involved with the development of intermodal capabilities on  airport property. This is especially true if the project involves construction  of a major intermodal facility such as an automated people mover  connecting the airport terminals to a transit station. For example, the Port  Authority of New York and New Jersey 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).
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, and operates the service to the  airport.
Finally, we found that other local and state transportation agencies, such as  state departments of transportations or local metropolitan planning  organizations, can be involved in these projects, including in certain cases  taking the lead in planning and obtaining funding. For example, the  Wisconsin Department of Transportation served as the lead agency in  planning an Amtrak station at the General Mitchell International Airport in  Milwaukee. Fairfax County, Virginia, secured funding to cover part of the  cost of a section of a planned local rail line extension to Dulles airport by  approving a tax on commercial and industrial properties that was  voluntarily proposed by a group of landowners. In some cases, these state  or local agencies may take the lead because they have the best access to  federal funding.
section_title: Federal Government’s Role Is Primarily One of Funding and Oversight
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Private Sector’s Role Includes Funding or Assisting in Developing Intermodal Capabilities
paragraphs: 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. The ability of airlines to participate  in decisionmaking depends on the specific airport and the structure of the  lease agreement. For example, some airports have lease agreements that  can require airports to obtain airline approval before making airport capital  expenditure decisions.
section_title: Most Major U.S. Airports Have Direct Connections to Local Transportation Services, but Very Few Have Direct Connections to Nationwide Rail or Bus Systems
paragraphs: Based on our survey of all large and medium and certain small hub U.S.  airports, most airports have direct connections 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.)
subsections: section_title: Many Airports Have More than One Type of Direct Intermodal Connection
paragraphs: Most airports reported having some direct intermodal connections, with a  number of airports responding that they had connections to multiple types  of transportation modes. (See fig. 4.)  Five airports, located in the New York  City area, Miami, Philadelphia, and Palm Beach, reported direct  connections to local and nationwide bus and rail systems. In contrast,  seven airports 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.
section_title: Most Airports Have Direct Connections to Local Transportation Systems
paragraphs: 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. Sixty-four airports reported having a direct connection to local  bus service. However, according to airport officials we interviewed, the  level of bus service provided varies. For example, Seattle-Tacoma  International Airport has five public bus routes that serve the airport from  the surrounding communities, while General Mitchell International Airport  in Milwaukee has only one route that serves the airport. The Boston Logan  Express bus service offers nonstop airport connections to and from  Boston’s General Edward Lawrence Logan Airport and four locations,  serving over 100 communities.
The level of convenience and access to bus service also varies, as shown in  table 3. Airports with direct connections to local bus systems either had  connections to buses at the airport terminal(s) or at an intermodal facility  or transit center. For example, Denver airport reported that it would be  convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk to the local bus stop,  which is located at the airport terminal, while passengers at Los Angeles  International Airport can take a shuttle to the airport transit center to  access buses. However, transportation experts and some airport officials  we interviewed stated that ridership on public buses is generally very low  for airline passengers but somewhat higher for airport employees. One  reason for this situation is the lack of accommodations for luggage on most  public buses.
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.
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.
section_title: Nationwide Ground Transportation Options from Airports are Limited
paragraphs: 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.
Thirteen airports report having a direct connection to nationwide  passenger rail service, Amtrak, as shown in figure 6. All 13 airports  provide shuttle service to transport passengers to Amtrak stations that  serve the metropolitan area. However, based on information gathered  during our research, the type of shuttle service can vary. For example, Bob  Hope-Burbank airport reports that a free shuttle service transports  passengers to the Amtrak station. On the other hand, at Seattle-Tacoma  airport, passengers may use a private shuttle that charges a fee to connect  to the Amtrak station. Of these 13 airports, only one—Newark’s Liberty  International Airport—reported that passengers could also access the  Amtrak station by an automated people mover. The accessibility of Amtrak  to Newark airport has allowed Continental Airlines to establish a code  share agreement with Amtrak, whereby passengers can purchase one  ticket for a journey that includes travel by both air and rail.
section_title: Many Airports Are Planning to Improve Intermodal Connections to Local Rail and Bus Systems
paragraphs: Twenty airports reported that their airport capital improvement plan  included proposals to improve intermodal capabilities. At several airports,  these proposals are in anticipation of expected growth in enplanements  and the need to provide airline passengers and airport employees with  alternative transportation modes to access the airports. Most of the  airports with plans to improve intermodal services intend to enhance their  direct connections to the local transportation system rather than to  nationwide systems, as shown in table 5. Only two airports, Baltimore- Washington International and Dallas/Fort Worth International, reported  plans to add a direct connection to a nationwide transportation system,  both of them to a nationwide bus service.
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. 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.
section_title: Development of Intermodal Capabilities May Provide a Range of Benefits; However, Substantial Costs and Barriers Affect their Development
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Intermodal Capabilities Can Provide Benefits; However, Evaluation of Benefits Can Be Difficult
paragraphs: Based on our interviews with U.S. and European transportation officials  and our prior work, we identified a number of benefits that can be derived  from the development of intermodal capabilities at airports. These  capabilities can benefit not only airline passengers and airports, but also  airport and airline employees and society at large. We found that many of  the benefits cited mirror those that derive from transit projects in general.  However, officials had not evaluated specific airport intermodal projects or  measured the benefits that may have actually occurred. Due to the post- implementation evaluation requirements that were established for the New  Starts program in 2000, those projects that were subsequently selected  under the New Starts program will be evaluated over the coming years.
subsections: section_title: Intermodality Provides Alternative Transportation Options with the Potential to Reduce Travel Times and Costs
paragraphs: Transportation and airport officials we spoke with said that providing  passengers and employees alternative transportation options was a major  benefit of developing intermodal capabilities at airports. Our prior  research has shown that transit investments can provide direct benefits to  travelers by improving travel times for existing transit users, improving  travel times for automobiles and trucks on alternative roadways, lowering  the use of automobiles and the associated environmental costs by  attracting riders out of their vehicles, and providing a back-up or future  option for nonusers of transit. In some cases, these alternative  transportation options may also provide a benefit of reduced travel times  and costs in comparison to traveling in a private vehicle (including shuttle  or taxi) on congested highways. Potential savings for passengers could  include the cost of gas, taxi service, or parking. Several local transportation  officials told us that the benefits of intermodal capabilities are maximized  when the supporting transit system is reliable and is part of a larger transit  network. For example, officials from the Port Authority of New York and  New Jersey said that the automated people mover that connects a terminal  at Newark airport to a new Amtrak and transit rail station was developed to  provide access to many destinations in the New York City area and beyond.  In fact, Amtrak officials stated that a large number of Amtrak passengers  using the Newark airport station are coming from Philadelphia and  Washington, D.C.
Airport officials stated that another benefit of airport intermodal  capabilities is the potential to reduce congestion on nearby highways,  airport access roads, and the terminal curbside. Transportation and airport  officials stated that a byproduct of reduced road congestion is a reduction  of vehicle emissions and improved air quality. For example, it was  estimated that the extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit to the San  Francisco airport would reduce road traffic around the airport by 4,530  daily vehicular trips, representing 6 percent of the daily vehicular trips to  the airport. While officials believe intermodal projects improve access to  airports and reduce vehicle emissions, they also stated that it is difficult to  determine how trip reductions affect overall congestion since congestion is  affected by many factors, such as land use, traffic patterns, and general  economic conditions, that are difficult to isolate.
section_title: Intermodality May Allow for the More Efficient Use of Congested Air Space
paragraphs: Transportation industry experts and European transportation officials we  interviewed stated that another potential benefit of intermodal capabilities  at airports is the more efficient use of air space and existing capacity at  congested airports through the replacement of short-haul flights with rail  service. The potential reduction of short-haul flights could allow airlines to  reallocate airport capacity to long-distance flights, which generally have  lower costs per mile. However, our prior work 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. Transportation officials we talked with also stated that the  realization of these benefits depends on a reliable and extensive rail  network that would provide competitive service to air travel about travel  time, frequency of service, and passenger convenience. This situation has  occurred in several cases in Europe, where some national governments  have established policies to reduce the number of short-haul flights at their  major airports and have supported these policies by funding high-speed rail  infrastructure. For example, there has been a reduction of air service  between Paris, France and Brussels, Belgium—a popular short distance  city pair for travelers—due, in part, to the high-speed train service linking  Paris Charles de Gaulle airport and downtown Paris with Brussels (see fig.  8). Air France has replaced five Paris-to-Brussels flights with Thalys high- speed rail service.
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.
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.
section_title: Specific Benefits Can Be Difficult to Evaluate
paragraphs: Measuring and forecasting the benefits of individual intermodal projects  can be challenging in part due to data quality limitations. In our prior  work, we identified data quality as a pivotal concern in measuring and  forecasting traffic flow, such as the number of passengers using public  transportation to get to the airport compared to the number of passengers  using private vehicles, as reliable and complete data are not always  available. This information is generally collected through surveys of  passengers at airports. However, since these surveys can be very expensive  to conduct, only airports with significant financial resources conduct these  surveys, and then only every few years. Moreover, such surveys tend to  result in low response rates, which are often associated with biased  estimates due to differences between passengers who agree to participate  and those who do not participate in the survey.
Transportation officials at our 16 case study locations told us that their  intermodal capabilities have not been evaluated, and therefore they are not  able to quantify their benefits. This situation should change for future  intermodal projects that receive funds through the New Starts program.  FTA’s Major Capital Investment rule, that went into effect in April 2001,  requires that New Starts grantees conduct “before and after studies” on  approved projects. Project sponsors will need to present a complete plan  for collection and analysis of information to identify the impacts of the  New Starts project and the accuracy of the forecasts. As of June 2005, FTA  has awarded nine full funding agreements that will require these before and  after studies. Those intermodal projects at airports that use New Starts  funding will have to incorporate post-implementation evaluation into the  project and face these data quality challenges.
section_title: Intermodal Costs Vary Depending on Project Complexity and Scope
paragraphs: Based on our interviews with federal and local transportation officials, we  found that intermodal project costs can vary significantly, depending in  part on the complexity and scope of the project. We found that these  projects may be as simple as placing a bus stop at the terminal or as  complex as developing a new rail transit system with an airport station. In  general, bus projects cost significantly less than rail projects. For example,  we previously reported 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.
section_title: Barriers Impede the Development and Use of Intermodal Capabilities
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Difficulty of Securing Funding
paragraphs: 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. In  particular, several local transportation officials mentioned that the  requirement that PFC funds be used for projects on airport property,  among other criteria, limits their use for intermodal projects. However,  even with this restriction, we found that four airport authorities used PFC  funds to develop or contribute to intermodal projects at airports, as shown  in table 7.
Airlines, moreover, support these restrictions on the use of PFC funds.  Several airlines told us that the primary objective of PFCs is to fund on- airport development and capacity improvements, and not ground-access  projects, which airlines believe should be funded through local and state  governments. In fact, airline officials stated that when PFCs are used for  intermodal projects, airport funding is depleted and less will be available  for other infrastructure projects that directly benefit aviation operations,  such as runway renovations.
Local transportation officials said it can also be difficult to secure the local  funds needed to develop an intermodal airport project. These officials  agreed that local funding typically comes from several agencies, such as  metropolitan transportation authorities, transit agencies, and airport  authorities—all with potentially different project funding priorities. Local  transportation officials agreed that these differing priorities can make it  difficult to build the unified local support necessary to secure funding,  especially when intermodal projects are competing with other  transportation or transit projects for limited funds.
section_title: Disincentives for Airport Support
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Geographical and Physical Land Constraints
paragraphs: 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. On the other hand, it is these  same densely populated urban areas where rail connections to airports are  more likely to generate benefits that will justify the costs, as these areas  may have high levels of congestion and larger numbers of people willing to  use public transportation to access airports as a result.
Transportation planning officials in California stated that geographic  constraints were a barrier to developing route alternatives for the state’s  proposed high-speed rail system. While one of their objectives is to connect  the system to the airports as directly as possible, they realize that it may  not be possible because some California airports are located in areas that  are difficult to access without requiring significant disruptions that may  include dislocation of established commercial and residential sites.
As another example, BART officials said that because federally protected  wetlands are located adjacent to the San Francisco airport, officials had to  modify the transit route into the airport to ensure there would be minimum  impact on the wetlands. Since the proposed light rail line into the  Minneapolis/St. Paul airport crossed land owned by various federal  agencies, the process to gain the needed right-of-way was a multi-agency  effort that required significant coordination, adding somewhat to the  project planning time and costs.
section_title: Limitations of Existing Rail Network
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Difficulty of Coordinating Along Longer Transportation Corridors
paragraphs: In our prior work, we stated that transportation corridors that extend  across multiple state and local boundaries pose challenges for intermodal  transportation decision making due to coordination and cross- jurisdictional issues. Getting the cooperation of and coordination  between these different officials can make the planning and  implementation of multistate and multiregion projects difficult. During our  interviews, we found that many intermodal projects included multiple  agencies, communities, and transportation modes—each with its own  priorities. For example, during the planning of the Seattle light rail, Sound  Transit officials noted that the alignment from downtown Seattle to the  Seattle airport ran through a number of surrounding cities. This required  three local cities to approve permits for the construction of the project.
section_title: Inability of Ground Connections to Meet Airline Passenger Preferences
paragraphs: The development and use of intermodal connections at airports can be  limited by the inability of the ground connections to meet the preferences  of airline passengers. According to transportation research 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.   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). 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.
section_title: Two Key Strategies Could Help Address Intermodal Transportation Planning and Financing Limitations
paragraphs: 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. A framework with key elements could  assist in the consideration and implementation of either strategy. The first  strategy would be to increase the funding flexibility of federal, state, and  local transportation agencies under U.S. transportation policy’s focus on  local decisionmaking in order to encourage a more systemwide approach  to transportation planning and development. This strategy could help  overcome the difficulty of securing funding for intermodal projects at  airports, which local transportation officials identified most often as a  barrier to improving such capabilities. It would most likely lead to a  continued focus on the development of local intermodal connections rather  than a fully integrated nationwide system. The second strategy would  involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation policy’s long-time  focus on state and local decisionmaking by increasing the role of the  federal government in planning and funding intermodal projects in order to  develop more integrated air and rail networks, either nationwide or along  particularly congested corridors. This strategy would be closer to the  intermodal development strategy followed by the European Union and  several European countries, or to the strategy the federal government used  to develop the interstate highway system. Such a strategy could increase  intermodal options and American mobility through broad policy and  funding changes, but the high cost of rail investments and the resulting high  costs of this strategy would make it difficult to justify on a nationwide  scale.
subsections: section_title: Key Components of a Framework Would Help Guide Either Strategy
paragraphs: Building on the perspectives gained from our past work in federal  investment strategies and the work of transportation experts, we  developed a framework to help guide consideration of the two strategies.  This framework has three components:  Set national goals for the system. These goals, which would establish  what federal participation in the system is designed to accomplish,  should be specific and measurable.
Clearly define the federal role relative to state and local transportation  roles. The federal government is one of many stakeholders involved in  the development of intermodal capabilities at airports. This component  is important to help ensure that the federal role supplements and  enhances the participation of other stakeholders.
Determine which funding approaches, such as alternatives to  investment in new infrastructure, will maximize the impact of any  federal investment. This component can help expand the ability to  leverage funding resources and promote shared responsibilities. Given  the current budgetary environment, and the long-range fiscal challenges  confronting the country, substantial increases in funding for  transportation projects will require a high level of justification.
In addition, either strategy would benefit from a process for evaluating  performance periodically to determine if the anticipated benefits are  accruing. Evaluations also provide a means to periodically examine  established goals, roles, and approaches, and a basis to modify them, as  necessary. Leading organizations have stressed the importance of  developing performance measures and linking investment decisions and  their expected outcomes to overall strategic goals and objectives. 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.
section_title: First Strategy: Providing Federal and State Transportation Agencies Flexibility in Developing Intermodal Transportation
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Establishing National Transportation Goals that Integrate Airports
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
section_title: Defining the Appropriate Federal Role
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Establishing a Systemwide Approach to Intermodal Funding
paragraphs: Federal transportation funding, which is focused on individual  transportation modes, could be shifted to a more systemwide approach  across all modes and types of travel. Under the federal transportation  planning and funding structure, local transportation agencies tap into  federal funds for transportation projects through different federal  programs and agencies, based on the relevant mode. Each federal program  has specific requirements and criteria, which can limit how local  transportation can access and use funds from these programs. In addition,  intermodal projects at airports can involve multi-jurisdictions, which can  present challenges under the current structure. For example, for  passengers or airports to obtain the full benefits of providing alternative  transportation options, intermodal capabilities need to be connected to  large local transit or national rail systems. Such systems often provide  service to multi-jurisdictions and, therefore, their planning and  development require cooperation among multiple transportation providers  and planners, such as state departments of transportation, local transit  agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and city and county  governments.
To break down the current funding stovepipes and promote intermodal  development, the federal government could consider several alternatives  for transportation planning and funding that might better focus on these  outcomes and promote better coordination between jurisdictions. These  alternatives include:  Increasing the flexibility of current programs. The current system of  financing surface and aviation transportation projects limits options for  addressing intermodal capabilities. During our interviews, officials  highlighted that because federal, state, and local funding comes from  different sources such as the New Starts program and PFCs, it is  difficult to consider efficient and effective ways to enhance intermodal  capabilities at airports. Providing more flexibility in funding across  modes could help address this barrier.
Applying different federal matching criteria for different types of  expenditures in order to provide a higher level of federal match for  projects that reflect federal priorities.
Establishing a performance-oriented funding or reward-based system.
Federal funds would favor those entities that address national interests  and meet established intermodal goals. Federal support would reward  those states or localities that apply federal money to gain efficiencies in  their transportation systems, or develop intermodal capabilities at local  airports.
Expanding support for alternative financing mechanisms. The public  sector could also expand its financial support for alternative financing  mechanisms to access new sources of capital and stimulate additional  investment in intermodal capabilities. These mechanisms include both  newly emerging and existing financing techniques such as providing  credit assistance to state and local governments for capital projects and  using tax policy to provide incentives to the private sector for investing  in intermodal capabilities. In some cases, when use and benefits are  predicted to be high, private sector revenues may be an option.
Aligning incentives for planning agencies to adopt best practices and to  achieve expectations. Aligning incentives for existing and new programs  or approaches to facilitate the use of better intermodal transportation  project planning and funding options could improve the efficiency of  federal transportation programs in enhancing intermodal connections  between surface and air transportation, especially in multistate  transportation corridors, where many planning agencies have to  cooperate in establishing priorities.
section_title: Benefits Likely to Be Focused on Local, Not Nationwide Travel
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Second Strategy: Increasing the Involvement of the Federal Government in Developing a Nationwide Intermodal Transportation System
paragraphs: If Congress decides that a more aggressive intermodal development  strategy is required, it could increase the federal government’s involvement  in developing a nationwide intermodal transportation system, similar to  efforts in the 1950s to develop the interstate highway system. Such a  strategy would involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation  policy’s focus on state and local decisionmaking for transportation projects  and would be closer to the intermodal development strategy followed by  the European Union (and several European countries) with the goal of  promoting rail as a complement to air transportation. For example, the  European Union and individual European nations are currently supporting  the development of air-rail networks through government funding of high- speed rail infrastructure. In line with this focus, Germany and France have  built new dedicated high-speed rail lines that are used only for passenger  service and some of which include train stations at their largest airports.  While Europe provides examples of how to develop intermodal capabilities  at airports, significant differences in population density, geography, and  private vehicle costs between the United States and Europe would limit the  use of the European model in the United States. (See app. II for more  information on the development of air-rail connections in Europe.)
subsections: section_title: Establishing National Transportation Goals to Develop Intermodal Capabilities
paragraphs: Congress could establish national goals for the development of intermodal  capacities at U.S. airports that would increase the federal government’s  role in developing a nationwide intermodal transportation system that  focuses on connecting air and ground transportation. Congress has set a  precedent for establishing national policy for large nationwide  transportation infrastructure with the development of the interstate  highway system. This system was primarily developed to address (1) the  public’s demand for efficient long-distance travel, (2) the needs of the  military, and (3) national economic development through the connection of  metropolitan and industrial areas. While the interstate highway system was  focused on a single mode, the national intermodal transportation goals  could focus on all modes and the connections between them. Therefore,  the goals could include not only the development of facilities and  connections on airport property, but also the development of a supporting  transportation network to provide air passengers the ability to reach their  final destination.
Many European governments have emphasized intermodal connections  between air and rail within their national transportation policies, with the  goal of addressing limited airport capacity and environmental issues. For  example, the European Union’s transport policy states that improving the  intermodal connections between European airports and the high-speed rail  network is a top priority. (See app. II for additional information of trans- European transport network.)
section_title: Define the Federal Role in Planning Intermodal Capabilities
paragraphs: The federal government could take a more active role—versus state and  local transportation agencies—in the planning of intermodal connections  between airports and other transportation modes. In terms of planning, the  interstate highway system provides an example of how active involvement  by the federal government could lead to the development of a nationwide  intermodal system. In that case, the federal government provided project- specific oversight, laid out the routes, oversaw construction, and ensured  that the system was adequately maintained. To develop a nationwide  intermodal system that focuses on connecting airports to a rail network of  sufficient quality to attract significant number of riders, the federal  government could potentially take on similar roles. The European high- speed rail network is another example of governments taking an active role  in developing larger transportation networks that connect to airports. For  example, the French government plays a major role in developing its high- speed rail system—Train à Grande Vitesse. There are four main  participants in the nation’s rail network, including the central government, regional governments, Réseau Ferré de France, and the Société Nationale  des Chemins de fer Français. 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.
section_title: Determining the Appropriate Federal Funding Sources
paragraphs: For the federal government to take a more active role in developing airport  intermodal capabilities, it might also need to take on additional federal  funding responsibilities. This would be especially true if the federal policy  was to develop a system that promoted connections between airport and  high-speed rail networks, similar to the systems that have been developed  in Europe. To fully develop an intermodal system that provides airline  passengers with nationwide rail options that are comparable to European  systems and that could potentially compete with air service, would require  expanding and improving the existing U.S. rail network and rail service.  Except in limited highly traveled corridors, Amtrak cannot provide the  level of service that airlines require, in part, because much of the U.S. rail  infrastructure is privately owned by freight companies and passenger trains  do not receive priority in scheduling. To accomplish improved air-rail  connections, the federal government would have to increase its funding  role due to the high cost of enhancing or expanding rail service or  developing high-speed rail corridors.
Congress has in the past provided significant funding for large  transportation projects that were deemed to be in the national interest and  were geared toward reaching national goals. For example, between 1954  and 2001, Congress apportioned over $370 billion for the construction and  preservation of the interstate highway system. Increased federal  involvement in the development of nationwide intermodal capabilities at  U.S. airports would be costly and could require the implementation of a  dedicated funding source. The full costs of any intermodal capability would  be dependent on how integrated and expansive this network would be and  whether it included additional high-speed rail or focused on conventional  passenger rail service. Our prior work has shown that both choices are  costly. In the past, we have reported on Amtrak’s precarious financial  situation, for which Congress has periodically provided large-scale  infusions of federal funds for capital expenses. 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.
Unlike the capital investment in infrastructure for airports, highways, and  transit, which receive significant federal money from dedicated funding  sources, the national rail system’s infrastructure is funded by annual  appropriations and must compete with other federal programs for funds on  an annual basis. Therefore, to establish any long-term strategy to fund  improvements between the national rail system and airports could require  the establishment of a dedicated funding source. For example, in the past,  it has been suggested that Amtrak could be funded through a dedicated  funding source, such as one of the federal transportation trust funds. Even  if a revenue source is established, this new funding would face many of the  same revenue challenges that other transportation systems, such as  highways, are facing as revenue sources are eroded.
Both the European Union and European governments have invested  significant funds in the development of high-speed rail networks that  provide passengers the option of fast intercity travel. For example, the  European Union estimated in 2003 that the total cost of completing the  trans-European transport rail network would be around 350 billion euros.
In addition, some European governments provide a significant portion of  funding for all new rail infrastructure. For example, the Swiss government  has established a vehicle tax on all Swiss and foreign freight trucks using  Swiss roads to help fund its rail network, among other things. Two-thirds of  the revenue collected from this tax is allocated to improving the Swiss rail  infrastructure. Germany has also enacted a specific toll on freight vehicles  based on a user charge for actual mileage driven. The revenue collected  from this toll will be used to finance the Anti-Congestion Scheme for  Federal Railway Infrastructure program, among other programs.
section_title: Anticipated Benefits May Not Justify High Costs
paragraphs: Given the high costs of this strategy, benefits high enough to justify  investment in intermodal facilities would likely be anticipated in a limited  number of places, at most. Both private and public benefits could result  from this investment. Users of the investment would receive private  benefits in the form of transportation services and would be expected to  pay some form of fee or user charge. How much users would be willing to  pay would depend on the value of the services that they would receive from  the intermodal facility, compared with the benefits from alternative modes  that they could also use for the same trip and the prices they would have to  pay for the alternatives. In locations where there is highway congestion, a  rail link to the airport might be valuable to many travelers because it could  offer a travel option that might reduce travel time or make the travel time  more reliable. Similarly, if airport parking is expensive, an intermodal link  might have considerable value to travelers. However, such a link might be  of less value where there is little congestion and parking is inexpensive; in  such situations, we would not anticipate that many travelers would be  willing to pay much to use a new facility.
In addition to these private benefits, there may be public benefits that users  would not take into account in deciding how often to use the facility and  how much they would be willing to pay. The public benefits could include  reduced highway and air congestion, pollution, and energy dependence.  For example, if air passengers can access a nationwide rail network  directly at an airport, some passengers might travel to that airport from  other cities by train rather than on highways or short-haul flights, which  might reduce highway or airport and airway congestion. However, the  demand for such service is likely to be low except in a few highly congested  travel corridors where the distances are short enough to make rail travel  times competitive with air travel times. 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.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: The limited nature of intermodal connections at major U.S. airports is most  likely the result of many factors. One underlying factor is a lack of demand.  Due to the inconvenience of transferring from airplane to train or bus,  potentially higher travel times, and out-of-pocket costs, many American  travelers in many parts of the country are likely to continue to prefer car  travel over transit to access the airport and short-haul flights over  connections to a nationwide rail system to complete an overall journey.  There is likely to be a greater demand for such connections in a few highly  traveled corridors where higher private benefits to individual travelers and  public benefits such as reduced congestion on roadways would be more  likely to result. Moreover, in the context of federal transportation policy’s  emphasis on local decision making, local officials in communities with  strong local bus and rail transit systems have worked to connect airports to  these systems. A federal strategy of encouraging a more systematic  approach to transportation planning—including alternative funding  mechanisms—could encourage state and local governments to consider  the development of additional intermodal connections at airports in the  context of other transportation investment decisions. At the same time, it is  clear that more quantitative evaluations of the benefits of intermodal  capabilities at airports could help to better inform state and local as well as  federal decision makers as they attempt to determine which projects to  develop with limited resources. The before and after evaluation  requirement for projects that receive funding through the New Starts  program is a positive step in this direction and could potentially be more  widely applied.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report addressed the following questions: (1) What roles do federal,  state, and local governments and the private sector play in developing  intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? (2) To what extent have intermodal  services and facilities been developed at selected U.S. airports?  (3) What  benefits, costs, and barriers exist for developing additional intermodal  capabilities at U.S. airports? (4) What transportation strategies, including  lessons learned from the European experience, may help public decision- makers improve intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports?
To address these questions, we used a variety of methods and sources of  information. To determine the roles that federal, state, and local  governments and the private sector play in developing intermodal  capabilities at U.S. airports, we interviewed transportation officials from  the following Department of Transportation (DOT) offices: Federal  Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),  Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Office of Intermodalism. We  also interviewed officials from the American Bus Association, Association  of American Railroads, Association of Metropolitan Planning  Organizations, Airports Council International-North American, American  Public Transportation Association, International Air Rail Organization,  Amtrak, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Midwest Airlines, and  Northwest Airlines. In addition, we interviewed officials from state and  local transportation offices, metropolitan planning organizations, transit  authorities, and airport authorities representing selected airports, which  are identified later in this appendix.
To determine the extent to which intermodal services and facilities have  been developed at major U.S. airports, we selected and administered a  Web-based survey to 72 airports from FAA’s 2003 Air Carrier Activity  Information System database. These airports accounted for approximately  90 percent of the enplanements for calendar year 2003, and consist of all 33  large hub, all 35 medium hub, and the 4 small hub airports that are located in the same metropolitan area as a large or medium hub airport. 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,  resulting in a 100 percent response rate. To ensure the accuracy of  information presented by the airport officials, we relied on Salk  International’s Airport Transit Guide and follow-up questions at selected  airports. We are not reporting responses for two questions on the survey  because we determined that these responses were unreliable. During our  pretests of the survey questionnaire, some respondents gave incorrect  answers to questions about the existence of stations for either Amtrak or a  nationwide bus system within their metropolitan area (questions 5 and 13).  Based on follow-up questions, we discovered that some pretest  respondents were unaware of some stations located within their  metropolitan area, especially in instances where there was no direct access  between the airport and these stations. In addition, some respondents were  unaware of the exact boundaries of their metropolitan area. Despite these  difficulties, we elected to leave these questions in the survey because of  their role in screening respondents and setting the context for subsequent  questions. The nature of the errors were such that false negative responses  would be unlikely to lead to errors in subsequent questions. That is, it is  unlikely that an airport that actually had direct connections to a nationwide  bus or rail system would state that there was not a station for such a system  in their metropolitan area. We conclude that responses to the remaining  questions are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Appendix  IV provides the survey results. The survey results (GAO-05-738SP) are also  available on the GAO Web site at http://newwww.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao- 05-738SP/index.html.
To obtain information on the benefits, costs, and barriers in developing  intermodal capabilities at selected U.S. airports, we conducted case study  analysis of 16 selected airports. Airports for our case studies were chosen  based on airport size, planned or existing types of intermodal service, 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.
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.
section_title: Intermodal Connections at Airports in Europe
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Role of the European Union in Developing Air-Rail Connections
paragraphs: In 1992, the European Union established a transportation policy with the  guiding principle to open up the transportation market between member  countries. This policy included increasing competition within the aviation  industry, striking a balance between growth in air transportation and the  environment, and building new transportation infrastructure. The  European Commission’s Directorate-General for Transport and Energy is  the transportation agency for the European Union and is responsible for  developing and implementing transportation policy. This office carries out  these tasks using legislative proposals—which establish specific  requirements or regulations that member countries must implement—and  program management including the financing of certain transportation  projects. While the European Union has established a European Union- wide policy, individual member nations are responsible for planning and  funding not only European Union-designated priority projects, but also  their own individual transportation priorities.
In July 1996, the European Union established guidelines for developing a  trans-European transportation network that comprises roads, railways,  airports, seaports, inland ports and traffic management systems that serve  the entire European Union. The guidelines included a list of priority  projects that can receive funding from the European Union. For those  priority projects, the European Union generally funded up to 50 percent of  the project study costs and up to 10 percent of project development costs.   Member nations are primarily responsible for planning, designing, funding,  and building these projects.
section_title: Role of Member Nations and Local Entities in Developing Air-Rail Connections
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.
section_title: Differences between the United States and Europe Limit Usefulness of “European Model”
paragraphs: Examining international models can provide examples of how a more  active federal role can help in developing a nationwide rail network,  including intermodal capabilities at airports. However, significant  differences between the United States and other nations would limit the  use of these international models. Based on information we gathered from  intermodal transportation experts and research we reviewed, we identified  three basic differences between the United States and Europe that affect  the ability to use the European model in the United States.
Population density.  Experts and prior research highlight the greater  population density of European cities and that downtowns are major  destination points for passengers as key differences that affect the use  of intermodal systems. While some U.S. cities have population densities  comparable to European cities, in general, U.S. cities are more  decentralized. In addition, prior research has shown that European  cities generally have a greater downtown orientation for passengers as  compared to U.S. cities, and so intermodal systems providing direct  access to downtown will have a greater ability to draw passengers.
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.
section_title: Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Federal Funding
paragraphs: The New Starts program is used to select for federal funding new rail  transit projects, including those that connect to airports. New Starts is the  Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) capital investment program for  fixed guideway systems and extensions. For selected projects, a maximum  of 80 percent federal contribution to total project costs can be funded, but  projects that request a maximum federal share of 60 percent of the project’s  total cost receive higher priority. For example, parts of the BART extension  to the San Francisco International Airport and the Hiawatha Light Rail Line  to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport were funded through the  New Starts program. Other federal programs provide support for highway  and transit systems that may be connected to airports. For example, federal  highway fuel taxes are deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and  distributed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FTA to  state transportation departments and local transit operators. While most  federal funding sources and programs are linked to highway or transit uses,  some funding flexibility between highway and transit is allowed under  programs such as the Surface Transportation Program and the Congestion  Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, both of which have been  used to fund intermodal projects.
In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport  Improvement Program (AIP) provides grants to airports for planning and  development projects. The program is funded in part by aviation user taxes,  which are deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Funds are  allocated to airports with scheduled commercial service and at least 10,000  enplanements each year. 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.
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.
section_title: State and Local Funding
paragraphs: 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. Some local  governments and transit agencies have also dedicated a portion of property  tax or payroll tax for rail projects to airports. Also, bridge, tunnel, and  highway tolls have in part funded automated people mover systems at John  F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and Newark Liberty Airport  in New Jersey. In addition, cities and counties can provide capital and  operating costs for rail projects. Further, local governments have  established special tax districts such as “transportation improvement  districts” that can tax businesses in order to capture the value added to a  business or property with close access to a rail project. In this way, those  who receive the benefits of increased economic activity or increased  property value contribute to project costs. For example, a transportation  improvement district was established to help fund the proposed rail  extension to the Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
Like the federal government, states have their own credit assistance  programs. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 allows up  to 10 states to capitalize transportation credit assistance banks to provide  loans and credit enhancement to eligible surface transportation projects.  For example, under this program, Florida used funds authorized under the  Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to capitalize its credit  assistance bank, which funded in part the development of the Miami  Intermodal Center at Miami International Airport.
PFCs and airport revenue are the primary sources of local airport  contributions to funding projects that provide rail access to airports. For a  project to be eligible to use PFCs, it must be airport owned, on airport  property, and be exclusively for the use of airport passengers and  employees. 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,  parking, terminal concessions, and airline landing fees and rentals. For  example, the Miami Intermodal Center will levy a customer facility charge  on car rentals to pay for its consolidated rental car facility. The eligibility  criteria for the use of airport revenue are similar to PFCs, but projects must  only be directly or substantially related to the air transportation of  passengers and property rather than for exclusive use. FAA does not  approve the use of airport revenue for a particular project, unless an  airport or airport user complains that funds are being inappropriately used.
State and local governments have used federal funding, PFCs, and airport  revenue to back tax-exempt bonds. Also, Grant Anticipation Notes backed  by New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements 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.
section_title: Private Sector Investment
paragraphs: Private investment in intermodal capabilities has occurred through public-  private partnerships. For example, Portland International Airport entered  into a public-private partnership with the builder of its light rail extension  to the airport. In return, the builder has a 85-year lease on the property to  develop retail or office space.
section_title: Survey Results
subsections: section_title: 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?
paragraphs: 0 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.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? 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? 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?
Plans to build ground transportation facilities 17. Does (   ) Airport have a Capital Improvement Plan? 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. 19. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to build a train station  for a nationwide train system, such as Amtrak? 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. 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. 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? 23. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan have any other proposals to improve  passengers' access to trains and buses?
The answers to these questions are unreliable. See appendix I for more details.
section_title: Survey Results on Existing and Planned Bus and Rail Connections
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Selected Airport Case Studies
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Baltimore-Washington International Airport
paragraphs: Intermodal Facilities – Baltimore-Washington International Airport has  the following intermodal connections (see fig. 11).
Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport’s  terminal.
Local rail: Passengers can access three different local rail transit  systems. A station for Baltimore’s local rail transit system is located at  the north end of the airport’s terminal. A local commuter rail stops at an  Amtrak station that is located within two miles of the terminal and can  be accessed by a free shuttle bus from airport terminals. In addition, a  station for Washington, D.C.’s local rail transit system can be accessed  by an express bus from the airport’s terminal.
Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can access Amtrak at a station  located within two miles of the airport and connected to the terminal by  a free shuttle.
Plans for additional facilities: The airport is evaluating the need for and  feasibility of developing a regional intermodal transportation center and  an automated people mover system that would connect the airport to  the Amtrak rail station, satellite parking lots, and a consolidated rental  car facility.
Key Local Stakeholders – The Baltimore-Washington airport is owned  and operated by the Maryland Aviation Administration, which is part of the  Maryland Department of Transportation. At the state level, the department  of transportation leads intermodal planning and coordination between  state transportation agencies through the airport’s Access Coordination  Group. This group is comprised of various state and local government  agencies that coordinate project information and resolve any problems or  issues. The aviation administration is the lead agency in planning and  coordinating intermodal facilities at the airport with federal agencies (such  as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), state agencies, local  governments, private sector organizations, and public stakeholders. Other  key organizations include the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, the  metropolitan planning organization for the Baltimore region, and Anne  Arundel County, which regulates land development on nonstate and federal  property. The Maryland Transit Administration provides local bus and rail  transit service, and Howard County Transit and Annapolis Transit provide  local bus service. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority  provides express bus service to the Greenbelt station of Washington, D.C.’s  local rail transit system, Metro.
section_title: Los Angeles International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Miami International Airport
paragraphs: Intermodal Facilities -- Miami International Airport has the following  intermodal connections (see fig. 13).
Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport’s  passenger terminal.
Local rail: No connections.
Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.
Plans for additional facilities: Construction has started on the Miami  Intermodal Center, located east of the airport's main terminal. The first  phase of the center will include the construction of a consolidated rental  car facility, a central bus and rail station, and an automated people  mover that will connect the center with the airport. The entire first  phase is scheduled to be under construction or completed by late 2008.  The second phase consists of the construction of additional rail  platforms for Amtrak and local rail. Both phases are expected to be  completed over a 20-year period.
Key Local Stakeholders – Miami airport is owned and operated by the  Miami-Dade Aviation Department, a county transportation agency. The  Florida Department of Transportation is the lead agency in the  development of the intermodal center. As the lead agency, the department  of transportation coordinates with other stakeholders—including Miami- Dade Transit, which provides the county’s bus, rail, and other transit  services; Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, which oversees the operation  and maintenance of five major county expressways; the Miami-Dade  Metropolitan Planning Organization, which is the regional transportation  planning body; and the Federal Highway Administration—the lead federal  agency—which ensures that environmental concerns are addressed and  facilitates coordination among other affected federal agencies.
section_title: Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Newark Liberty International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: New York John F. Kennedy International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Oakland International Airport
paragraphs: Intermodal Facilities – Oakland International Airport has the following  intermodal connections (see fig. 18).
Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport’s  terminals.
Local rail: Passengers can access the local rail transit system at a station  about 3 miles east of the airport and connected to airport terminals by a  shuttle. A fee is charged for this shuttle.
Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can also access an Amtrak station  using the shuttle.
Plans for additional facilities: There are plans to construct a 3.2 mile  elevated automated people mover system that would connect the  airport to a local rail station.
Key Local Stakeholders – Oakland airport is owned and operated by the  Port of Oakland—a city agency. The airport is responsible for all ground  transportation systems on airport property and works closely with the local  rail transit agency, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), and the Alameda- Contra Costa Transit District to provide public transportation service.  Other agencies involved in the development of the planned automated  people mover system include Alameda County, the city of Oakland, the  Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, the Alameda County  Transportation Improvement Authority, and the Metropolitan  Transportation Commission.
section_title: Portland International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: San Francisco International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Washington Dulles International Airport
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.