IARO report 23.15 Extending your rail link at a growing airport 1
IARO Report 23.15: Extending your rail link at a growing airport Published by: International Air Rail Organisation Suite 3, Charter House, 26 Claremont Road, Surbiton KT6 4QZ UK Telephone +44 (0)20 8390 0000 Fax +44 (0) 870 762 0434 website email www.iaro.com enquiries@iaro.com ISBN tba International Air Rail Organisation 2015 250 to non-members IARO's mission is to spread world class best practice and good practical ideas among airport rail links world-wide. 2
Contents Chapter Page 1 Introduction 4 2 Extending the railway to a new terminal 5 3 People-mover links 10 4 Extending a terminal around a station 16 5 Adding a second railway 18 6 Relocating the terminal to a railway 23 7 Conclusions 26 IARO's Air/Rail conferences and workshops 27 3
1. Introduction This report is partly based on an IARO workshop held at Milan Malpensa Airport in June 2015. The contribution of participants at that workshop is acknowledged, but the report, including any errors, is entirely the responsibility of the author. Options for serving a growing airport by rail As demand increases at an airport, planners will consider alternative ways of meeting that demand. The demand for additional aircraft movements will be met by the provision of additional runway and airside capacity and, by itself, will not require additional landside access. However, growing numbers of passengers and airport employees will require more terminal capacity and lead to more demand on the surface access network. At over 200 airports worldwide, rail is part of the access network, and there are 600 more airports where plans, projects or studies are in hand for rail access. This report is concerned with the 200 airports with existing rail links, and some of those of the 600 whose plans cover growth beyond the initial provision of a rail link. Each chapter in the report considers a type of enhanced or additional rail access when airport expansion is being planned. These types are: Extending the railway to a new terminal Connecting a new terminal to an existing station by a people-mover Extending a terminal around an existing station Adding a second rail link to a new terminal Relocating the terminal closer to a railway For each of these options, a number of examples are noted, and the advantages and disadvantage are discussed. Some examples are hybrids of the options, or exhibit features of more than one option. IARO classifies air-rail links into five types, although the boundaries are sometimes not precise. These five types are long distance/high speed, airport express, regional, suburban/metro and light rail. We also consider two other types, automated people-mover or bus shuttle (connecting an airport with a more distant rail service) and cargo. 4
2. Extending the railway to a new terminal Four examples of airports where an existing rail link has been extended are discussed, at Kuala Lumpur, Salt Lake City, Heathrow Terminal 5 and Milan Malpensa Airport. Kuala Lumpur KL International Airport opened in 1998. A rail link opened in 2002 with two services, KLIA Ekspres, a non stop service to KL Sentral and KLIA Transit, a commuter service with three intermediate stops. The rail link is operated as a 30 year concession. Passenger numbers at the Airport have grown to 23 million in 2005 and 47 million in 2013. In 2013 the rail links carried around 5 million passengers a year, a mode share of 18%. A Low Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) opened in 2006, which was connected to the rail link by bus. However, the LCCT was replaced by a new terminal, KLIA2, which opened in 2014 with the rail link extended to it. The rail link extension is around 2 km and the additional journey time is 3 minutes, plus 2 minutes station stop. All trains serve both terminals. The fare is the same for either terminal although there is a 2 Malaysian Ringit fare for travel between the terminals. The rail links have recorded a 40% increase in ridership since the opening of the extension, at a time when passengers through the airport have decreased. Funding arrangements for the extension are not clear, but it is believed that it is primarily government-funded, with some contribution from the Airport. Terminal 1 KLIA2 Rail link extension A study is under way of the feasibility of extending the rail link beyond the airport to link to other Malaysian cities. One option for this is to combine it with the route of a Kuala Lumpur- Singapore high speed line, but the current preferred route for this would not serve the airport. 5
Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Airport handled 21 million passengers in 2014. In 2013, a light rail link of the UTA's Trax system began operations. The initial station at the Airport is at the far end of one of the landside concourses. However, a current major expansion programme at the Airport includes the redevelopment and expansion of the terminal, at which point the rail link will be extended to be in the heart of the new complex. London Heathrow Terminal 5 Heathrow's Terminal 5 opened in 2008. The Airport handled 73 million passengers in 2014, 31 million of them through Terminal 5. Heathrow currently has two rail links. The Underground Piccadilly Line originally opened in 1977 and was extended to Terminal 4 in 1986. The Heathrow Express link opened in 1998. Terminals 123 Terminal 5 4 terminals 5 terminals Terminal 4 Heathrow Express extension Piccadilly Line extension 6
Both rail links had planned for later extensions. The Piccadilly Line had included a straight section for a new station, but this was not in the right location for Terminal 5, so a spur was constructed. The Heathrow Express line safeguarded for an extension to Terminal 5 by constructing a junction and stub tunnel west of the Terminal 123 station. Both extensions were required as a condition of the planning approval for Terminal 5 and opened at the same time as the new terminal. The total cost of the extensions was around 400 million, including the stations at Terminal 5 and both were funded by the airport company. The Heathrow Express train service is owned and operated by the Airport, so the business case for this extension was based on an internal rate of return. The Piccadilly Line is operated by Transport for London, which pays a track access fee to the Airport to use the extension. Both links required changes to their train timetables to ensure that all terminals were served. The Piccadilly Line previously operated as a loop, but trains now alternate between the loop serving Terminal 4 and the spur to Terminal 5. Heathrow Express operates all through trains to Terminal 5 with a shuttle service between Terminals 123 and 4, although this will change in the next few years when Crossrail trains serve the Airport using the Heathrow Express infrastructure. Further extensions are planned, as the Airport continues to grow. The alignment of the extensions to the west enables the links to be extended to either the north west or the south west, or both, to link with existing rail routes, and an additional box was constructed beneath Terminal 5 for allow for two additional platforms to be built. Milan Malpensa SEA, a public-private partnership, has a 40 year concession to manage Malpensa and Linate Airports. Malpensa handled 18.7 million passengers in 2014. Terminal 2, which was the original terminal before the new Terminal 1 opened, is now occupied by Easyjet carrying more than 6 million passengers a year The Malpensa Express rail link to Terminal 1 was opened in 1999, and now provides four trains per hour alternately to Cadorna and Centrale Stations with a journey time of 29 and 43 minutes respectively, some with intermediate stops. Terminal 2 is connected by a free bus shuttle to Terminal 1 and the rail station. Current overall rail share is 14.3%, but the share at Terminal 2 is 7.9%. The station at Terminal 1 was built with four platforms and the extension was safeguarded, but the project to extend the rail link to Terminal 2 began in 2010. In fact, the project began as a concept to extend the railway to the north to provide wider connections. 7
T1-T2 railink : first step of the Global project Nevertheless, a number of alternatives were considered, including closing Terminal 2 and expanding Terminal 1, or connecting the terminals by a people-mover. The chosen option enabled Terminal 2 to remain open as a low cost airline terminal, while the people mover option would have required passengers to interchange, and would not have formed part of a longer term wider rail route. Several route options were considered for the rail extension, including alternative locations for the Terminal 2 station, which will safeguard for a future further extension. Funding for the 115 million extension is shared between the national government, the regional government and SEA, with a contribution from the European Union under the Trans-European Networks (TEN-T) programme. Construction is due for completion by the end of 2015, with operations starting in 2016. 7 8
T2 Station works Studies of the options for wider rail links are ongoing, which includes links to regional and international services, high speed lines and alternative faster routes to central Milan. Summary of rail extensions In the examples discussed, the choice of an extension of the existing rail link was made because it would provide a significantly better service for passengers choosing rail and, for three of the four examples, could potentially be part of a further extension to wider rail links. Undoubtedly, these extensions are more expensive to build, and in some the airport operator has contributed financially, but the strategic and business case for the expenditure is clearly beneficial. 9
3. People-mover links Five examples of people-mover links at a growing airport are discussed: London Gatwick, Paris CDG, New York JFK, Miami and Orlando. London Gatwick The current Gatwick Airport opened in 1958 with a terminal directly adjacent to a main line railway. A second terminal (named North, with the first terminal named South) opened in 1988. The North Terminal is around 1km from the rail station and was connected by a people-mover system. Alternatives of a bus link and various other technologies were considered, but the choice was made of an automatic system with rubber-tyred vehicles on an elevated concrete track (in part because the airport already had a similar system for an airside satellite), and it was funded by the airport operator. As passenger numbers have grown, additional vehicles have been added. The service operates every 2 minutes at the peak with a 90 second journey time and is provided free. There is no significant difference in the rail share of passengers at the South and North Terminals (both around 35%), which demonstrates that, despite the need for interchange, the perception of the people-mover is that it is part of the airport and does not deter passengers from using rail. Gatwick Airport has proposed expansion with a second runway and another terminal, to the south of the South Terminal. Although this expansion has not been approved, the plan would have seen a similar people-mover operation between the station and the new terminal. 10
Paris CDG Paris CDG opened in 1974 with Terminal 1 and an RER rail link to a central location, from where it was connected to the terminal by bus. Terminal 2 opened in stages and included a second rail station, which served TGV as well as RER services. In this respect the extended RER link is similar to the extended links described in Chapter 2 of this report, and the TGV link is similar to those described in Chapter 5. Also, future plans for CDG include the CDG Express, another rail link which will also serve the Terminal 2 RER/TGV station. However, this section describes the CDG VAL system, which connects the rail station to other areas of the airport, including Terminal 1. CDG Airport handled 63.8 million passengers in 2014 and has a rail mode share of around 28%. An initial system was installed using cable hauled technology, but this was not successful and was replaced by the rubber tyre/steel track VAL system, developed initially by Matra, now part of Siemens, which opened in 2007. The CDG VAL system has two elements. The system was funded by Aeroports de Paris and is free to use. The main route connects the Terminal 2 station to the original RER station (now called Roissy Pole) which also serves the low cost airline Terminal 3, and to Terminal 1, replacing the former bus link. A second VAL system connects Terminal 2E with the airside concourses L and M. In this example, the main peoplemover system was retrofitted to the terminal complex a long time after its initial opening, but this has undoubtedly helped the airport to obtain a relatively high rail share, especially at Terminal 1. The people-mover systems also play a key role in enabling passengers to transfer between the Terminals, and for staff and visitors to access parts of the airport. New York JFK New York's JFK Airport handled 53.3 million passengers in 2014 and has six major terminals developed over many years. Initially, access between the terminals was by bus. There has never been a direct rail access, but a 'Train to the Plane' bus link connected the Subway to the Airport until 1990, and other surface access was by bus, taxi and car, all of which suffered from traffic congestion. Various plans were considered for a 'one seat ride', including extensions from the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and the Subway, but the Airtrain 11
concept was chosen and opened in 2003. The project cost $1.9 billion and was part funded by a $4.50 per passenger facility charge which was challenged (unsuccessfully) by airlines. The system uses Bombardier steel wheel/steel rail automated trains powered by linear induction motors and has three elements. An inter terminal system enables passengers to transfer between the terminal. Two routes then join all the terminals with the LIRR and Subway at Jamaica and the Subway at Howard Beach, with intermediate stations serving rental car and parking locations. Airtrain is free to ride between the terminals and the car parks, and has a $5 fare for access to the rail stations. 12% of JFK passengers use Airtrain to the stations. The choice of a people-mover system for JFK was partly driven by the need for an inter terminal transfer system (also for rental car/car park locations), to replace the buses which were slow and added to congestion. Interchanging with the Subway or the LIRR is not as convenient as a 'one seat ride', but enables public transport to be provided to a range of downtown destinations. Miami Miami Airport handled 44.7 million passengers in 2013. The MIA Mover connects the airport terminals with Miami Central Station, from where TriRail and Metrorail services operate. The MIA Mover also links the terminals to the rental car area. The MIA Mover opened in 2011 and was funded by the Airport and the Florida Department of Transportation. It is free to use. The stations are at each end of the line, and the terminal station is centrally located, requiring a walk into each of the terminals. The disadvantage for rail users is therefore that the connection from the terminals to the station is long and involves some long walks. 12
Orlando The existing terminal area, with four airside satellites, is not currently connected to a rail link. The long term plan for expanding the airport is to create a new terminal area to the south, which will include a station for the All Aboard Florida regional rail link, the Sunrail commuter service, and will also be adjacent to rental car facilities. The whole complex will be connected to the existing terminal area by a people-mover system. Existing terminals and satellites Rail station and longer term terminals Summary of people-mover links People-mover links may be considered if an existing rail route is some distance from the location of the airport expansion. In particular, if the airport station is on a mainline through 13
railway, it may not be appropriate to have more than one airport station (which would mean longer journey times for non airport passengers), and a people-mover system can connect this one station with several terminals. Although they are not cheap, people-mover systems may be less expensive than building or moving heavy rail infrastructure to serve the expansion area, and they can also use much tighter geometry than heavy rail (curvature, gradient). By themselves, people-mover links may not be very attractive ways of getting from a station to a terminal but, if they serve more than one purpose (eg. for inter terminal transfers) they may be good value for money. They are normally funded by the airport and, while charging for their use can bring some revenue, it will also deter users, particularly if the ticketing arrangements are not integrated. 14
4. Extending a terminal around a station Three examples are described where the decision has been made to expand the terminal around the station, rather than build a separate terminal, which would then require an extension of the railway or a landside people-mover link Hong Kong Hong Kong was built as a two runway airport around a central terminal which includes a two level rail station, the station levels matching the respective levels in the terminal. This is one of the best passenger service layouts as it means that arriving and departing passengers do not mix and do not have to change levels. Having deposited passengers on the upper departure platform, the trains then proceed and reverse to enter the lower arrivals platform, A second terminal has been built 'back-to-back' with Terminal 1 to enable this split level arrangement to continue (with passengers disembarking the train on both sides) and is connected to the airside concourses by a people-mover system. Hong Kong's Airport Express Line is one of the most successful in the world, carrying 14.8 million passengers in 2014, representing around 22% of non-transfer air passengers. For the further expansion of the airport, a third runway is to be added to the north. An option was to build a third terminal to match the runway expansion, with an extension of the railway. However, the decision was taken to expand and reconfigure Terminal 2 and connect it to new airside concourses by a people-mover system. Again, this permits the split level rail station to continue and makes passenger decision making easier, as there is only one station. The train service will be able to accommodate the increased number of passengers by more frequent trains. 15
Oslo Oslo Airport's Flytoget rail link boasts one of the world's highest rail mode shares, used by around 47% of non-transfer passengers. The rail station is located centrally and the first terminal was built to one side such that, as the terminal is extended on the other side, the rail station serves both parts. The station was built with four platforms so that an increase in the number of trains is possible. Original terminal Rail station Terminal extension London Heathrow Heathrow has already been discussed in relation to the expansion from four to five terminals. The Airport has now been recommended for further expansion with a third runway, and this will include new terminals. The long term plan will see the terminals focused on the Eastern campus, currently the location of Terminals 2 and 3, and the Western campus, where a new terminal will be built 'back-to-back' with Terminal 5. A new airside concourse will occupy the space between the existing and new runways. Both the Eastern and Western Campus will be served by through rail stations. 16
New third runway Eastern campus Western campus Terminal 5 Given that Heathrow already has two major station locations (plus two other stations at Terminal 4 and Hatton Cross), the location of further terminals next to these existing major stations means that landside access is concentrated, and therefore much simpler in terms of rail operations and passenger wayfinding, compared with the alternative of another landside access point. However, it requires that the capacity of the stations is sufficient to accommodate the additional trains and passengers but, as noted in Chapter 2, an additional two platforms have been safeguarded by the construction of a box below the Western Campus. A very high quality of rail access will be required to meet the Airport's forecast of 26% of non transfer passengers and 12% of employees using rail in 2030, or a doubling of the number of rail passengers. 17
5. Adding a second railway As the airport grows, it may be appropriate to consider a second rail link, either to provide additional capacity, or a new route not served by the first link, or a choice of service type. A number of examples are discussed below, some of which have already been mentioned in earlier chapters. Milan Malpensa The extension of the existing rail link to Terminal 2 was discussed in Chapter 2, where is it was also noted that the extension was part of a project to provide wider links. In addition to the potential to provide links to other parts of Italy and Switzerland, the further extension also provides a number of options for creating links to other Milan stations, some of which could be faster than the existing route. Map of the possible railway routes linking Milano with Malpensa once implemented the rail link from the North (figures in Km) 15,35 7,35 Gallarate 3,40 MXP T2 8,00 MXP T1 Busto 9,10 5,60 Intersection RFI/FN Saronno 14,70 Junction between the branch line to Malpensa and the FN Saronno- Novara railway Legnano 30,00 28,45 14,10 28,00 Rho Junction with FN Saronno- Novara railway 5,25 34.65 MI Bovisa RFI Centrale Romentino junction with the HS line RFI P.ta Garibaldi FN Cadorna MILANO Barcelona El Prat Airport handled 37.6 million passengers in 2014 and has two terminals. Terminal 1 opened in 2009 and handles around 70% of passengers. Terminal 2 dates from 1968 and has a 2 trains per hour commuter rail service. Terminal 1 is linked by a shuttle bus to the Terminal 2 rail station. A new Metro line is being built to both terminals plus a stop at the cargo area. Construction of the first phase of this, including the airport stations and the line and 15 stations as far as Zona Universitaria, is now complete, with trial running under way and an expected start date for services in 2016. Although the Metro line will not initially serve the city centre direct, interchange with other Metro lines will enable wider connections to be made. 18
A third line is also being built, from Barcelona Sants, a major downtown station, to Terminal 1, giving a 19 minute journey. On completion in 2018, this will only serve Terminal 1, but an extension to Terminal 2 is to be added later. Munich 19 Munich Airport is 29 km from the centre of the city and opened in 1992. It handled 39.7 million passengers in 2014. The S8 S-Bahn line opened at the same time as the airport and a second S-Bahn route, S1, opened in 1998. The rail lines were built by MVV, the city and regional transport authority, with a 100 million contribution from the airport. The two lines take separate routes but both serve the Central Station, giving a train every 10 minutes and a journey time of 41-45 minutes for a fare of 10.40. The rail share of air passenger journeys is 31%. A plan was developed for a maglev link to the airport which would have reduced the connection time to 10 minutes. However, this project was scrapped by the Government in 2008 because of costs. Frankfurt Frankfurt Airport handled 59 million passengers in 2014. Terminal 1 opened in 1972 with a rail station serving both S Bahn and intercity trains. Terminal 2 opened in 1994. In 1999 a second rail station opened on a new high speed line between Frankfurt and Cologne, and the original station reverted to serving local and regional trains only. Both stations are directly connected to Terminal 1 and also to the AIRail terminal, which includes baggage
check in facilities. Some trains are operated as a code share with Lufthansa and others with through air-rail ticketing. The next stage of the Airport's development is the construction of Terminal 3, on land to the south of the airport, and due for completion in 2021. Initially, this will be connected to the rail station by a people-mover system, but the option remains for a new direct rail link Terminal 3. However, this will require significant changes to the rail network beyond the airport and is therefore not within the Airport's ability to provide. Heathrow Heathrow's rail links were discussed in Chapter 2 where it was noted that there are currently two, with plans for more. The Piccadilly Line was the first, opening in 1977, with Heathrow Express being added in 1998. A limited 2 trains per hour local service called Heathrow Connect, using the same route as Heathrow Express, began in 2005. The next major service, Crossrail, is due to start operations to the Airport in 2018. This will replace the Heathrow Connect service and will also use the same route as Heathrow Express, although it will operate (initially) at 4 trains per hour and the junction with the main line has been enhanced to provide additional capacity. More significantly, Crossrail trains will operate through London Paddington Station (the terminus of Heathrow Express and Heathrow Connect trains) to new underground stations in central London, The City and to the east of London. This will be a major enhancement to both the capacity (Crossrail trains will be 10 cars) and range of destinations and connections provided by Heathrow's rail links. Birmingham Birmingham Airport handled 9.7 million passengers in 2014. It is served by intercity, regional and local trains calling at Birmingham International Station, which is connected to the terminal by a short, cable-hauled, people-mover link. 20
The UK's plan for a high speed rail link from London to the Midlands and the North includes a station close to Birmingham Airport, called Birmingham Gateway, which will be connected to the terminal and the existing station by an enhanced people-mover system. This new line, to be completed in 2026, will significantly widen the Airport's catchment area. It will also be the focus of a major redevelopment area which will support the Airport's growth. Manchester Manchester Airport will also have a station on the HS2 network, currently planned for the second phase in 2032. The Airport handled 22 million passengers in 2014 and the initial heavy rail link opened in 1993. This has been enhanced by the construction of additional platforms at the Airport station and the operation of additional routes. However, in 2015, the Manchester Metrolink light rail line opened to the Airport. This takes a different route to the city from the heavy rail link, and serves residential areas where many airport staff live. The light rail link may also have a role in the development of the Airport City plan, possibly including a link to the high speed rail station. 21
Paris CDG The people-mover link at CDG was described in Chapter 2, along with the existing RER and TGV links. In addition to these, a dedicated express service, CDG Express, is now planned for completion in 2023. This will use a new route, partly alongside existing rail routes, and terminate at the Airport at a remodelled station at Terminal 2. The project is being developed jointly by AdP, SNCF and the regional transport authority STIF. The CDG Express will complement the existing RER and TGV services and improve penetration of rail in the air passenger market. Summary of additional rail links The examples discussed above are for additional links either to provide more capacity, or to widen the catchment area or market penetration. Although some use can be made of existing infrastructure, such links are often expensive because of the need for new construction. However, they provide significant benefits in terms of increased rail share. 22
6. Relocating the terminal to a railway This is perhaps the most radical solution to expanding an airport and providing a rail link at the same time. However, the examples discussed below demonstrate that it can be applied to small, medium and large airports. London Southend London Southend is a small airport handling around 1 million passengers a year, having grown from virtually nothing in 2011. The old terminal was not served by rail, so the decision was taken to build a new terminal in a location next to an existing rail line, where a new station was also built. The station is around 100 metres from the terminal entrance and the rail mode share is around 25%. Old terminal New terminal New rail station San Diego The story at San Diego is of an opportunity, not taken, to relocate the terminal at a rail station, and the current development plan for a people-mover link should perhaps be described in Chapter 3. The existing terminal area at San Diego is to the south of the runway, in a constrained area close to the environmentally sensitive harbour area. It is not served by rail and the road access is not high quality. The Airport does however own land to the north of the runway adjacent to a freeway, rail and transit corridor. There is not sufficient land to relocate all of the landside and airside activities to this northern area, and adjacent land is owned by the US military and is not available. However, there is still an opportunity to locate all of the landside facilities in the land north of the runway owned by the Airport, and to connect this to the airside gates by people-mover. However, the current plan is to provide only limited facilities to the north, including a transit centre, and connect these by a landside 23
people-mover to the existing airport terminals, which are to be redeveloped. Road access to this southern area will be improved. The plan has been selected because it is quicker to develop, and the need for expansion is urgent, but it clearly will not provide particularly good rail access, and is unlikely to achieve a rail mode share of more than a few percent. Land owned by Airport Freeway, rail and transit corridor Existing terminal New York EWR This is another opportunity situation, but one where long term decisions have not been taken. The concepts come from the New York Regional Plan Association, a well respected professional institute who were asked to review the future prospects for all of New York's airports in a 2011 study called 'Upgrading to World Class'. Newark has two close parallel runways and three main terminals, and is served by New Jersey Transit and Amtrak trains at Newark Liberty Airport station, connected to the terminals by the Newark Airtrain monorail. Newark Airport handles almost 40 million passengers and the rail mode share is around 5%. In order to provide space for a third parallel runway, one of the study's options is to demolish a major part of the existing terminals and relocate the terminal complex to the west, nearer or even next to the rail and transit corridor. This would indeed be a radical step but, as with the San Diego situation, the land to the west is not owned by the Airport and may not be available to acquire. However, the monorail is to be replaced as the technology is no longer supported, and the Port Authority, the Airport's owners, are also considering extending the Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) rail service to the Airport Station, so the opportunity remains to consider this radical plan to relocate the terminal complex next to the Station which would undoubtedly improve rail access and contribute to the achievement of a mode share which would be considered world class. 24
Rail and transit corridor Possible new terminal location Existing terminals Summary of relocating terminals to a railway The single example described above where this has happened is a very small airport, where the old terminal needed to be completely replaced, so it was obvious to build a new terminal in a location which would be served by rail. The other two examples are at much larger airports, where the investment in existing assets is very significant, so any decision to relocate is much more difficult. In addition, land acquisition may prevent an ideal location or sufficient space for a new terminal. It would also be right to comment that the latter two examples are from the US, where the idea of rail access to airports is not as developed as in Europe and Asia, and where the more common solution is to provide a landside peoplemover link between a rail station and a terminal. 25
7. Conclusions The examples discussed show that there are a number of ways of enabling rail access to be enhanced at a growing airport. A number of these not only provide the necessary additional capacity, but also an enhanced service which can increase rail made share. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the options is as follows: Type of link Advantages Disadvantages Extending the railway to a new terminal Straightforward May require additional rail capacity People-mover Can also serve inter-airport Requires interchange journeys Serves a single airport station on a through main line Extending a terminal around a station Least expensive rail cost Best customer service May need additional rail capacity Adding a second railway Provides additional capacity Most expensive rail cost and can widen catchment or increase penetration Relocating the terminal to a railway Least expensive rail cost Most expensive airport cost Local circumstances are often very significant in deciding between the options. In addition, the potential further development of the Airport and its rail services my influence a choice towards one which enables further extension later. 26
IARO s Air/Rail conferences and workshops Copies of the published reports of the earlier workshops and other research reports are available price 250 (free to IARO members). See www.iaro.com/publications.htm. Papers presented at more recent workshops are available on CD-ROM at the same price. Workshops are very focused, dealing in detail with a restricted number of key issues, and complement the regular Air Rail Conferences. Workshops and conferences (with site visits) have been held as follows. 1993 - Zürich 1994 - Paris 1996 - London (Heathrow Express, Stansted Express) 1997 - Oslo (Airport Express Train) 1998 - Hong Kong (Airport Express Line) - Frankfurt (with the AIRail station and the Cargo Sprinter) 1999 - Workshop 1: Berlin (the Schönefeld link) - Copenhagen (the Øresund Link) 2000 - Workshop 2: Milan (Malpensa Express) - Paris (plans for CDG Express) - Washington (Baltimore-Washington International Airport) 2001 - Zürich airport: Air rail links - improving the partnership - Workshop 3: Madrid (and its airport rail links) - London Heathrow (Heathrow Express) 2002 - Workshop 4: Amsterdam, for railways serving airports but not as their main job - Help - there s an airport on my railway. - New York (the Airtrain projects) 2003 - Workshop 5: Barcelona. Today s design and funding issues for airport railways - Frankfurt (The AIRail project) - Workshop 6: Newark. Practical air rail intermodality 2004 - Workshop 7: Oslo. Leisure passengers a market for airport railways. 2004 - Brussels (Thalys:Air France code-share) 2005 - Chicago (Chicago s future in an era of successful air-rail intermodality) - Shanghai study tour - Workshop 8: Edinburgh. Security on airport railways. 2006 - Workshop 9: Baltimore (BWI). Security on airport railways. - Regional meeting 1: Stockholm - Workshop 10: Marketing and ticketing innovations (e-air-rail) Düsseldorf - Regional meeting 2: Kuala Lumpur 2007 - Los Angeles: Air/Rail East/West - Baltimore: The seamless journey - Vienna (Wien): Communications 2008 - October - London Gatwick. One-day conference on ticketing 2009 - June - Hamburg, with site visit to the new S-Bahn - October - Vancouver: light rail to airports 2010 - October - Lyon, with a site visit to the LesLYS express tram to the city - November/December - Far East study tour (with AREMA) 27
2011 - October - Venice 2012 - September - Berlin 2013 - July - Birmingham (high speed rail) - September - Gatwick (Branding) 2014 - April - Dallas, Texas, (Airport stations) - June - Brussels (EU matters) - September - Stockholm (Which type of air rail link?) - November - London (Planning air rail links) 2015 - April - Manchester (Airport City rail links) - June - Milan (Extending rail links at expanding airports) - October - Washington (North American best practice) Details are available from IARO, or on www.iaro.com: you can sign up for details of future events in different parts of the world on www.iaro.com/events.htm Future plans are, of course, subject to change. 28