Written evidence from Jacobs (STA0083)

1.                       Introduction

1.1                   Background

1.1.1             Stephen Rutherford and Jonathan Hale of Jacobs were invited by the UK Parliament Transport Committee to present information to committee members in a private session on Monday 9th November, to support the Committee’s inquiry into surface transport to airports.

1.1.2             The information session was organised so that Committee members could benefit from our experience in planning and assessing surface access to airports, with particular reference to our role providing surface access technical support to the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, between 2012 and 2015. It should be noted that this submission to the Transport Committee has been prepared independently by Jacobs and has not been reviewed or endorsed by the Airports Commission or any other client.

1.2                   This document

1.2.1             This document provides a written summary of the information presented to Committee members on the 9th November. It focusses on the following five questions, covering some but not all of the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the inquiry:

1.2.2             The last two questions were addressed from a Government policy-making perspective, with a specific focus on the areas of expertise of the presenters, which cover strategic transport planning, demand forecasting and management, and the assessment of network performance and capacity. The presentation focussed exclusively on two airport-related travel markets: airport passengers and airport employees. The remainder of this document is structured as follows:

2.                       The Aviation Policy Framework

2.1                   Summary

2.1.1             The APF, published in March 2013 and the most recent UK policy statement on general aviation by central Government, provided context for our policy suggestions for surface transport to airports summarised later in this document. We recognised that the timing of the APF suggested an expectation that policy would subsequently be developed and refined around a centre-piece decision by Government on the requirement for additional runway capacity in the UK, following delivery of the Airports Commission final report in summer 2015.

2.1.2             A brief summary of the APF was provided with respect to the two key policy questions that we attempted to address in the presentation, related to planning for growth in airport-related surface transport demand, and delivering new surface transport provision at airports.

2.2                   Planning for growth in airport-related surface transport demand

2.2.1             With regard to planning for growth in demand, the APF makes the following key points with regard to surface transport in the short term:

2.2.2             To facilitate collaborative working, the APF recommends that airport Air Transport Forums (ATFs) produce airport surface access strategies (ASASs) that set air quality impact reduction targets and public transport mode share targets for both airport workers and passengers. ASASs should identify a strategy to achieve targets and a system allowing ATF oversight of strategy implementation.

2.2.3             In the medium to long-term, the APF makes the following key points:

2.3                   Delivering new surface transport to airports

2.3.1             In terms of delivering new transport provision, the APF indicates that “all proposals for airport development must be accompanied by clear surface access proposals which demonstrate how the airport will ensure easy and reliable access for passengers, increase the use of public transport by passengers to access the airport, and minimise congestion and other local impacts” (para 5.11).

2.3.2             It goes on to state that “the general position for existing airports is that developers should pay the costs of upgrading or enhancing road, rail or other transport networks or services where there is a need to cope with additional passengers travelling to and from expanded or growing airports. Where the scheme has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government will consider, along with other relevant stakeholders, the need for additional public funding on a case-by-case basis” (para 5.12).

2.3.3             Reference is also made to consideration of rail service improvements to airports via the DfT’s High Level Output Specification for the railway and through its franchising activities. Examples are also provided of Regional Growth Fund (RGF) awards to deliver new road infrastructure to airports.

2.3.4             The APF also includes a recommendation that LEPs develop local strategies to maximise the catalytic effects of airports to attract business and support growth, which is linked to an example of the provision of new transport links serving the Airport City enterprise zone in Manchester.

3.                       Airport passenger and employee travel to UK airports

3.1                   Airport passenger characteristics

3.1.1            Headline figures from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) were used to provide context for airport passenger travel in the UK. It was noted that terminal passenger numbers have increased at UK airports in the last five years as the economy recovers from recession and that in 2013 there were nearly 200 million surface access trips made to and from UK airports, 60% of which involved Heathrow, Gatwick, Manchester or Stansted.

3.1.2             A number of key characteristics were then identified with regard to current use of surface transport by airport passengers. Firstly, it was noted that the passenger surface access catchment of UK airports is generally regional in nature, with relatively few trips made between regions. Even at Heathrow, the UK’s only hub airport, around three-quarters of all trips made to the airport originate in London or the South East of England.

3.1.3             It was also noted that daily demand for surface access generated by airport passengers tends to be less peaked than other journey purposes, particularly commuter travel, with a higher proportion of passengers travelling during off-peak hours. This point was illustrated with 2012 data from Gatwick Airport (Figure 3.1). Inbound and total trips peaked between 8am and 9am, coinciding with the typical morning commuter peak hour, although the graph indicates that demand is fairly evenly distributed across the day.

Figure 3.1: Gatwick Airport 2012 – airport passenger surface transport profile (source: Gatwick Airport Ltd submission to Airports Commission)

3.1.4             It was noted that daily surface transport profiles at airports are strongly connected to flight schedules and therefore will change significantly depending on the characteristics of the airport in question. Data from Manchester Airport was also referenced, indicating that daily inbound trips typically peaked between 4am and 5am with two-way trips peaking between 12 and 1pm. In general, profiles tend to flatten out as airports increase in size and spare capacity reduces.

3.1.5             Dispersed regional catchments and relatively high proportions of passengers travelling in off-peak hours are two key drivers explaining the predominance of the private vehicle as a mode of transport used by airport passengers to travel to airports in the UK. The private vehicle mode share of airport passengers at the top ten airports in the UK by current passenger volume between 2000 and 2014 is shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Airport passenger private vehicle mode share at top 10 airports in UK by current passenger volume (source: CAA annual passenger survey data)

3.1.6             Although there is evidence of a long-term downward trend, Stansted is currently the only airport in the UK surveyed by the CAA where the private vehicle mode share of airport passengers is lower than 50%. The only other airport to have achieved this benchmark in recent years is London City (not shown on the graph) – private vehicle mode share reduced here to 47% in 2010 before rising to around 53% in 2013.

3.1.7             Recent rises in the use of private vehicles among airport passengers, also evident at Gatwick and Luton, reflect to some degree recent general trends in background demand, particularly in London. The latest Travel in London report published by Transport for London (TfL) for example highlights increased car usage in Greater London since 2012 as the economy recovers from recession, although it is noted that the long-term trend is downward and recent growth is related to absolute traffic volumes as a result of high growth rather than a mode shift towards private vehicles.

3.1.8             In terms of sub-mode share, private vehicle usage at major UK airports is generally fairly evenly split between passengers who use taxis, park, or are dropped off, for example by friends and family (kiss and fly). Analysis of recent survey data for Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Manchester, Birmingham, Luton and East Midlands indicated for example that in terms of final mode, 20% of all passengers were dropped off, 21% used taxis or minicabs, and 23% parked. Kiss and fly and parking were typically more popular at smaller airports, with higher taxi/minicab use evident at Heathrow.

3.1.9             This analysis also indicated that rail is the predominant public transport sub-mode used by airport passengers. Bus/coach tends to be more popular as a form of public transport at airports where a higher proportion of passengers are catching low-cost or charter flights, and where rail connections are relatively less comprehensive or more expensive for many passengers. It was noted that Gatwick has the highest rail mode share of major UK airports and is also one of the few major airports in the UK with a railway station on a main line rail link, in this case the Brighton Main Line.

3.1.10        In addition, passenger journey purpose tends to have more of an impact on sub-mode choice than it does on main mode choice. Overall private vehicle mode share at the seven aforementioned airports is around 63% for Business passengers and 64% for Leisure passengers. However, Business passengers are more likely to use taxis and minicabs as a private vehicle sub-mode, and rail as a public transport sub-mode.

3.1.11        Airport mode share analysis also highlights the variation in the reporting of figures that is possible depending on whether final or primary/main mode of transport is used. For example, recent surveys at Luton Airport indicate that around a third of passengers use public transport, but because the airport is connected to the rail network via a bus link, none are recorded as rail passengers based on a final mode analysis.

3.2                   Employee characteristics

3.2.1             Employee travel at airports differs from passengers in a number of key ways. Surface access catchments for example tend to be much more local, in contrast to the typically regional catchments for passengers. Figure 3.3 indicates that in 2012, 35% of staff at Gatwick Airport lived in Crawley, the local authority within which the airport is located. Figure 3.4 similarly indicates that 28% of Heathrow staff in 2013/4 were resident in the London Boroughs of Hillingdon (where the airport is located) and Hounslow (the adjacent borough to the east). An additional example is Manchester Airport, where a staff survey in 2010 indicated that 56% of staff were resident in the three boroughs of Manchester, Stockport and Trafford.

Figure 3.3: Gatwick Airport employee home locations, 2012 (source: Gatwick Airport Ltd)

Figure 3.4: Heathrow Airport employee home locations, 2013/4 (source: Heathrow Airport Ltd)

3.2.2             In addition to a more localised catchment, daily demand for surface transport among staff at airports is also typically more peaked when compared with airport passengers, although the prominence of shift work means that in general, profiles tend to be flatter than those for commuters at other locations. Also, in very general terms, larger airports tend to have flatter daily demand profiles as a result of a more round-the-clock operation and a higher proportion of staff working shifts as a result.

3.2.3             Figure 3.5 for example indicates that some 49% of staff at Gatwick Airport typically travelled to work between 6am and 9am in 2012, with 31% leaving the airport between 4pm and 7pm. At Heathrow, shown in Figure 3.6, the profile is flatter, with 29% of staff arriving between 6am and 9am and departures fairly evenly spread throughout the afternoon.

Figure 3.5: Gatwick Airport 2012 daily staff travel profile (source: Gatwick Airport Ltd)

Figure 3.6: Heathrow Airport 2013/4 daily staff travel profile (source: Heathrow Airport Ltd)

3.2.4             Despite higher proportions of staff travelling at peak times and a typically more local catchment, staff mode share tends to be more private vehicle-dominated than passenger mode share. This is illustrated in Figure 3.7 for the four largest UK airports by passenger volume.

Figure 3.7: Staff mode share at major UK airports (various sources: ASASs and published Airports Commission submissions)

3.2.5             A private vehicle mode share of under 60% at Heathrow has primarily been delivered through the introduction of positive measures to encourage the uptake of sustainable modes (such as subsidising public transport routes and ticket costs for staff, and introducing measures to encourage more walking and cycling). Among private vehicle users, the introduction of a car-sharing scheme has also assisted to some degree with reducing the traffic impacts of staff travel. 

3.2.6             The reasons behind the higher dependency on private vehicles among staff at many airports when compared to passengers will of course be site-specific. However, a key factor at many locations is the lack of cost-related restrictions on staff parking, in contrast to passengers who often pay a premium to park near airport terminals. In addition, public transport provision at many airports tends to be targeted at passenger requirements, meaning that the distinct characteristics of staff travel described above are not always fully accommodated. Many staff at airports are employed in low paid professions and are therefore highly sensitive to travel costs, which at least in part explains why bus/coach, rather than rail, is the most popular public transport mode among staff.

3.3                   Surface transport impacts

3.3.1             The travel characteristics described in the previous sections lead to a number of key conclusions related to the impact of airports on surface transport networks, as follows:

3.3.2             The first two points indicated above are evident from 2013 traffic forecast data summarised in the Heathrow Airport submission to the Airports Commission. The composition of traffic making up this forecast is shown in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8: Heathrow Airport 2013 traffic composition (Heathrow Airport Ltd submission to Airports Commission)

3.3.3             The graph indicates that a significant proportion of traffic is related to staff travel. In addition, kiss and fly and taxi-related trips make up the majority of passenger traffic, partly as a result of the impact of those sub-modes in generating empty vehicle trips. Recent surveys at Heathrow have indicated that around 80% of taxis serving the airport are empty for one leg of their journey.

3.3.4             The importance of journey purpose as a factor in airport passenger car usage is also highlighted through analysis of survey data for the seven UK airports described earlier in this chapter. This data suggests that leisure passengers make significantly more efficient use of private vehicles at airports than business passengers. Across all sub-modes, average vehicle occupancy for business journey purposes was estimated at only 1.2 passengers per vehicle, compared to around 2 per vehicle for leisure passengers. Estimated vehicle occupancy also tends to be higher among leisure passengers parking at the airport or using taxis compared to those being dropped off.

4.                       Planning surface transport provision to airports

4.1                   Overview

4.1.1             The summary of travel characteristics provided earlier in this document informs our over-arching view on priorities for planning surface transport to airports in the UK. In particular, we believe that the following should be fully recognised in the development of Government policy in this area:

4.1.2             Surface transport capacity is currently a big issue at major UK airports. Analysis that we undertook for the Airports Commission indicated for example that background non-airport-related demand forecasts over the next 15 years for rail and road connections serving Heathrow and Gatwick are very high. Integrated planning will therefore be essential to accommodate background and airport-related demand together.

4.1.3             The integration of airports into general transport networks also presents opportunities to increase capacity and service frequencies to airports, and consequently generate modal shift, following general trends currently in evidence elsewhere in Europe. As indicated earlier in this document, Gatwick, with a station located directly on the Brighton Main Line, has the highest passenger rail mode share among major airports in the UK.

4.2                   Priorities for airport passengers

4.2.1             When compared with other transport network users, airport passengers tend to have the following distinct characteristics:

4.2.2             As a result, we believe that the following key elements should be recognised as priorities informing government policy specifically related to airport passengers’ use of surface transport:

4.2.3             Airports with a high passenger rail mode share typically have high quality, frequent, round-the-clock rail connections. The network serving Copenhagen Kastrup Airport for example provides direct connections to two city centres (Copenhagen and Malmö) with a journey time of 20 minutes or less, and provides a 24-hour service to both with frequencies of at least 10 minutes during the day. This contributes to a rail mode share among airport passengers of nearly 60%. Services at Oslo Gardermoen and Hong Kong International, both of which have high rail passenger mode shares, are similarly comprehensive.

4.2.4             In Europe, rail service provision is increasingly incorporated alongside integrated air-rail passenger facilities and ticketing arrangements. Frankfurt Airport for example provides check-in and baggage drop facilities at an AIRail terminal located within the airport’s long-distance railway station. Rail arrivals and departures are timed to dovetail with the Lufthansa flight schedule at the airport, and air tickets for Lufthansa and over 70 partner airlines can be purchased that are valid for a connecting rail journey across the Deutsche Bahn rail network (illustrated in Figure 4.1). This for example allows long-haul air passengers landing at Frankfurt Airport to make an onward connection by rail to locations as far away as Amsterdam, Brussels and Zurich on a single ticket.

Figure 4.1: Frankfurt Airport rail connections (source: Fraport AG)

4.2.5             The development of the high-speed rail network serving Frankfurt Airport is part of a specific government policy in Germany to encourage onward connections by rail and reduce the domestic air market. This increases the air capacity available for long-haul flights, which generally deliver more economic benefits than short-haul and domestic flights. The APF makes reference to adopting a similar policy in the UK with reference to HS2, and we believe that this aspiration should be strengthened in future government aviation policy.

4.2.6             In terms of private vehicle use, current travel trends at UK airports suggest that reducing kiss and fly and empty taxi trips, and increasing vehicle occupancy, would have a significant impact in terms of reducing traffic congestion around airports.

4.2.7             Further consideration should consequently be given to expanding and refining measures such as the use of forecourt charging controls (which are already popular at many UK airports, albeit primarily as a means of controlling local access rather than delivering mode shift) to discourage kiss and fly activity. There are also opportunities to effect change in this area through the use of technology. For example, mobile applications have already been developed to encourage taxi and lift-sharing at airports (for example in New York City), and a co-ordinated approach is required to ensure that the necessary facilities (including free and easily accessible WiFi) are available at airports to support the introduction of new technology. Relatively low levels of vehicle occupancy among business passengers at UK airports also suggests that such initiatives could be targeted at businesses that generate high volumes of air travel to reduce associated traffic impacts.

4.3                   Priorities for airport employees

4.3.1             In contrast to airport passengers, priorities related to the cost of travel for example are relatively more important for airport employees who make frequent journeys to and from airports, in many cases to work in low-paid professions. With respect to surface transport for airport employees, we believe the following should be policy priorities:

4.3.2             In the UK, Heathrow Airport is a good exemplar of what can be achieved in terms of mode shift through the application of positive measures to encourage the uptake of sustainable modes among airport staff. The airport operator subsidises public transport serving the site, both through the negotiation of discounts with transport operators (as direct reimbursements to employees for commuter travel are taxable) and by funding service frequencies increases on key routes outside peak times.

4.3.3             In addition, a Cycling Hub is provided on-site and the operator has worked with local authorities to improve pedestrian and cycle access to and from neighbouring residential areas. The airport also runs an online staff car-sharing scheme and estimates that some 10% of staff currently travel to work using the scheme.

4.4                   Recognising challenges

4.4.1             The previous sections of this chapter summarise our view on policy direction for surface transport to airports, specifically focussed on addressing the distinct travel characteristics of airport passengers and staff. However, policy-makers also need to be mindful of a number of key challenges, summarised in this section.

4.4.2             The first is related to the clear definition of objectives for surface transport to airports, and the mechanisms that are in place to ensure that those objectives are delivered and result in real change on the ground. At present, ASASs require airports to set targets specifically related to public transport mode share, but very little is included in the APF on the appropriateness of those targets or the implications for operators if they are not delivered. This should be considered in the context of current performance and related targets and aspirations at airports in the UK with regard to public transport mode share – Figure 4.2 summarises this for a number of airports.

Figure 4.2: Public transport passenger mode share – recent trends and targets/aspirations (various sources: CAA annual passenger survey data, ASASs, submissions to the Airports Commission)

4.4.3             A related issue is the suitability of a primary target related to public transport mode share, as defined in the APF. Issues related to interpretation of this metric (for example, last mode v primary/main mode analysis, highlighted earlier in this document, or the use of specific time periods to artificially boost current performance) can mean that the real impact of such targets is difficult to determine. For example, last mode analysis can be used to justify categorising Park & Ride trips as public transport, even if a significant proportion of the whole journey length was made by car.

4.4.4             While no approach will be without its drawbacks, there is an argument for suggesting that targets should be related specifically to actual impacts rather than behavioural specifics, for example by relating them to total daily or peak traffic generation (measured in number of vehicles) travelling to and from an airport. This could also allow airports more flexibility in how they plan to deliver such targets.

4.4.5             In addition, there are many mode-based challenges that will need to be considered, many of which are related to controlling car use at airports as follows.

Kiss and fly activity

4.4.6             A key factor influencing airport passenger travel choices that should not be overlooked is the importance of being ‘waved off’ or greeted by family and friends. The Independent Transport Commission (ITC) reported that a 2012 survey at Manchester Airport indicated this was important to around 30% of passengers, suggesting it is a key determinant underpinning the popularity of private vehicle kiss and fly activity.

4.4.7             Any attempt to reduce kiss and fly at airports needs to be mindful of this factor, and further exploration of the potential for facilitating ‘meet and greet’ by other more sustainable modes is needed. The use of technology (including the provision of WiFi) and public transport fare structures could for example be considered as mechanisms to facilitate meet and greet by other modes.

 

Airport passenger parking

4.4.8             Airport income from parking charges represents a significant proportion of non-aeronautical revenues at many airports. Figure 4.3 for example summarises the breakdown of retail and property revenues at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports in 2011/2, highlighting the significant contribution of car parking and rental to the total. At other smaller airports with less of a commercial offer, this proportion is likely to be even higher.

Figure 4.3: Retail and property revenue mix at Heathrow and Gatwick (source: Steer Davies Gleave, Assessment of Commercial Revenues reports for CAA, 2013)

4.4.9             Competition between airports is also a key factor driving airport operator policy, as most of the UK’s population is within a one-hour drive of more than one airport. Any steps taken that make an airport unattractive for private vehicle users therefore risks pushing demand to alternative airports rather than achieving a switch to sustainable modes. The result of this is that the application of parking charges at airports accounts for a delicate balance between revenue generation and customer service, which inherently limits its use as a policy driver.

4.4.10        Control of off-site parking is also a key issue that requires co-ordination with local authorities. Manchester Airport for example estimates that the off-site informal parking stock around the airport consists of up to 24,000 spaces at peak times. This highlights the risks of restrictions on on-site parking leading to an increase in informal parking and rail-heading in the vicinity.

Airport staff parking

4.4.11        In terms of staff parking, the policy driver for operators at many airports is related to their relationship with airlines and businesses at the site. At major airports there are many different employers, each with their own policies regarding staff parking, and in many cases employers have combined to negotiate with the operator and drive down the cost of staff parking.

4.4.12        Also, in the case of Gatwick and Heathrow, the CAA economic regulation licence categorises staff parking as an ‘Other Regulated Charge’ (ORC). Regulations governing ORCs implicitly tie the cost imposed on employers to maintenance-related costs for the operator and discourage the cross-subsidisation of income streams, effectively reducing the use of staff parking charges as a policy lever.

Taxis

4.4.13        The taxi market serving airports is often fragmented, consisting of multiple local operators serving geographically-restricted catchments. There is also fierce competition between major players in the industry. In addition, Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs) are generally prohibited from ranking as regulations stipulate they must be pre-booked.

4.4.14        These issues present a challenge when looking at measures to back-fill taxis and reduce the number of empty taxi trips at airports. Surveys at Heathrow for example suggest that the vast majority of the taxi market serving the airport is PHVs.  

Bus and coach

4.4.15        Bus and coach services are privatised in the UK and, outside of London, deregulated, increasing the delivery risks associated with any investment to improve facilities at airports. In addition, perceptions of poor journey time, quality and reliability mean that many time-constrained airport passengers carrying baggage are dissuaded from using services.

4.4.16        As a result, airport passenger bus and coach mode share is typically low, with a few exceptions at airports where rail connections are relatively poor or expensive and large volumes of passengers are travelling on low-cost or charter airlines.

5.                       Delivering new surface transport provision to airports

5.1                   Making the case for new investment

5.1.1             In addition to providing a policy framework for planning surface transport provision at airports, consideration also needs to be given to the mechanisms and funding models that should be used to deliver new investment.

5.1.2             A particular challenge to be addressed relates to balancing the demand for investment related to the airport itself with the need to ensure the economic and financially viability of that investment. In the previous chapter we highlight that new rail connections are among the most effective means of encouraging a shift to sustainable modes for airport passengers and consequently reducing airport-related traffic impacts. However, in many cases, it is difficult to generate sufficient benefits using current economic assessment models if airport passengers are the sole beneficiaries of major new investment in rail infrastructure. The proposal for an HS2 spur to Heathrow, with costs estimated at around £1.9bn by HS2 Ltd in 2012, is a prominent example.

5.1.3             This highlights an additional advantage associated with the integration of airports into national transport networks, recommended as a policy priority in the previous chapter. The development of the Thameslink programme for example will be of significant benefit in terms of delivering increased rail capacity and service frequencies to Gatwick Airport, while the justification for the scheme was secured largely by demonstrating the benefits to non-airport-related users of the Brighton Main Line.

5.1.4             As well as accommodating airport and non-airport demand on the same infrastructure, additional models should be explored to maximise the potential for delivering new public transport provision at airports. Case studies are provided in the following section of this chapter for three funding models:

5.1.5             A further recommendation is a review of the method by which new transport schemes to airports are assessed. As described in Chapter 2, the 2013 APF in summary indicates that developers should pay costs for surface access where there is a need to cope with additional passengers, and that where a scheme has a wider range of beneficiaries, the need for additional public funding should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

5.1.6             Given the strategic importance of airports as regional or national drivers for economic growth, it is our view that Government policy with regard to funding should recognise explicitly the requirement for a more strategic assessment of the case for schemes. This should consider the balance of benefits and costs for airport operators, various levels of government and the wider economy (including catalytic employment impacts), in addition to the potential cumulative impacts of multiple schemes and the advantages that airport expansion can offer in terms of bringing forward schemes likely to be required to meet background demand in the longer-term.

5.1.7             Airports are both commercial profit-making businesses and significant strategic economic assets, and assessing the viability of new surface transport initiatives that serve them needs to be undertaken within this context. It should be noted that we are not suggesting that airport operators should not make significant contributions to new transport schemes. New transport links result in significant revenue benefits for operators as they open up catchments to the airport, attracting airlines to open new routes, and this should be considered in assessments alongside wider economic benefits.

5.1.8             In addition, the transport-related impact of catalytic growth needs to be fully recognised. Airport operators are now typically very quick to claim wider job-creation benefits associated with airport expansion proposals, but the transport impacts related to such growth are rarely evident in associated surface access impact assessments.

5.2                   Airport surface transport funding case studies

Integrating commercial development

5.2.1             ‘The Squaire’ at Frankfurt Airport, which opened in 2011 providing some 200,000m2 of predominantly office, hotel, and commercial floorspace, provides a good example of how integrating development can improve the case for delivering new transport infrastructure at airports, and it is noted that the UK has started to adopt similar practices linked to enterprise zones and LEPs, notably related to the Airport City development in Manchester. We believe such an approach should be strongly encouraged and explicitly linked to the delivery of new infrastructure to encourage sustainable travel choices.

5.2.2             The development at Frankfurt Airport now accommodates 7,000 jobs and is the European HQ of the global accountancy firm KPMG. It is located directly above the airport’s long-distance railway station and is an 8-minute walk by covered walkway to the airport terminals. The airport station was opened in 1999 and was designed to accommodate development above it, and financing for the station is supplemented by rental income from commercial premises.

5.2.3             The station is served by over 200 rail services per day, and houses the airport’s AIRail terminal, referenced earlier in this document, providing airline check-in and baggage reclaim facilities for airport rail passengers. It is also located adjacent to a major motorway junction serving the airport.

User charging

5.2.4             The Dulles Corridor Metrorail project, which will deliver a US$5.7bn 23-mile extension of the existing Washington D.C. Metrorail System to Washington Dulles International Airport, provides an example of an alternative funding model based to a significant extent on user charging, as well as reinforcing the importance of integrating airport access with the surrounding transport network and commercial development in the vicinity. In addition to the airport, the extension will serve the two biggest employment hubs in the State of Virginia, including Tysons Corner, home to the tenth largest shopping mall in the USA and five Fortune 500 company HQs.

5.2.5             As illustrated in Figure 5.1, some 49% of funding for the scheme is generated by user charges levied on the Dulles Airport Toll Road, with the remainder provided by various levels of government and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA).

Figure 5.1 : Dulles Corridor Metrorail project funding breakdown (source: MWAA, 2015)

 

5.2.6             The MWAA is a publicly-owned body with a Board appointed by two counties, the States of Virginia and Maryland, and the Federal US Government. It operates, maintains and controls all major airports in the Washington area, plus the Dulles Toll Road. Its operating budget is self-financed using a combination of aircraft landing fees and rents/revenues from concessions, and it can also issue bonds to provide funding for capital improvements.

5.2.7             The MWAA also manages the design and build of the Metrorail project, facilitating the benefits of integrated delivery of the new rail link as the operator of both the Toll Road and the airport itself. Once opened, the Metrorail will be operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).

Ring-fenced taxation

5.2.8             The final case study provides an example of the use of general tax revenue that is specifically ring-fenced for new transport infrastructure, including services to an airport. The Crenshaw Line is a US$2.1bn 8.5-mile light rail link to Los Angeles International Airport, which is funded by an initiative known as ‘Measure R’, a half-cent sales tax increase ring-fenced for transport infrastructure projects that was approved in a referendum by residents in Los Angeles County in 2008.

5.2.9             The additional annual cost to County residents is estimated at US$25 per person, and Measure R is expected to generate US$40bn in new revenue over 30 years. In addition to the Crenshaw Line, it will fund a wide range of new transport-related initiatives in the Los Angeles area including new rail and bus rapid transit projects, commuter rail improvements, Metro Rail system improvements, highway projects, and improved bus operations.

5.2.10        A key element of the scheme that is worth highlighting is that it promotes inclusive ownership of transport projects among residents and communities in an area, as opposed to initiatives that target particular groups (for example motorists) to raise revenue. It also provides a mechanism for demonstrating the specific benefits of taxation in delivering new infrastructure to secure buy-in to the process.

 

January 2016