Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would Redefine	 
Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities	 
(26-JUL-05, GAO-05-727).					 
                                                                 
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.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-727 					        
    ACCNO:   A31363						        
  TITLE:     Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would    
Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal		 
Capabilities							 
     DATE:   07/26/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Airports						 
	     Cost analysis					 
	     Federal aid for transportation			 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Financial analysis 				 
	     Ground transportation				 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Transportation costs				 
	     Transportation industry				 
	     Transportation law 				 
	     Transportation terminals				 
	     Intermodal transportation				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-727

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO	Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on

          Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives

July 2005

INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION

     Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport
                            Intermodal Capabilities

                                       a

GAO-05-727

[IMG]

July 2005

INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION

Potential Strategies Would Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport
Intermodal Capabilities

                                 What GAO Found

State and local government agencies have primary responsibility for
developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports. Generally airports
and local transit agencies are heavily involved, especially if these
projects are part of a local transit system. The federal government has
not established specific goals or funding programs to develop intermodal
capabilities at airports. However, it provides funding for projects
fitting the criteria of other programs. The private sector may undertake a
variety of roles.

Most major U.S. airports have direct connections to local transit systems
rather than to nationwide rail or bus systems. For example, 64 out of 72
airports have connections to local bus systems, and 27 airports have
connections to local rail systems. At the same time, only 19 airports have
connections to nationwide rail or bus systems. A number of airports have
plans to enhance their connections to local rail and bus systems.

U.S. and European transportation officials and experts cited the benefits
for intermodal capabilities at airports to include increased
transportation options, reduced road congestion, and reduced short-haul
flights. The costs of intermodal projects using rail are typically
significant. Barriers cited include the difficulty of securing needed
funding, disincentives for airport support such as potential reductions in
airport parking revenue, geographical and physical land constraints,
limitations of the existing nationwide rail network, and inconveniences in
comparison to using cars that limit consumer demand.

Two differing strategies developed from our prior work would help public
decision makers improve intermodal capabilities at airports. The first
strategy would increase flexibility within current federal transportation
programs to encourage a more systemwide approach to transportation
planning and development. The second strategy would involve a fundamental
shift in federal transportation policy's focus on local decision making by
increasing the role of the federal government in order to develop more
integrated air and rail networks and would be closer to the strategy
followed in Europe. While the first strategy would most likely lead to a
continued focus on the development of intermodal connections to local
transit systems, the second strategy could develop more integrated air and
rail networks, either nationwide or along particularly congested
corridors. The second strategy would be costly, and high benefits, which
would be difficult to achieve, would be needed to justify this investment.

Example of Intermodal Connections for an Airline Passenger

Source: GAO.

United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter

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

Developing Intermodal Capabilities at U.S. Airports

Most Major U.S. Airports Have Direct Connections to Local Transportation
Services, but Very Few Have Direct Connections to Nationwide Rail or Bus
Systems

Development of Intermodal Capabilities May Provide a Range of Benefits;
However, Substantial Costs and Barriers Affect their Development

Two Key Strategies Could Help Address Intermodal Transportation

Planning and Financing Limitations Concluding Observations Agency Comments

1 3 6

11

18

25

37 47 48

Appendixes

Appendix I: Appendix II:

Appendix III:

Appendix IV: Appendix V:

Appendix VI: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 50

Intermodal Connections at Airports in Europe 54 Role of the European Union
in Developing Air-Rail Connections 54 Role of Member Nations and Local
Entities in Developing Air-Rail

Connections 55 Differences between the United States and Europe Limit
Usefulness

of "European Model" 55

Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports 57 Federal Funding 57 State and
Local Funding 58 Private Sector Investment 60

Survey Results 61

Survey Results on Existing and Planned Bus and Rail
Connections 63

Selected Airport Case Studies 66 Baltimore-Washington International
Airport 68 Los Angeles International Airport 71 Miami International
Airport 73 Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport 75
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 77 Newark Liberty International
Airport 79

                                    Contents

New York John F. Kennedy International Airport 81 Oakland International
Airport 83 Portland International Airport 85 Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport 87 San Francisco International Airport 89 Norman Y.
Mineta San Jose International Airport 91 Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport 93 Washington Dulles International Airport 95

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 97

Tables Table 1:     Typical Steps in the Development of Intermodal      
                                          Projects                         12 
          Table 2:  Federal Programs that Can Fund Intermodal Projects at  
                                          Airports                         15 
          Table 3: Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Local Bus 
                                           Service                         20 
          Table 4:      Number of Airports with Direct Connections to      
                                   Nationwide Bus Service                  22 
          Table 5:    Number of Airports with Capital Improvement Plan     
                     Proposals to Improve Passenger Access to Local and    
                              Nationwide Transportation Systems            24 
          Table 6:    Examples of Intermodal Project Costs and Funding     
                                           Sources                         31 
          Table 7: Selected Examples of Intermodal Rail Projects Funded by 
                                          PFC Funds                        33 
          Table 8:         Airports Selected for GAO Case Studies          52 
          Table 9:   Existing and Planned Bus and Rail Connections at 72   
                                          Airports                         63 

Figures	Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6:

Two Examples of Intermodal Connections for an Airline
Passenger 7
German High-Speed Train at Frankfurt International
Airport's Long-Distance Train Station 10
People Mover Tracks from New York's Kennedy Airport
Leading into New York's Jamaica Train Station 13
The Number of Airports with Direct Connections to
Various Numbers of Ground Transportation Modes 19
Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Local Rail
Systems 21
Major U.S. Airports with Direct Connections to Amtrak's
Nationwide Route Network 23

Contents

Figure 7: Train Station and Automated People Mover at Newark's
Liberty International Airport 26
Figure 8: Thalys High-Speed Train at the Paris Charles de Gaulle
Airport 28

Figure 9:	Airport Sign Showing the Direction to the Amtrak Train
Station at Milwaukee's General Mitchell International
Airport 37

Figure 10: Primary Benefits and Barriers Associated With
Developing Intermodal Facilities at Airports, According
to Airport and Local Transportation Officials 67

Figure 11: Intermodal Connections at Baltimore-Washington
International Airport 70
Figure 12: Intermodal Connections at Los Angeles International
Airport 72
Figure 13: Intermodal Connections at Miami International
Airport 74
Figure 14: Intermodal Connections at Milwaukee General Mitchell
International Airport 76
Figure 15: Intermodal Connections at Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport 78
Figure 16: Intermodal Connections at Newark Liberty International
Airport 80
Figure 17: Intermodal Connections at New York John F. Kennedy
International Airport 82
Figure 18: Intermodal Connections at Oakland International
Airport 84
Figure 19: Intermodal Connections at Portland International
Airport 86
Figure 20: Intermodal Connections at Ronald Reagan National
Airport 88
Figure 21: Intermodal Connections at San Francisco International
Airport 90
Figure 22: Intermodal Connections at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose
International Airport 92
Figure 23: Intermodal Connections at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport 94
Figure 24: Intermodal Connections at Washington Dulles
International Airport 96

Contents

Abbreviations

AIP Airport Improvement Program
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
DOT Department of Transportation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
PFC passenger facility charges
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

July 26, 2005

The Honorable John L. Mica
Chairman
Subcommittee on Aviation
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

With the number of airplane passengers using U.S. airports expected to
grow from over 688 million in 2004 to almost 1 billion by the year 2015,
ground access to U.S. airports has become an important factor in the
development of our nation's transportation networks. Since most travelers
use cars, whether privately owned or taxis, to get to the airport, local
cities
and communities will face increased congestion on their airport access
roads and highways. Moreover, increases in passenger air travel and the
difficulty of building new airport capacity will place greater strains on
our
nation's airport runway and air space capacity. Increased road congestion
and the strain on airport capacity can both have a number of negative
economic and social effects, including wasting travelers' time and money,
degrading air quality, slowing commerce, and increasing energy
consumption. These effects are especially problematic in areas and
transportation corridors that are already heavily congested.

While the U.S. passenger transportation system consists of a number of
different transportation modes, including mass transit, roads, aviation,
waterways, and railroads, U.S. transportation policy has generally
addressed the negative economic and social effects of congestion from the
standpoint of individual transportation modes and local government
involvement. Compared to the United States, European transportation
policy has increasingly focused on intermodal transportation-that is, a
system that connects the separate transportation modes and allows a
passenger to complete a journey using more than one mode. This focus has
included improving the connections between airports and other
transportation modes-particularly rail-as a possible means to address
congestion and other issues without sacrificing economic growth. The
European experience in this area might provide important lessons for the
United States.

To determine how the mobility of the American public might be improved
through enhanced rail, transit, and bus connections to airports and at
what

costs, this report addresses the following questions: (1) What roles do
federal, state, and local governments and the private sector play in
developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? (2) To what extent
have intermodal services and facilities been developed at selected U.S.
airports? (3) What benefits, costs, and barriers exist for developing
additional intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? and (4) What
transportation strategies, including lessons learned from the European
experience, may help public decisionmakers improve intermodal capabilities
at U.S. airports?

Throughout this report, we defined intermodal transportation as direct
connections for passengers traveling between airports and local public
transit systems and nationwide rail and bus systems.1 Because the ease of
transfer between modes is critical to how likely passengers are to use a
bus or rail system, we considered a direct connection to consist of a
transfer point (such as a bus stop or rail station) that is accessible
from airport terminals either by walking, an automated people mover, or
direct shuttle.2  To address the four questions, we obtained and analyzed
information from a variety of sources. We surveyed all large and medium
and selected small hub U.S. airports to obtain information on the extent
intermodal services and facilities have been developed. These 72 airports
accounted for approximately 90 percent of the enplanements for calendar
year 2003. We conducted semi-structured interviews with key government
transportation officials, airport officials, and private sector
transportation representatives to obtain information for case studies of
16 U.S. airports located in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas and
San Jose, California; Miami, Florida; Baltimore, Maryland; Minneapolis/St.
Paul, Minnesota; the New York City area; Portland, Oregon; Seattle,
Washington; the Washington, D.C., area; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We also
met with officials from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Amtrak, the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Office of Intermodalism, transportation experts,
and industry associations. We interviewed officials from the European
Union, France, Germany,

1Throughout this report, we define local agencies to include city, county,
and multi-county (regional) agencies.

2More specifically, we considered a transfer point (such as a bus stop or
rail station) to be a direct connection to the airport if: it was
convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk to the transfer point
from any of the airport's terminals; the airport had a people mover (that
is, an automated guideway car or a moving sidewalk) that transports
passengers from the transfer point to any of the airport's terminals; or
there was regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer point to
any of the airport's terminals.

Switzerland, and the Netherlands to obtain descriptive information on
their airport-rail connections. In addition, we obtained and analyzed
information from our past reports, as well as documents from DOT, the
European Union, and research organizations. We conducted our work from
July 2004 through July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Additional information on our scope and
methodology appears in appendix I.

Results in  Brief 	State and local government agencies have primary
responsibility for developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports
while the federal government provides funding and oversight, and the
private sector at times may undertake a variety of roles. Typically, one
or more state or local transportation agencies (such as state departments
of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and airport
authorities) take the lead in developing an intermodal capability at an
airport, which includes planning; securing funding from state, local,
federal, or private sources; and arranging for the design and construction
of the project. While the roles of each type of agency can vary, our
research at 16 airports found that in most cases, airports are heavily
involved in projects on airport property, local transit agencies are
involved in projects that are part of a local transit system, and in
certain cases, state departments of transportation or metropolitan
planning organizations take leading roles. The federal government has not
established specific goals or funding programs to develop intermodal
capabilities at airports. However, it provides funding for these
capabilities when they fit the criteria established for funding programs
focused on surface transportation or aviation-including direct funding
through grant programs and the approval of the collection and use of
airport fees for some projects. In its oversight role, the federal
government also ensures the compliance of intermodal capabilities with
federal laws and regulations, including environmental requirements. The
private sector's role varies and may include funding, project development
under contractual agreement with state and local transportation agencies,
and/or participating in the decision-making process during project
planning.

Most major U.S. airports have some direct intermodal ground connections,
but those connections are primarily to local bus or rail transportation
systems rather than to nationwide bus or rail systems. For example, 64 out
of 72 airports we surveyed reported having direct connections to local bus
services, and 27 airports reported having direct connections to local rail
systems. The level of convenience and access to these connections varies.

Thirteen airports reported that passengers could access a local rail
station by walking or taking an automated people mover, while 22 reported
that passengers could access the local rail station by shuttle. At the
same time, while most of these airports are located in a metropolitan area
with nationwide rail or bus service, such as Amtrak or Greyhound, only 13
airports have direct connections to an Amtrak station and 12 to nationwide
bus stations. One airport reported that the Amtrak station could be
accessed by an automated people mover, while the rest reported access only
by shuttle. We also found that a number of airports have proposals and
plans to improve their intermodal services, mostly by enhancing their
connections to local rail and bus services.

Transportation and airport officials stated that the development of
intermodal capabilities at airports can provide a range of benefits;
however, they have not quantified these benefits through evaluations, and
substantial costs and barriers to developing these capabilities also
exist. Benefits cited for intermodal capabilities at airports include
alternative transportation options for travelers-with the potential for
reduced travel times and costs-and reduced road congestion with the
potential for an associated reduction in vehicle emissions and improved
air quality. Transportation industry experts and European transportation
officials we interviewed also stated that airport connections to a
nationwide rail system such as Amtrak can encourage passengers to use rail
service instead of short-haul flights for a portion of their journey,
which could potentially reduce the overall demand for short-haul flights
and allow existing airport capacity to be used more efficiently. This
situation has occurred in several cases in Europe, where some national
governments have established policies to reduce the number of short-haul
flights at their major airports and have supported these policies by
funding high-speed rail infrastructure. The costs of intermodal projects
vary widely, depending on the complexity and scope of the project. The
costs of rail projects are typically substantial and can include costs to
construct a station as well as track and other infrastructure to support
the transit network. Almost all local transportation officials agreed that
the most significant barrier to developing airport intermodal connections
to rail transit is the difficulty of securing needed funding- including
the competition for and difficulty of applying for limited federal grants,
restrictions on the use of airport revenue, and the need to develop
agreement about the project from a variety of local agencies with
differing priorities. Other barriers mentioned include disincentives for
airport support of intermodal projects such as the potential reduction in
airport parking revenues and geographical and physical land constraints at
airports that can make designing and constructing an intermodal capability

difficult. In addition, the existing nationwide rail network-Amtrak-does
not support air-rail service requirements because rail lines do not go
near some airports, passenger train schedules in some parts of the country
are not frequent enough to effectively link to airline flight schedules,
and transferring from air to rail poses inconveniences that limit consumer
demand. Finally, planning along transportation corridors that cross
multiple state and local boundaries can be challenging.

Two differing strategies, one of which incorporates lessons of the
European experience, could help public decisionmakers improve intermodal
capabilities at U.S. airports. Both of these strategies are based on a
systematic framework that includes identifying national goals, defining
the federal role, determining funding approaches, and evaluating
performance. The first strategy would provide federal, state, and local
transportation agencies with additional flexibility within current federal
transportation programs to encourage a more systemwide approach to
transportation planning and development. Alternative transportation
funding approaches-such as performance-oriented funding and federal
financial reward-based systems-could also be used to encourage the
planning and development of intermodal capabilities. This strategy would
maintain the focus on state and local government initiative and would most
likely lead to a continued focus on the development of local intermodal
connections rather than a fully integrated nationwide system. The second
strategy would involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation
policy's focus on state and local decisionmaking by increasing the role of
the federal government in planning and funding intermodal projects in
order to develop more integrated air and rail networks, either nationwide
or along particularly congested corridors. This strategy would be closer
to the intermodal development strategy followed by the European Union and
several European countries, or to the strategy the federal government used
to develop the interstate highway system. Such a strategy could increase
intermodal options and American mobility through broad policy and funding
changes, but in this time of fiscal constraints, the high cost of rail
investments and the resulting high costs of this strategy would make it
difficult to justify on a nationwide scale. Given the high costs of this
strategy, benefits high enough to justify investment in intermodal
facilities would be difficult to achieve, as demand for such services is
likely to be low except in a few highly congested travel corridors.
Moreover, high demand would be difficult to achieve. Due to the
inconveniences of transferring from airplane to train or bus and other
reasons including potentially higher travel times and out of pocket costs,
many American travelers are likely to continue to prefer car travel over
transit to access the

airport and short-haul flights over connections to a nationwide rail
system as part of their overall journey. DOT generally concurred with our
report and provided technical corrections, which we incorporated as
appropriate. Amtrak had no comments on our report.

Background	The United States' passenger transportation system consists of
a number of different modes, including mass transit systems, roads,
aviation, waterways, and railroads-each of which plays a critical role in
providing the American public with the mobility needed to sustain the
nation's economic viability. Intermodal transportation refers to a system
that connects the separate transportation modes and allows a passenger to
complete a journey using more than one mode. An efficient intermodal
capability provides a passenger with convenient, seamless transfer between
modes; the ability to connect to an extended transportation network; and
high frequency of service among the different modes. As shown in figure 1,
an intermodal connection at an airport might involve a passenger arriving
at the airport by private shuttle service, flying to another airport, and
then transferring to local transit rail service3 to reach a final
destination. Opportunities also exist for using intermodal service to
access nationwide transportation systems, such as Amtrak.

3Local transit rail includes commuter rail, light rail, subway systems,
and trolleys.

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

Source: GAO.

While intermodal refers to the use of any two modes of transportation and
therefore a trip that involves taking a private car or shuttle to the
airport followed by air travel could be considered intermodal, for the
purposes of this report, we are focusing on direct connections between
airports and public bus and rail systems. Because the ease of transfer
between modes is critical to how likely passengers are to use a bus or
rail system, we considered a direct connection to consist of a transfer
point (such as a bus stop or rail station) that is accessible from airport
terminals either by walking, an automated people mover, or direct
shuttle.4

Historically, federal transportation policy has focused almost exclusively
on individual modes rather than intermodal connections. Federal
transportation funding programs are overseen by different agencies within
DOT-FAA oversees aviation, FTA transit, Federal Railroad Administration
railways, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highways-and no
specific federal funding programs have been established that target
intermodal projects for passengers at U.S. airports. In the United States,
the

4More specifically, we considered a transfer point (such as a bus stop or
rail station) to be a direct connection to the airport if: it was
convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk to the transfer point
from any of the airport's terminals; the airport had a people mover (that
is, an automated guideway car or a moving sidewalk) that transports
passengers from the transfer point to any of the airport's terminals; or
there was regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer point to
any of the airport's terminals.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)5 
established an overall approach for surface transportation planning and
decision making that gave local and state governments greater control over
transportation decisions in their own regions than was done in the past.
The act also viewed different transportation modes as part of a larger
transportation network, but maintained separate funding for the individual
modes. ISTEA established specific planning guidelines for metropolitan
areas to prioritize the highway and transit needs of the entire region
with the goal of promoting an integrated transportation system. The
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),6 enacted in 1998,
retained the basic policy and programs established by ISTEA and provided
state and local governments the flexibility to use highway funds to
support transit investments. DOT's Office of Intermodalism was established
under ISTEA; however, this office deals mainly with intermodal freight
issues and airports have had very limited involvement in that discussion.

Federal policy for aviation is established through other legislation. The
planning and funding of U.S. airports is addressed under Vision
100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act.7 This act authorizes funds
for airport development and capital improvements, and while it does
encourage the development of intermodal connections between airports and
other local surface transportation systems, the primary focus of funding
is on runway and terminal infrastructure. The planning for these projects
is usually undertaken by airports, with no federal requirements for local
and state surface transportation agency involvement as required by ISTEA
and TEA-21.8 The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 created Amtrak to
provide nationwide passenger rail service, and the federal government

5P.L. 102-240 (1991).

6P.L. 105-178 (1998).

7P.L. 108-176 (2003).

8The FAA Airport Improvement Program Handbook provides guidance on
coordination of intermodal airport projects. The FAA Airport Improvement
Program Handbook states that federally funded airport access projects
should be coordinated by the metropolitan planning organization and listed
in its transportation improvement program. It also states that airports
are encouraged to complete planning projects that are consistent with
system forecasts, ground access and air quality studies, land use planning
as well as other information, procedures, plans or policies. A provision
in Vision 100 requires that large and medium hub airports provide
metropolitan planning organizations, upon request, copies of proposed
changes to airport layout plans or master plans showing certain projects
(i.e., new runways and runway extensions).

has provided funding for both capital and operating expenditures to
Amtrak. Amtrak operates a 22,000 mile passenger rail system, primarily
over tracks owned by freight railroads.9 As of January 2002, there were 10
federally designated high-speed rail corridors nationwide. These
designated corridors are eligible for federal funds to upgrade rail
infrastructure to support high-speed rail service, although most upgrades
have not been completed and the amount of high-speed rail service in the
United States remains limited.10 The corridors are dispersed throughout
the country and include service between some of the largest U.S. cities.
For example, the Northeast Corridor provides service between Washington,
D.C., New York, and Boston, and the Pacific Northwest Corridor provides
service between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, Canada.

In comparison to U.S. transportation policy, European Union policy11 and
some European governments have focused on developing high-speed train
service between major European cities as an alternative to air and car
travel. This effort has also included developing intermodal ground
connections between passenger high-speed rail systems and airports, an
example of which is shown in figure 2.

9Amtrak owns about 650 miles of track, primarily on the Northeast Corridor
between Boston, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.

10H.R. 1631 "The Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the
21st Century" was introduced in April 2005 and would, among other things,
authorize federal funds for a long-term rail infrastructure program to
improve and expand our nation's rail infrastructure and develop a viable
high-speed rail system.

11The European Union includes 25 countries that have reached agreement in
certain policy areas, such as transportation policy, and operate as a
single economic market.

Figure 2: German High-Speed Train at Frankfurt International Airport's
Long-Distance Train Station

Source: Fraport.

Since 1992, the European Union has periodically published a common
transportation policy12 in response to increased ground and air congestion
that has resulted from the unequal growth of road and air traffic compared
with rail and maritime traffic. This growth in air traffic and the
capacity constraints at most key European airports have caused the
European Union to examine the potential of intermodal transportation. A
key component of the European Union's intermodality policy is improving
the connections between air and rail, thereby transforming competition
between those modes into complementary service using high-speed train
connections at European airports. While the European Union has developed a
common transportation policy and provides limited funding for
transportation networks that can connect to airports, the actual
implementation and development of transportation infrastructure remains
the responsibility of individual member nations. For example, a priority
European Union project is the construction of a high-speed rail network

12The most recent report is the European Union's White Paper, European
Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide (Luxembourg: 2001).

across Europe that will connect key airports, such as Brussels, Frankfurt,
Cologne/Bonn, Paris Charles de Gaulle, and Amsterdam Schiphol. Although
this project crosses a number of member states and is one of the European
Union's priority projects, individual member states are responsible for
funding the majority of the infrastructure and overseeing the construction
of sections within their borders. For example, Belgium is responsible for
providing the infrastructure from Brussels to the borders of France,
Germany, and the Netherlands. In addition, in 2003, the European Union
established the Rail Air Intermodality Facilitation Forum with the
objective of developing recommendations to encourage the integration of
rail and air service regarding operations, ticket sales, and legal
issues.13 (See app. II for additional information on intermodal
connections at European airports.)

Each Level of Government and the Private Sector Play a Role in Developing
Intermodal Capabilities at U.S. Airports

State and local transportation agencies have primary responsibility for
developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports. The federal
government has not established specific goals or funding programs to
develop intermodal capabilities at airports, but it does provide oversight
and funding when projects fit the criteria for funding programs focused on
one or more individual modes. The private sector's role may include
funding and, in some cases, project development through contractual
agreements with state and local agencies.

State and Local Governments Have the Primary Responsibility for Developing
Intermodal Capabilities

In line with federal transportation legislation's focus on state and local
government decisionmaking, intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports are
typically initiated and developed by state and local transportation
agencies, including some combination of state departments of
transportation, local transportation planning bodies (i.e., metropolitan
planning organizations), airports, and local transit agencies. While the
roles of any one stakeholder can vary, the development of most projects
involves similar steps (see table 1), and one or more of these state and
local transportation agencies will take the lead in moving a project
through these steps.

13The Rail Air Intermodality Facilitation Forum included industry experts
for both the rail and air transportation modes.

        Table 1: Typical Steps in the Development of Intermodal Projects

Step Description

Planning	The lead agency in initiating an intermodal project must
typically assess the project's justification, solicit public comment
regarding the most appropriate project to select for the area, and get the
project included in

a

state transportation plans, if FHWA or FTA funding in involved. In order
for the project to be included in state transportation plans, local
transportation officials must be able to demonstrate how the project will
be funded. This can include securing federal funding grants or loans,
getting federal approval to levy certain fees on airport passengers to be
used for the project, and securing state and local funds.

Preliminary design and The lead agency works with other stakeholders to,
among other things, select the "preferred alternative"b-

environmental review	after considering estimates of cost, benefits, and
impacts (e.g., financial and environmental)-and consult with federal
agencies governing environmental and historic preservation issues before
advancing to final design.

Final design and right-of-Stakeholders work together to finalize design
plans, appraise and acquire needed property, and finalize way acquisition
project cost estimates.

Construction	The lead agency advertises and evaluates bids for
construction contracts. Once contracts are awarded, construction begins
and the lead agency may manage or oversee construction.

Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.

aThese plans include the state's 20 year transportation improvement plan
and, as the project gets closer to being initiated, the state's short-term
transportation plan (at least 3 years).

bThe preferred alternative is determined by applying National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requirements and other federal
environmental laws and regulations to each alternative considered. The
alternative that causes the least amount of damage to and best protects
the environment is typically considered preferred.

During our research at 16 airports, we found three common themes regarding
the roles of various stakeholders, although the extent of different
stakeholders' involvement varied among projects. First, almost all
airports are heavily involved with the development of intermodal
capabilities on airport property. This is especially true if the project
involves construction of a major intermodal facility such as an automated
people mover connecting the airport terminals to a transit station. For
example, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey14 was the lead
agency in planning, building, and operating the Air Train system at New
York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. The Air Train system is an
automated people mover that links the airport's terminals to two transit
rail stations, thereby providing passengers a connection from the airport
to local transit systems (see fig. 3).

14The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey operates three New York
area airports including John F. Kennedy International Airport, La Guardia
Airport, and Newark's Liberty International Airport.

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

Source: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The second theme we found is that local transit agencies are heavily
involved in intermodal connections that are part of a new or existing
transit system. Depending on the specific transit system, the involvement
of the transit agency could include providing local bus service or shuttle
service to the airport or could include building and operating a new heavy
or light rail line to the local airport. For instance, Portland, Oregon's
local transit agency, Tri-Met, was a major stakeholder in the development
of the Metropolitan Area Express light rail line extension to the Portland
International Airport. Tri-Met provided about $46 million towards the
development of the extension, managed the project during construction,
took ownership of most of the extension,15  and operates the service to
the airport.

Finally, we found that other local and state transportation agencies, such
as state departments of transportations or local metropolitan planning
organizations, can be involved in these projects, including in certain
cases

15The portion of the light rail extension that is on airport property is
owned by the Port of Portland and operated by Tri-Met.

taking the lead in planning and obtaining funding. For example, the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation served as the lead agency in
planning an Amtrak station at the General Mitchell International Airport
in Milwaukee. Fairfax County, Virginia, secured funding to cover part of
the cost of a section of a planned local rail line extension to Dulles
airport by approving a tax on commercial and industrial properties that
was voluntarily proposed by a group of landowners. In some cases, these
state or local agencies may take the lead because they have the best
access to federal funding.

Federal Government's Role Is Primarily One of Funding and Oversight

The federal government has not established specific goals or funding
programs to develop intermodal capabilities at airports. Its role,
therefore, is primarily one of funding and oversight of projects through
separate transportation programs within DOT agencies. Although there is no
federal funding program specifically for intermodal projects, many
intermodal projects at airports fit the funding criteria for one or more
federal programs focused on surface transportation or aviation. State and
local transportation agencies and airports may receive funding from one or
several of these federal programs to develop their intermodal
capabilities. (See table 2.) Appendix III provides additional information
on the financing of intermodal projects at airports.

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

Program Description Example of use at airports

New Starts (FTA)	Selects worthy fixed guideway transit projects for
funding by congressional Bay Area Rapid Transit extension appropriations.
Projects can include heavy, light, and commuter rail, and south of San
Francisco into the San certain bus transit projects (such as bus rapid
transit). To be eligible for Francisco International Airport and funding,
projects must, among other things, be justified based on a San Mateo
county comprehensive review of mobility improvements, environmental
benefits, cost effectiveness, and operating efficiencies; and supported by
an Metro Transit Hiawatha Line service acceptable degree of local
financial commitment. The program funding between downtown Minneapolis and
match is at most 80 percent federal and 20 percent local.a In fiscal year
the Minneapolis/St. Paul International 2003, this program was funded at
$1.2 billion. Airport

Congestion Funds transportation projects and programs in order to reduce
Metro Transit Hiawatha Line service Mitigation and Air
transportation-related emissions in areas with poor air quality. To be
eligible between downtown Minneapolis and Quality (joint for funding,
projects must be transportation related, in nonattainment or the
Minneapolis/St. Paul International FHWA and FTA) maintenance areas, b and
reduce transportation-related emissions. The Airport

program funding match is 80 percent federal and 20 percent local. In
fiscal

year 2003, this program was funded at $1.4 billion.

Surface Provides funding to states and localities for projects on any
federal-aid Miami Intermodal Center at the Miami
Transportation highway-including transit capital projects and local and
nationwide bus International Airport
Program (FHWA) terminals and facilities. The program funding match is 80
percent federal

and 20 percent local. In fiscal year 2003, this program was funded at $5.9
billion.

Transportation Provides federal credit assistance for surface
transportation projects. Miami Intermodal Center at the Miami
Infrastructure Project sponsors may include public, private, state, or
local entities. International Airport
Finance and Projects eligible for federal assistance through existing
surface
Innovation Act of transportation programs, including passenger bus and
rail facilities, are
1998 (joint FHWA eligible for credit assistance under this program. The
amount of federal
and FTA) credit assistance may not exceed 33 percent of the reasonably
anticipated

project costs. In fiscal year 2003, this program was funded at $130
million.

Airport Provides grants to airports for planning and development projects.
The We found no example of its use for
Improvement program is funded, in part, by aviation user excise taxes,
which are intermodal projects
Program deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In terms of
promoting
(FAA) intermodal capabilities, these funds may be used for access roads
that are

on airport property, airport owned, and exclusively serve airport traffic.
The program funding match is 75 to 90 percent federal based on the number
of enplanementsc at the airport and the remainder local. In fiscal year
2004, this program was funded at $3.4 billion.

                      Authorizes commercial service        AirTrain automated 
Passenger facility airports to charge passengers a         people mover at 
                      boarding                          
                       fee-commonly called a passenger   New York's John F.   
          fee          facility charge-of up to $4.50,         Kennedy        
                                    after               
                      obtaining FAA approval. The fees  International Airport 
         (FAA)        are used by the airports to fund  and Newark's          
                                    FAA-                
                      approved projects that enhance    Liberty International 
                      safety, security, or capacity;           Airport        
                      reduce noise;                     
                           or increase air carrier      
                        competition. In calendar year   
                            2004, $2.2 billion in       
                       fees were collected under this   
                                  program.              

Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.

aWhen evaluating New Starts proposals, FTA places greater priority on
projects that have a greater local matching share. Competitive New Starts
proposals often have a less than 60 percent federal match.

bFederal air quality standards exist for certain air pollutants (known as
criteria pollutants). Geographic areas that have levels of a criteria
pollutant above those allowed by the standards are called nonattainment
areas. Areas that did not meet the standards for a criteria pollutant in
the past but have reached attainment are known as maintenance areas.

cAn enplanement is defined as a passenger boarding a flight. Enplanements
include passengers boarding the first flight of their trip, as well as
passengers who board after connecting from another flight.

To carry out its oversight responsibility, the federal government ensures
that the design and construction of intermodal facilities complies with
federal laws and regulations, including environmental, safety, security,
and mobility requirements, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.
For example, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires, among
other things, that the project sponsor prepare an environmental impact
statement for projects that receive federal funds. This environmental
impact statement must consider alternatives and mitigation measures that
would lessen the project's impacts. For intermodal projects, FAA, FTA, or
FHWA will typically act as the lead agency, depending on how the project
is funded-ensuring that environmental documents are properly prepared and
that all environmental concerns are adequately addressed before granting
approval for the project's construction. FTA also established a
requirement that projects receiving funding through the New Starts program
conduct post implementation evaluations, which are subsequently provided
to FTA. In addition, FAA ensures that intermodal projects meet airport
safety requirements, and the Department of Homeland Security's
Transportation Security Administration establishes security requirements
that may affect the use of intermodal facilities at airports.

Finally, the federal governmen's role in developing intermodal
capabilities at airports includes increasing awareness of intermodalism at
airports through workshops and funding research. For example, conferences
for FAA regional offices have included topics such as the eligibility of
ground access projects at airports for federal funding programs. In
addition, FTA has provided funding to the Transit Cooperative Research
Program to conduct two studies on improving public transportation access
to large airports.16

16Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 62, Improving Public
Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington, D.C.: 2000); and
Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 83, Strategies for Improving
Public Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

Private Sector's Role Includes Funding or Assisting in Developing
Intermodal Capabilities

The private sector's role in developing intermodal projects at airports
may include funding through lease revenues; contracting to design, build,
or operate intermodal capabilities; and participating in the
transportation decision-making process through public participation. For
example, a private developer will fund through lease revenues about 18
percent of the cost to develop the Metropolitan Area Express light rail
extension at the Portland, Oregon, airport. In another example, in 2001,
the Florida Department of Transportation awarded contracts to private
companies for the design and construction of the rental car facility-one
component of Miami airport's planned intermodal bus and rail facility.
With respect to contracting arrangements with the private sector, Miami
airport is also requesting proposals to design, build, operate, and
maintain an automated people mover from the airport terminal to the
planned intermodal facility.

Airlines, in particular, can play an important role in the development of
intermodal projects at airports. Use and lease agreements between airlines
and airports are a major revenue source for most large airports, and
because of this financial arrangement, airlines may have influence in or
participate in airport decisionmaking.17 The ability of airlines to
participate in decisionmaking depends on the specific airport and the
structure of the lease agreement.18 For example, some airports have lease
agreements that can require airports to obtain airline approval before
making airport capital expenditure decisions.19

17Use agreements deal with airside operations, which include landing fees,
and lease agreements include terminal and gate rents.

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

19Airline lease agreements can include provisions known as
"majority-in-interest" that provide airlines with some control over an
airport's long-term financial obligations.

Most Major U.S. Airports Have Direct Connections to Local Transportation
Services, but Very Few Have Direct Connections to Nationwide Rail or Bus
Systems

Based on our survey of all large and medium and certain small hub U.S.
airports,20 most airports have direct connections21 to rail or bus
systems, with some airports having direct connections to more than one
type of ground transportation. The vast majority of these direct
connections are to local transportation systems such as local bus or rail
service. Direct connections to nationwide ground transportation from
airports are limited, with less than one-third of airports reporting
direct connections to either nationwide bus or rail stations. While over
one-fourth of airports reported proposals and plans to improve their
intermodal capabilities, most of these airports plan to develop or enhance
direct connections to a local bus or rail system. (See app. IV for
complete survey results.)

Many Airports Have More than One Type of Direct Intermodal Connection

Most airports reported having some direct intermodal connections, with a
number of airports responding that they had connections to multiple types
of transportation modes. (See fig. 4.) Five airports, located in the New
York City area, Miami, Philadelphia, and Palm Beach, reported direct
connections to local and nationwide bus and rail systems. In contrast,
seven airports22 reported having no direct connections. Those airports
that have no intermodal connections are all medium hub airports with fewer
than 5 million enplanements in 2003. Two of these airports have plans to
develop intermodal service. Louis Armstrong New Orleans International
Airport plans to add stops for local transit buses, and Jacksonville
International Airport plans to add connections to the local transit bus
and light rail systems. Appendix V provides a complete list of airports
with the types of connections and planned connections.

20We surveyed all 68 large and medium hub U.S. airports, and those small
hub airports (4 in total) that are located in the same metropolitan
statistical area as one or more large or medium hub airports.

21We considered a transfer point (such as a bus stop or rail station) to
be a direct connection to the airport if (1) it was convenient for an
average adult with luggage to walk to the transfer point from any of the
airport's terminals; (2) the airport had an automated people mover that
transports passengers from the transfer point to any of the airport's
terminals; or (3) there was regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the
transfer point to any of the airport's terminals.

22The airports include Albuquerque International Sunport, Omaha's Eppley
Airfield, Jacksonville International, Kahului (Hawaii), Kansas City
International, Louis Armstrong New Orleans International, and Norfolk
International.

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

                             Number of airports 35

                                       33

Most of the major U.S. airports reported having direct connections to one
or more local transportation systems in their area, such as local bus or
rail service, with 26 airports reporting having both. The most common type
of public transportation system available to and from the airport is local
bus service.23 Sixty-four airports reported having a direct connection to
local bus service. However, according to airport officials we interviewed,
the level of bus service provided varies. For example, Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport has five public bus routes that serve the airport
from the surrounding communities, while General Mitchell International
Airport in Milwaukee has only one route that serves the airport. The
Boston Logan Express bus service offers nonstop airport connections to and
from

23Local bus service included public transit, rapid transit, and nonstop,
dedicated express bus service, such as the Van Nuys FlyAway or Boston
Logan Express.

                                       30

                                       25

                                       20

                                       15

                                      10 5

                                       0

01234

                     Number of ground transportation modes

Source: GAO summary of data from 72 airports.

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

Most Airports Have Direct Connections to Local Transportation Systems

Boston's General Edward Lawrence Logan Airport and four locations, serving
over 100 communities.

The level of convenience and access to bus service also varies, as shown
in table 3. Airports with direct connections to local bus systems either
had connections to buses at the airport terminal(s) or at an intermodal
facility or transit center. For example, Denver airport reported that it
would be convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk to the local
bus stop, which is located at the airport terminal, while passengers at
Los Angeles International Airport can take a shuttle to the airport
transit center to access buses. However, transportation experts and some
airport officials we interviewed stated that ridership on public buses is
generally very low for airline passengers but somewhat higher for airport
employees. One reason for this situation is the lack of accommodations for
luggage on most public buses.

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

Number of Type of connection to local bus service airports

Walking (convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk from bus
stop to any of the airport's terminals)

Automated people mover that transports passengers from the transfer point
to any of the airport's terminals

Regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer point to any of the
airport's terminals.

Source: GAO summary of data from 64 airports reporting access to local bus
services.

Note: The numbers do not add up to 64 because some airports reported
multiple options available to access the bus system, such as by walking or
taking an automated people mover.

Twenty-seven airports reported having a direct connection to a local rail
system, such as light rail, commuter rail, or subway, as shown in figure
5. These airports reported several options for passengers to access the
rail system. Thirteen airports reported that passengers could either walk
or take an automated people mover to access the rail station. Twenty-two
airports reported that passengers could take a regular, fixed-route
shuttle service to a station for a local rail system.

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

Source: GAO summary of data from 72 airports.

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.

Nationwide Ground Transportation Options from Airports are Limited

While most major U.S. airports are located in metropolitan areas that have
stations for nationwide transportation systems such as Greyhound or
Amtrak, only 19 airports reported having direct connections to these
stations. Twelve of the 19 airports have direct connections to nationwide
bus service. In a few cases, the nationwide bus service is easily
accessible to passengers-for example, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport reports that Greyhound is accessible by both walking
and automated people mover. However, half of these airports report that
passengers can access these services without taking a shuttle, as shown in
table 4.

Table 4: Number of Airports with Direct Connections to Nationwide Bus
Service

Number of Type of connection to nationwide bus service airports

Walking (convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk from a
nationwide bus station to any of the airport's terminals)

Automated people mover that transports passengers from the transfer point
to any of the airport's terminals

Regular, fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer point to any of the
airport's terminals

Source: GAO summary of data from 12 airports reporting access to
nationwide bus service.

Note: Numbers do not add to 12 because some airports reported multiple
options available to access the bus system, such as by walking or taking
an automated people mover.

Thirteen airports report having a direct connection to nationwide
passenger rail service, Amtrak, as shown in figure 6.24 All 13 airports
provide shuttle service to transport passengers to Amtrak stations that
serve the metropolitan area. However, based on information gathered during
our research, the type of shuttle service can vary. For example, Bob
Hope-Burbank airport reports that a free shuttle service transports
passengers to the Amtrak station. On the other hand, at Seattle-Tacoma
airport, passengers may use a private shuttle that charges a fee to
connect to the Amtrak station. Of these 13 airports, only one-Newark's
Liberty International Airport-reported that passengers could also access
the Amtrak station by an automated people mover. The accessibility of
Amtrak

24The survey questionnaire was administered from February 22 through March
31, 2005. Subsequent to the close of the survey, Oakland, California,
airport also reported to us that passengers can access Amtrak by shuttle
as of June 6, 2005.

to Newark airport has allowed Continental Airlines to establish a code
share agreement with Amtrak, whereby passengers can purchase one ticket
for a journey that includes travel by both air and rail.25

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

Source: GAO summary of data from 72 airports.

Note: In addition, Oakland (CA) airport reported that passengers can
access Amtrak by shuttle as of June 6, 2005.

25Code sharing refers to the practice of airlines applying their names and
selling tickets to flights or rail service operated by other carriers.

Many Airports Are Planning to Improve Intermodal Connections to Local Rail
and Bus Systems

Twenty airports reported that their airport capital improvement plan26
included proposals to improve intermodal capabilities. At several
airports, these proposals are in anticipation of expected growth in
enplanements and the need to provide airline passengers and airport
employees with alternative transportation modes to access the airports.
Most of the airports with plans to improve intermodal services intend to
enhance their direct connections to the local transportation system rather
than to nationwide systems, as shown in table 5. Only two airports,
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.

Table 5: Number of Airports with Capital Improvement Plan Proposals to
Improve Passenger Access to Local and Nationwide Transportation Systems

Local transportation systems

Nationwide transportation systems

                               Bus Rail Bus Rail

Number of airports with plans to improve intermodal connections 12 14 2

Source: GAO summary of data from 20 airports.

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

In addition to these plans to improve intermodal connections to a
particular mode, 19 airports reported proposals to build an automated
people mover to connect airport terminal(s) with ground transportation
facilities.27 For example, Denver International Airport intends to build a
local rail station adjacent to the airport's main terminal and to connect
the terminal to the station by an automated people mover.

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

27Ground transportation facilities include bus and train stations.

Development of Intermodal Capabilities May Provide a Range of Benefits;
However, Substantial Costs and Barriers Affect their Development

According to transportation and airport officials we spoke with,
intermodal facilities and services at airports provide or are expected to
provide a range of benefits-such as alternative transportation options for
travelers, reduced road congestion and vehicle emissions, and more
efficient use of congested air space. These officials, however, have not
evaluated these intermodal capabilities and, therefore, are not able to
quantify the benefits. Moreover, costs to develop intermodal projects at
airports can be significant. In addition, barriers such as the difficulty
of obtaining financing can affect the development of these projects.

Intermodal Capabilities Can Provide Benefits; However, Evaluation of
Benefits Can Be Difficult

Intermodality Provides Alternative Transportation Options with the
Potential to Reduce Travel Times and Costs

Based on our interviews with U.S. and European transportation officials
and our prior work, we identified a number of benefits that can be derived
from the development of intermodal capabilities at airports. These
capabilities can benefit not only airline passengers and airports, but
also airport and airline employees and society at large. We found that
many of the benefits cited mirror those that derive from transit projects
in general. However, officials had not evaluated specific airport
intermodal projects or measured the benefits that may have actually
occurred. Due to the postimplementation evaluation requirements that were
established for the New Starts program in 2000, those projects that were
subsequently selected under the New Starts program will be evaluated over
the coming years.

Transportation and airport officials we spoke with said that providing
passengers and employees alternative transportation options was a major
benefit of developing intermodal capabilities at airports. Our prior
research28 has shown that transit investments can provide direct benefits
to travelers by improving travel times for existing transit users,
improving travel times for automobiles and trucks on alternative roadways,
lowering the use of automobiles and the associated environmental costs by
attracting riders out of their vehicles, and providing a back-up or future
option for nonusers of transit. In some cases, these alternative
transportation options may also provide a benefit of reduced travel times
and costs in comparison to traveling in a private vehicle (including
shuttle or taxi) on congested highways. Potential savings for passengers
could

28GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information
on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results,
GAO-05-172 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2005).

include the cost of gas, taxi service, or parking. Several local
transportation officials told us that the benefits of intermodal
capabilities are maximized when the supporting transit system is reliable
and is part of a larger transit network. For example, officials from the
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said that the automated people
mover that connects a terminal at Newark airport to a new Amtrak and
transit rail station was developed to provide access to many destinations
in the New York City area and beyond. In fact, Amtrak officials stated
that a large number of Amtrak passengers using the Newark airport station
are coming from Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.

Figure 7: Train Station and Automated People Mover at Newark's Liberty
International Airport

Source: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

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

Intermodality May Reduce Road Congestion and Vehicle Emissions

Francisco airport would reduce road traffic around the airport by 4,530
daily vehicular trips, representing 6 percent of the daily vehicular trips
to the airport. While officials believe intermodal projects improve access
to airports and reduce vehicle emissions, they also stated that it is
difficult to determine how trip reductions affect overall congestion since
congestion is affected by many factors, such as land use, traffic
patterns, and general economic conditions, that are difficult to isolate.

Intermodality May Allow for the Transportation industry experts and
European transportation officials we

More Efficient Use of Congested interviewed stated that another potential
benefit of intermodal capabilities

Air Space	at airports is the more efficient use of air space and existing
capacity at congested airports through the replacement of short-haul
flights with rail service. The potential reduction of short-haul flights
could allow airlines to reallocate airport capacity to long-distance
flights, which generally have lower costs per mile. However, our prior
work29 and transportation officials we talked with indicate that for rail
transport to capture the market share necessary to affect air travel, the
distance between potential nationwide passenger rail destinations must be
short enough or trains must travel at high enough speeds to make rail
travel times competitive with air travel times.30 Transportation officials
we talked with also stated that the realization of these benefits depends
on a reliable and extensive rail network that would provide competitive
service to air travel about travel time, frequency of service, and
passenger convenience. This situation has occurred in several cases in
Europe, where some national governments have established policies to
reduce the number of short-haul flights at their major airports and have
supported these policies by funding high-speed rail infrastructure. For
example, there has been a reduction of air service between Paris, France
and Brussels, Belgium-a popular short distance city pair for
travelers-due, in part, to the high-speed train service linking Paris
Charles de Gaulle airport and downtown Paris with Brussels (see fig. 8).
Air France has replaced five Paris-to-Brussels flights with Thalys
highspeed rail service.

29GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues for Consideration in Developing an
Intercity Passenger Rail Policy, GAO-03-712T (Washington, D.C.: April 30,
2003).

30Our prior work examined intercity rail service in general. It did not
specifically state that these benefits would come from rail service at
airports. Therefore, the same benefit could be obtained from rail service
between stations not located at airports.

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

Source: (c) 2004 International Air Rail Organization.

As another example, Lufthansa established a code-share agreement with
Deutsche Bahn (the German national train company) between Frankfurt and
Stuttgart and between Frankfurt and Cologne. This code-share agreement
allows Lufthansa passengers arriving or departing at Frankfurt to transfer
onto trains for the first or final portion of their journey to either
Stuttgart or Cologne. It also allows passengers to check in for flights or
pick up their luggage at the main train stations in Stuttgart and Cologne.
Lufthansa officials stated that this service has allowed them to reduce
their flights between Frankfurt and Cologne and reallocate resources to
other markets.31

31Lufthansa officials stated that for this service to be competitive there
has to be a 45-minute maximum transfer time between the flight arrival and
the train's departure at Frankfurt. This requires a high frequency of
service and officials stated that it would require at least one train
every hour.

In the United States, efforts have also been made to use rail service to
complement air service. For example, in March 2002, Continental Airlines
established a code-share agreement with Amtrak in order to expand options
and destinations for travelers using Amtrak and Continental. Under this
agreement, passengers arriving at Newark airport can complete their
journey on Amtrak to destinations such as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With
this code-sharing agreement, Continental initially eliminated short-haul
flights between Newark and Philadelphia and provided connecting rail
service into some markets that were not served by Continental, such as
Wilmington, Delaware, and Stamford, Connecticut. However, Continental
officials stated that in April 2003, they reinstated limited air service
between Newark and Philadelphia because of market demand. As another
example, Midwest Airline officials said that the new Amtrak station at
Milwaukee airport, which opened in January 2005, will allow the airline to
better market its services to passengers from northern Illinois. This
airline is also discussing a potential code-sharing agreement with Amtrak.

Specific Benefits Can Be Measuring and forecasting the benefits of
individual intermodal projects

Difficult to Evaluate	can be challenging in part due to data quality
limitations. In our prior work,32 we identified data quality as a pivotal
concern in measuring and forecasting traffic flow, such as the number of
passengers using public transportation to get to the airport compared to
the number of passengers using private vehicles, as reliable and complete
data are not always available. This information is generally collected
through surveys of passengers at airports. However, since these surveys
can be very expensive to conduct, only airports with significant financial
resources conduct these surveys, and then only every few years. Moreover,
such surveys tend to result in low response rates, which are often
associated with biased estimates due to differences between passengers who
agree to participate and those who do not participate in the survey.

Transportation officials at our 16 case study locations told us that their
intermodal capabilities have not been evaluated, and therefore they are
not able to quantify their benefits. This situation should change for
future intermodal projects that receive funds through the New Starts
program. FTA's Major Capital Investment rule, that went into effect in
April 2001, requires that New Starts grantees conduct "before and after
studies" on approved projects. Project sponsors will need to present a
complete plan for collection and analysis of information to identify the
impacts of the

32See GAO-05-172.

New Starts project and the accuracy of the forecasts. As of June 2005, FTA
has awarded nine full funding agreements that will require these before
and after studies. Those intermodal projects at airports that use New
Starts funding will have to incorporate post-implementation evaluation
into the project and face these data quality challenges.

Intermodal Costs Vary Depending on Project Complexity and Scope

Based on our interviews with federal and local transportation officials,
we found that intermodal project costs can vary significantly, depending
in part on the complexity and scope of the project. We found that these
projects may be as simple as placing a bus stop at the terminal or as
complex as developing a new rail transit system with an airport station.
In general, bus projects cost significantly less than rail projects. For
example, we previously reported33 that the costs of bus-related projects
on separate dedicated busways average about $13.5 million per mile in
contrast to rail projects, which average about $34.8 million per mile. The
higher cost per mile for rail projects compared to bus-related projects
arises, in part, from the costs for rail projects associated with
constructing stations, structures, signal systems, power systems, and
maintenance facilities; relocating utilities; obtaining rights-of-way; and
purchasing vehicles. Local transportation officials agreed that the costs
of rail projects also vary depending on local circumstances such as
whether the project alignments will affect local land-use restrictions or
environmentally protected land and the extent to which the project will be
affected by airport security measures.

Table 6 provides examples of recently developed and planned rail
intermodal projects, their approximate costs, and funding sources. See
appendix VI for additional information on these projects.

33GAO, Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, GAO-01-165
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2001).

       Table 6: Examples of Intermodal Project Costs and Funding Sources

(Dollars in millions)

Project description Capital cost a Funding sources Connection to existing system

Construction of a new Amtrak rail station adjacent to $6.8b  o  Two
separate annual federal appropriations
and serving Milwaukee's General Mitchell  o  Wisconsin Department of
Transportation
International Airport, and improvements to the
existing rail line, which already provided service
between Milwaukee and Chicago

Construction of a new centralized parking and bus $8.0c  o  Planned
funding includes federal and state sources
facility at Harrisburg International Airport with
planned Amtrak Service

                        Extension of an existing system

8.7-mile heavy rail line (Bay Area Rapid Transit) $1,552d  o FTA
extension south of San Francisco that includes a new  o  Bay Area Rapid
Transit
station at San Francisco International Airport  o  San Francisco
International Airport

o  San Mateo County Transit Authority

5.5-mile light rail line (Metropolitan Area Express) $154e  o  Tri-Met
(local transit agency)
extension to existing rail line to provide service  o  Airport passenger
facility charges
between city center and Portland (Oregon)  o City of Portland
International Airport  o  Cascades Development Corporation (a private land

development corporation)

                          Development of a new system

New light rail system (Hiawatha Light Rail) providing $715.3f  o FTA
service between downtown Minneapolis and the Mall  o  Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality grant
of America, with 2 stations located at Minneapolis/St.  o  State of
Minnesota
Paul airport  o  Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority

o  Metropolitan Airports Commission

Proposed California high-speed rail corridor with $33,000 - 37,000g  o 
Planned funding includes federal and state sources, with
potential connections at San Francisco, Los Angeles state funding through
a bond measure
and Ontario, California airports, by means of a
people mover system, and a station at Palmdale
airport

Source: GAO analysis of interviews conducted with, and documents provided
by, airport and transportation officials.

aCapital costs are approximations as reported by airport or local
transportation officials.

bAmount is expressed in 2005 dollars and includes the construction of a
new building, boarding platform, canopy, parking facility, and several
miles of rail improvements, including upgraded rail technology.

cAmount is expressed in 2004 dollars and includes the design, engineering,
and general construction of a four-level structure and pedestrian bridges
to the airport terminal and planned rail station.

dAmount is expressed in 2003 dollars and includes engineering, design,
right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, facilities (four stations)
construction and system installation, vehicle acquisition, and expansion
and improvement of several existing maintenance and storage yards.

eAmount is expressed in 2001 dollars and includes engineering, design,
vehicle acquisition, and construction and system installation.

fAmount is expressed in nominal dollars (1999-2004) and includes costs for
the engineering, design, acquisition of 24 vehicles, construction and
12-mile system installation, 17 stations, and tunnel construction to
access the 2 airport stations.

gAmount is expressed in 2003 dollars. Project costs include right-of-way,
track and signals, grade crossing and separations, structures, tunnels,
electrification, stations, parking and other costs for all state rail
corridors combined.

Barriers Impede the Development and Use of Intermodal Capabilities

Difficulty of Securing Funding

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.

Almost all local transportation officials we interviewed agreed that a
barrier to developing intermodal capabilities using rail transit is the
difficulty of securing funding, which usually includes both federal and
local funds. Because this type of intermodal capability requires a large
supporting network, such as a light rail system, federal support is often
an important part of the funding package. We found that FTA's New Starts
program is a significant source of funding for intermodal capabilities at
airports that are part of a rail transit system. Under this program,
intermodal projects must compete with other transit projects for funds,
and grantees are selected through an evaluation process that can take
several years to complete prior to obtaining final funding approval. Local
transportation officials agreed that this process can make it difficult to
secure this part of the funding package. An FTA official added that New
Starts' rigorous rating process and the increasing demand for its limited
funds makes the process time-intensive and competitive in nature.

Local transportation officials described other difficulties in securing
the use of passenger facility fees, commonly referred to as PFCs.34 In
particular, several local transportation officials mentioned that the
requirement that PFC funds be used for projects on airport property,

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

among other criteria, limits their use for intermodal projects. However,
even with this restriction, we found that four airport authorities used
PFC funds to develop or contribute to intermodal projects at airports, as
shown in table 7.

Table 7: Selected Examples of Intermodal Rail Projects Funded by PFC Funds

                              Dollars in millionsa

Funding Location Project description amount

Portland, OR	Light rail extension and new station at Portland
International Airport $43

        Newark, NJ   People mover system 1-mile connection from Newark 
                        Liberty International Airport to new Northeast 
                                                         Corridor rail 
                                                               station   $357 
         New York,  People mover system 3-mile connection from John F. 
                NY   Kennedy International Airport to two transit rail $1,326 
                                                              stations 

St. Louis, MO	On-airport transit station at St. Louis Lambert Field
International Airport $4

Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.

Note: These projects have been approved by FAA and airports have begun
collecting PFC funds. FAA has approved the use of PFC funds for additional
projects for which airports have not yet started collecting PFC funds.

aFunding amounts are rounded to the nearest million.

Airlines, moreover, support these restrictions on the use of PFC funds.
Several airlines told us that the primary objective of PFCs is to fund
onairport development and capacity improvements, and not ground-access
projects, which airlines believe should be funded through local and state
governments. In fact, airline officials stated that when PFCs are used for
intermodal projects, airport funding is depleted and less will be
available for other infrastructure projects that directly benefit aviation
operations, such as runway renovations.

Local transportation officials said it can also be difficult to secure the
local funds needed to develop an intermodal airport project. These
officials agreed that local funding typically comes from several agencies,
such as metropolitan transportation authorities, transit agencies, and
airport authorities-all with potentially different project funding
priorities. Local transportation officials agreed that these differing
priorities can make it difficult to build the unified local support
necessary to secure funding,

Disincentives for Airport Support

Geographical and Physical Land Constraints

especially when intermodal projects are competing with other
transportation or transit projects for limited funds.

In some cases, airports may have economic disincentives to commit to the
development of intermodal projects. For example, those airports that
derive a large portion of revenues from parking may view intermodal
projects-and the potential that passengers will access the airport by
transit rather than private automobile-as a potential threat to that
revenue. According to a 2003 airport association survey, parking revenues
make up between 17 and 29 percent of airports' nonaviation operating
revenues.35

Geographical constraints, including physical and environmental issues, can
also add to the difficulty of developing intermodal projects at airports.
On the one hand, our prior work has found and local transportation
officials stated that densely populated urban areas offer few alternatives
for expansion or new project development.36 On the other hand, it is these
same densely populated urban areas where rail connections to airports are
more likely to generate benefits that will justify the costs, as these
areas may have high levels of congestion and larger numbers of people
willing to use public transportation to access airports as a result.

Transportation planning officials in California stated that geographic
constraints were a barrier to developing route alternatives for the
state's proposed high-speed rail system. While one of their objectives is
to connect the system to the airports as directly as possible, they
realize that it may not be possible because some California airports are
located in areas that are difficult to access without requiring
significant disruptions that may include dislocation of established
commercial and residential sites.

As another example, BART officials said that because federally protected
wetlands are located adjacent to the San Francisco airport, officials had
to modify the transit route into the airport to ensure there would be
minimum impact on the wetlands. Since the proposed light rail line into
the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport crossed land owned by various federal

35Airports Council International-North America, The 2003 General
Information Survey (Washington, D.C.: 2003).

36GAO, Freight Transportation: Strategies Needed to Address Planning and
Financing Limitations, GAO-04-165 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2003).

Limitations of Existing Rail Network

Difficulty of Coordinating Along Longer Transportation Corridors

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.

Unlike the rail network in some European countries, Amtrak's passenger
rail network is not extensive enough to provide convenient service to many
airports. For example, we noted previously in this report that although 13
airports reported having a direct connection to Amtrak's passenger rail
service, only 1 reported that passengers could access the station by
automated people mover. In addition, even when rail lines are accessible
to the airport, the frequency of passenger trains may be insufficient to
draw airport passenger travel. Both airline and rail officials indicated
that for code-share agreements, airlines require a maximum passenger
transfer time between airplane and train of less than 1 hour. This
requirement translates to one train per hour within the specific market,
and Amtrak officials stated that they provide that level of service in
very few markets- many of which are located on Amtrak's corridors serving
highly populated metropolitan areas. For example, although Amtrak track
lines are adjacent to the airport in Cleveland, Ohio, Amtrak officials
stated that Amtrak trains run only twice a day along this line, which is
not frequent enough to establish a code-share agreement with an airline.
In contrast, in Europe, train companies provide high-speed rail service
between the Frankfurt airport and Cologne every half hour, between the
Frankfurt airport and Dortmund every hour, and between Paris and Amsterdam
Schiphol airport approximately every hour.37

In our prior work, we stated that transportation corridors that extend
across multiple state and local boundaries pose challenges for intermodal
transportation decision making due to coordination and crossjurisdictional
issues.38 Getting the cooperation of and coordination between these
different officials can make the planning and implementation of multistate
and multiregion projects difficult. During our interviews, we found that
many intermodal projects included multiple agencies, communities, and
transportation modes-each with its own priorities. For example, during the
planning of the Seattle light rail, Sound

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

38GAO, Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions,
GAO-04-744 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004).

Transit officials noted that the alignment from downtown Seattle to the
Seattle airport ran through a number of surrounding cities. This required
three local cities to approve permits for the construction of the project.

Inability of Ground Connections The development and use of intermodal
connections at airports can be

to Meet Airline Passenger limited by the inability of the ground
connections to meet the preferences

Preferences	of airline passengers. According to transportation research39
and local transportation officials, intermodal capabilities are difficult
to develop unless a demand for the service exists. Demand for public
transportation options to airports is limited, as the vast majority of
passengers still use private vehicles to access the airport. For example,
one study said that the ceiling on public transportation use to access
airports appeared to be about 10 to 15 percent, even at airports that had
rail connections.40 Transportation and airport officials told us that
consumers' preferences can affect the demand for intermodal options at
airports, such as the preference for seamless transitions from one mode to
another, a simplified process to handle baggage, transit schedules that
meet consumer demands, and clear, easy-to-follow information on accessing
transportation options-including signage at airports and information at
hotels on accessing transit to airports (see fig. 9 for an example of
signage).41 In addition, these officials stated that passengers,
particularly those traveling with large amounts of luggage and children,
may not consider using transit or rail systems to complete their travel
plans due to inconvenience.

39Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 62, Improving Public
Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington, D.C.: 2001); and
Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 83, Strategies for Improving
Public Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

40Transportation Research Board Paper No. 00-0577, Use of Public
Transportation by Airport Passengers (Washington, D.C.: 1998).

41Other factors that might influence consumers' preference include the
travel times and outof-pocket costs of different modes.

Figure 9: Airport Sign Showing the Direction to the Amtrak Train Station
at Milwaukee's General Mitchell International Airport

Source: GAO.

Two Key Strategies Could Help Address Intermodal Transportation Planning
and Financing Limitations

Using our past work and our analysis of information obtained from
government and transportation officials in the United States and Europe,
we identified two strategies that could help public decision makers
improve intermodal options at airports, particularly direct connections to
local and nationwide rail systems.42 A framework with key elements could
assist in the consideration and implementation of either strategy. The
first strategy would be to increase the funding flexibility of federal,
state, and local transportation agencies under U.S. transportation
policy's focus on local decisionmaking in order to encourage a more
systemwide approach to transportation planning and development. This
strategy could help

42While there is a potential for increasing intermodal options at airports
through expanding private bus services, the strategies discussed focus on
rail systems rather than the private bus industry as the private bus
industry uses existing road infrastructure, while rail systems typically
require the development of new rail infrastructure. Many of the issues
that limit expanded bus service at airports are related to market demand,
airport access points, and parking capacity for buses, which are primarily
local and airport issues.

overcome the difficulty of securing funding for intermodal projects at
airports, which local transportation officials identified most often as a
barrier to improving such capabilities. It would most likely lead to a
continued focus on the development of local intermodal connections rather
than a fully integrated nationwide system. The second strategy would
involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation policy's long-time
focus on state and local decisionmaking by increasing the role of the
federal government in planning and funding intermodal projects in order to
develop more integrated air and rail networks, either nationwide or along
particularly congested corridors. This strategy would be closer to the
intermodal development strategy followed by the European Union and several
European countries, or to the strategy the federal government used to
develop the interstate highway system. Such a strategy could increase
intermodal options and American mobility through broad policy and funding
changes, but the high cost of rail investments and the resulting high
costs of this strategy would make it difficult to justify on a nationwide
scale.

Key Components of a Framework Would Help Guide Either Strategy

Building on the perspectives gained from our past work43 in federal
investment strategies and the work of transportation experts, we developed
a framework to help guide consideration of the two strategies. This
framework has three components:

o 	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.

o 	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.

o 	Determine which funding approaches, such as alternatives to investment
in new infrastructure, will maximize the impact of any federal investment.
This component can help expand the ability to leverage funding resources
and promote shared responsibilities. Given

43GAO, Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for
Infrastructure Investments, GAO-02-1033 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2002).

the current budgetary environment, and the long-range fiscal challenges
confronting the country, substantial increases in funding for
transportation projects will require a high level of justification.

In addition, either strategy would benefit from a process for evaluating
performance periodically to determine if the anticipated benefits are
accruing. Evaluations also provide a means to periodically examine
established goals, roles, and approaches, and a basis to modify them, as
necessary. Leading organizations have stressed the importance of
developing performance measures and linking investment decisions and their
expected outcomes to overall strategic goals and objectives.44 While
highway and transit projects can be major components of intermodal
projects at airports, in our prior work, we found that there are no
requirements for evaluations of highway and transit projects receiving
federal funds other than those receiving funds through the New Starts

45

program.

First Strategy: Providing Federal and State Transportation Agencies
Flexibility in Developing Intermodal Transportation

Establishing National Transportation Goals that Integrate Airports

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.

National transportation goals could be established to encourage the
development of airport intermodal transportation options. In doing so,
Congress can help chart a clear direction, establish priorities among
competing projects, and specify the desired results. At the federal level,
surface transportation goals are geared toward providing and enhancing the
mobility of the American public with a focus primarily on roads, mass
transit systems, and railroads. For example, under ISTEA and TEA-21,
Congress established goals to develop a national intermodal ground
transportation system that will move people and goods in an efficient
manner, but the goals did not explicitly include connecting aviation to
the ground transportation systems. Futhermore, the national policy
concerning

44GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making,
GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998).

45See GAO-05-172.

Defining the Appropriate Federal Role

Establishing a Systemwide Approach to Intermodal Funding

intermodal planning of connections between airports and ground
transportation systems focuses on coordination and does not set priorities
or desired results for these types of intermodal connections.46 A truly
intermodal transportation system would connect ground systems, aviation,
and waterways. For example, both the European Union and some individual
European Union member nation's transportation plans highlight the goal of
developing better connections between different transportation systems,
including air and rail services.

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.

Federal transportation funding, which is focused on individual
transportation modes, could be shifted to a more systemwide approach
across all modes and types of travel. Under the federal transportation
planning and funding structure, local transportation agencies tap into
federal funds for transportation projects through different federal
programs and agencies, based on the relevant mode. Each federal program
has specific requirements and criteria, which can limit how local
transportation can access and use funds from these programs. In addition,
intermodal projects at airports can involve multi-jurisdictions, which can
present challenges under the current structure. For example, for
passengers or airports to obtain the full benefits of providing
alternative transportation options, intermodal capabilities need to be
connected to large local transit or national rail systems. Such systems
often provide service to multi-jurisdictions and, therefore, their
planning and development require cooperation among multiple transportation
providers and planners, such as state departments of transportation, local
transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and city and county
governments.

4649 U.S.C. S: 47101.

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:

o 	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.

o 	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.

o 	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.

o 	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.

o 	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.

Benefits Likely to Be Focused on While this strategy of encouraging a more
systemwide approach to

Local, Not Nationwide Travel	transportation planning and development could
address a number of barriers to developing intermodal services at
airports, it would likely support the development of connections to local
transit networks instead of to a nationwide rail network. This strategy is
based on breaking down barriers with the current transportation planning
structure, which is geared toward local involvement. Local transportation
officials we interviewed stated that the focus of developing intermodal
capabilities at their local airports was to provide greater access for the
local community, instead of providing links to nationwide networks.
Therefore, since this strategy provides local transportation agencies
additional flexibility, we believe that their emphasis will be on
developing intermodal capabilities for local access networks.

Second Strategy: Increasing the Involvement of the Federal Government in
Developing a Nationwide Intermodal Transportation System

Establishing National Transportation Goals to Develop Intermodal
Capabilities

If Congress decides that a more aggressive intermodal development strategy
is required, it could increase the federal government's involvement in
developing a nationwide intermodal transportation system, similar to
efforts in the 1950s to develop the interstate highway system. Such a
strategy would involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation
policy's focus on state and local decisionmaking for transportation
projects and would be closer to the intermodal development strategy
followed by the European Union (and several European countries) with the
goal of promoting rail as a complement to air transportation. For example,
the European Union and individual European nations are currently
supporting the development of air-rail networks through government funding
of highspeed rail infrastructure. In line with this focus, Germany and
France have built new dedicated high-speed rail lines that are used only
for passenger service and some of which include train stations at their
largest airports. While Europe provides examples of how to develop
intermodal capabilities at airports, significant differences in population
density, geography, and private vehicle costs between the United States
and Europe would limit the use of the European model in the United States.
(See app. II for more information on the development of air-rail
connections in Europe.)

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.)

Define the Federal Role in The federal government could take a more active
role-versus state and

Planning Intermodal Capabilities	local transportation agencies-in the
planning of intermodal connections between airports and other
transportation modes. In terms of planning, the interstate highway system
provides an example of how active involvement by the federal government
could lead to the development of a nationwide intermodal system. In that
case, the federal government provided projectspecific oversight, laid out
the routes, oversaw construction, and ensured that the system was
adequately maintained. To develop a nationwide intermodal system that
focuses on connecting airports to a rail network of sufficient quality to
attract significant number of riders, the federal government could
potentially take on similar roles. The European highspeed rail network is
another example of governments taking an active role in developing larger
transportation networks that connect to airports. For example, the French
government plays a major role in developing its highspeed rail
system-Train `a Grande Vitesse. There are four main participants in the
nation's rail network, including the central government,

regional governments, Reseau Ferre de France,47 and the Societe Nationale
des Chemins de fer Franc,ais.48 While the ownership, management, and
operation of the rail system is carried out by the Reseau Ferre de France
and Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Franc,ais, the central government
still defines the extent of the network, gives its approval to major
projects, participates in funding, and has oversight authority for the
construction and safety of these projects. In addition, while no specific
department deals with intermodal capabilities at French airports, the
French government set up a working group in 2002 to look at developing
more integration between the two transportation modes.

Determining the Appropriate For the federal government to take a more
active role in developing airport

                            Federal Funding Sources

intermodal capabilities, it might also need to take on additional federal
funding responsibilities. This would be especially true if the federal
policy was to develop a system that promoted connections between airport
and high-speed rail networks, similar to the systems that have been
developed in Europe. To fully develop an intermodal system that provides
airline passengers with nationwide rail options that are comparable to
European systems and that could potentially compete with air service,
would require expanding and improving the existing U.S. rail network and
rail service. Except in limited highly traveled corridors, Amtrak cannot
provide the level of service that airlines require, in part, because much
of the U.S. rail infrastructure is privately owned by freight companies
and passenger trains do not receive priority in scheduling. To accomplish
improved air-rail connections, the federal government would have to
increase its funding role due to the high cost of enhancing or expanding
rail service or developing high-speed rail corridors.

Congress has in the past provided significant funding for large
transportation projects that were deemed to be in the national interest
and were geared toward reaching national goals. For example, between 1954
and 2001, Congress apportioned over $370 billion for the construction and
preservation of the interstate highway system. Increased federal
involvement in the development of nationwide intermodal capabilities at
U.S. airports would be costly and could require the implementation of a

47The Reseau Ferre de France is a public company, owned by the French
government, that owns and manages the French rail network.

48Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Franc,ais operates the trains on
behalf of Reseau Ferre de France.

dedicated funding source. The full costs of any intermodal capability
would be dependent on how integrated and expansive this network would be
and whether it included additional high-speed rail or focused on
conventional passenger rail service. Our prior work has shown that both
choices are costly. In the past, we have reported on Amtrak's precarious
financial situation, for which Congress has periodically provided
large-scale infusions of federal funds for capital expenses.49 Additional
federal funds have been spent to develop high-speed train service between
Boston and Washington, D.C. We found that through March 2003, a total of
about $3.2 billion had been provided-about $2.6 billion by the federal
government and an additional $625 million by commuter rail agencies and
state governments.50

Unlike the capital investment in infrastructure for airports, highways,
and transit, which receive significant federal money from dedicated
funding sources, the national rail system's infrastructure is funded by
annual appropriations and must compete with other federal programs for
funds on an annual basis. Therefore, to establish any long-term strategy
to fund improvements between the national rail system and airports could
require the establishment of a dedicated funding source. For example, in
the past, it has been suggested that Amtrak could be funded through a
dedicated funding source, such as one of the federal transportation trust
funds. Even if a revenue source is established, this new funding would
face many of the same revenue challenges that other transportation
systems, such as highways, are facing as revenue sources are eroded.

Both the European Union and European governments have invested significant
funds in the development of high-speed rail networks that provide
passengers the option of fast intercity travel. For example, the European
Union estimated in 2003 that the total cost of completing the
trans-European transport rail network would be around 350 billion euros.

49From fiscal years 1976 through 2003, the federal government provided
Amtrak with over $26 billion (nominal dollars) in operating and capital
subsidies. This is equivalent to about $41.7 billion in 2002 dollars. See
GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues for Consideration in Developing an
Intercity Passenger Rail Policy, GAO-03-712T (Washington, D.C.: April 30,
2003).

50In 2003, we reported that Amtrak had estimated it would require up to
$70 billion over 20 years to enhance or expand service or develop
high-speed rail corridors. See GAO-03-712T.

In addition, some European governments provide a significant portion of
funding for all new rail infrastructure. For example, the Swiss government
has established a vehicle tax on all Swiss and foreign freight trucks
using Swiss roads to help fund its rail network, among other things.
Two-thirds of the revenue collected from this tax is allocated to
improving the Swiss rail infrastructure. Germany has also enacted a
specific toll on freight vehicles based on a user charge for actual
mileage driven. The revenue collected from this toll will be used to
finance the Anti-Congestion Scheme for Federal Railway Infrastructure
program, among other programs.51

Anticipated Benefits May Not Given the high costs of this strategy,
benefits high enough to justify

Justify High Costs	investment in intermodal facilities would likely be
anticipated in a limited number of places, at most. Both private and
public benefits could result from this investment. Users of the investment
would receive private benefits in the form of transportation services and
would be expected to pay some form of fee or user charge. How much users
would be willing to pay would depend on the value of the services that
they would receive from the intermodal facility, compared with the
benefits from alternative modes that they could also use for the same trip
and the prices they would have to pay for the alternatives. In locations
where there is highway congestion, a rail link to the airport might be
valuable to many travelers because it could offer a travel option that
might reduce travel time or make the travel time more reliable. Similarly,
if airport parking is expensive, an intermodal link might have
considerable value to travelers. However, such a link might be of less
value where there is little congestion and parking is inexpensive; in such
situations, we would not anticipate that many travelers would be willing
to pay much to use a new facility.

In addition to these private benefits, there may be public benefits that
users would not take into account in deciding how often to use the
facility and how much they would be willing to pay. The public benefits
could include reduced highway and air congestion, pollution, and energy
dependence. For example, if air passengers can access a nationwide rail
network directly at an airport, some passengers might travel to that
airport from other cities by train rather than on highways or short-haul
flights, which might reduce highway or airport and airway congestion.
However, the demand for such service is likely to be low except in a few
highly congested travel corridors where the distances are short enough to
make rail travel

51The goal of this program is to increase the effectiveness of the railway
system and shift traffic from the nation's roadway system to the railway
system.

times competitive with air travel times. Morever, congestion-relief
benefits would only be realized at airports where either highways or
airports are already at or near capacity, because only at those airports
would additional users have a disproportionate, detrimental effect on the
flow of automobile or aircraft traffic. At airports that do not have
substantial highway or airport congestion, such benefits would not be
realized. There might still be some pollution and energy dependency
benefits, but since the number of travelers likely to use these facilities
at such airports is limited, these benefits will be limited as well.
Public benefits could also include "option value," the value that people
place on having the option to use something even though they are not
currently using it. By providing an alternative that would be available to
travelers as an option if their circumstances change, such as bad weather,
investment in intermodal facilities creates value that could also justify
public subsidy. The greater the number of potential users, and the greater
the likelihood that travelers might switch to the new facility, the
greater the option value.

The existence of public benefits, or externalities, is often cited as a
justification for public subsidies that would induce more people to use a
facility than if they had to pay the full cost. When the price can be
reduced to users due to subsidies, some additional travelers for whom the
private benefits would not be sufficient to justify paying an unsubsidized
price would also choose to use the facility. However, only where both the
private and the public benefits are large would the appropriate subsidy be
sufficient to cover the difference between what users would be willing to
pay and the substantial cost of the facility. Given the high investment
costs, these locations are likely to be limited to airports where there is
substantial ground and air congestion and to a few highly congested travel
corridors where the distances are short enough to make rail travel times
competitive with air travel times.

Concluding	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.

Observations 	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.

Agency Comments	We provided drafts of this report to DOT and Amtrak for
their review and comment. DOT provided technical comments from FAA's
Director of Airport Planning and Programming, which we have incorporated
in this report as appropriate. Overall, DOT generally concurred with this
report. Amtrak had no comments on this report.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
interested congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the
Administrators of FAA and FTA, and the President of Amtrak. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
5122834 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
VII.

Sincerely yours,

Katherine Siggerud Director, Physical Infrastructure

Appendix I

                       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report addressed the following questions: (1) What roles do federal,
state, and local governments and the private sector play in developing
intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? (2) To what extent have
intermodal services and facilities been developed at selected U.S.
airports? (3) What benefits, costs, and barriers exist for developing
additional intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports? (4) What
transportation strategies, including lessons learned from the European
experience, may help public decisionmakers improve intermodal capabilities
at U.S. airports?

To address these questions, we used a variety of methods and sources of
information. To determine the roles that federal, state, and local
governments and the private sector play in developing intermodal
capabilities at U.S. airports, we interviewed transportation officials
from the following Department of Transportation (DOT) offices: Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Office of Intermodalism. We
also interviewed officials from the American Bus Association, Association
of American Railroads, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations,
Airports Council International-North American, American Public
Transportation Association, International Air Rail Organization, Amtrak,
American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Midwest Airlines, and Northwest
Airlines. In addition, we interviewed officials from state and local
transportation offices, metropolitan planning organizations, transit
authorities, and airport authorities representing selected airports, which
are identified later in this appendix.

To determine the extent to which intermodal services and facilities have
been developed at major U.S. airports, we selected and administered a
Web-based survey to 72 airports from FAA's 2003 Air Carrier Activity
Information System1 database. These airports accounted for approximately
90 percent of the enplanements for calendar year 2003, and consist of all
33 large hub, all 35 medium hub, and the 4 small hub airports that are
located

1The FAA Air Carrier Activity Information System database categorizes
airports by the number of annual enplanements.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

in the same metropolitan area as a large or medium hub airport.2 Appendix
V provides the complete list of airports surveyed. We asked airport
officials about the local and nationwide bus and rail systems that are
accessible to their airports by regular, fixed-route shuttle service, an
automated people mover or walking. We also asked the airports if their
capital improvement plan included proposals to enhance the airport's
connections to local and nationwide transportation systems. Since
responses to surveys are often subject to nonsampling errors, we attempted
to minimize these errors by taking several precautions during the
questionnaire design and pretested the instrument with 8 medium and large
hub airports. We made changes to the content and format of the final
questionnaire as a result of these pretests. The questionnaire was
administered on the Internet from February 22 to March 31, 2005, with two
intervening e-mail messages and follow-up telephone contacts. We received
responses from all 72 airports,3 resulting in a 100 percent response rate.
To ensure the accuracy of information presented by the airport officials,
we relied on Salk International's Airport Transit Guide and follow-up
questions at selected airports. We are not reporting responses for two
questions on the survey because we determined that these responses were
unreliable. During our pretests of the survey questionnaire, some
respondents gave incorrect answers to questions about the existence of
stations for either Amtrak or a nationwide bus system within their
metropolitan area (questions 5 and 13). Based on follow-up questions, we
discovered that some pretest respondents were unaware of some stations
located within their metropolitan area, especially in instances where
there was no direct access between the airport and these stations. In
addition, some respondents were unaware of the exact boundaries of their
metropolitan area. Despite these difficulties, we elected to leave these
questions in the survey because of their role in screening respondents and
setting the context for subsequent questions. The nature of the errors
were such that false negative responses would be unlikely to lead to
errors in subsequent questions. That is, it is unlikely that an airport
that actually had direct connections to a nationwide bus or rail system
would state that there was not a station for such a system

2FAA categorizes the nation's commercial airports into four main groups
based on the number of passenger enplanements-large hubs, medium hubs,
small hubs, and nonhubs. The categories are based on the number of
passengers boarding an aircraft (enplaned) for all operations of U.S.
carriers in the United States. A large hub enplanes at least 1 percent of
all passengers, a medium hub 0.25 to 0.99 percent, a small hub 0.05 to
0.249 percent, and a nonhub less than 0.05 percent.

3We received one airport's response by fax.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

in their metropolitan area. We conclude that responses to the remaining
questions are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Appendix IV provides the survey results. The survey results (GAO-05-738SP)
are also available on the GAO Web site at
http://newwww.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao05-738SP/index.html.

To obtain information on the benefits, costs, and barriers in developing
intermodal capabilities at selected U.S. airports, we conducted case study
analysis of 16 selected airports. Airports for our case studies were
chosen based on airport size, planned or existing types of intermodal
service,4 and geographic location. We adopted a case study methodology
because, while the results cannot be projected to the universe of
airports, case studies are useful in illustrating the range and complexity
of intermodal capabilities the airports implemented. We interviewed local
and state transportation officials, metropolitan planning organizations,
transit authorities, airport authorities, airlines and other key
stakeholders at each of the 16 airports. The cities and airports where we
conducted our case studies are shown in table 8.

                Table 8: Airports Selected for GAO Case Studies

                                     Airport Geographic location Airport size 
          Baltimore-Washington International       Baltimore, MD    Large     
              General Mitchell International       Milwaukee, WI    Medium    
               John F. Kennedy International   New York City, NY    Large     
                                  La Guardia   New York City, NY    Large     
                   Los Angeles International     Los Angeles, CA    Large     
          Metropolitan Oakland International         Oakland, CA    Large     
                         Miami International           Miami, FL    Large     
          Minneapolis/St. Paul International     Minneapolis, MN    Large     
                Newark Liberty International          Newark, NJ    Large     
                   Norman Y. Mineta San Jose        San Jose, CA    Medium    
                               International                     
                       Ontario International         Ontario, CA    Medium    
                      Portland International        Portland, OR    Medium    
           Ronald Reagan Washington National       Arlington, VA    Large     

4Planned or existing types of intermodal service include rail, bus, and
high-speed rail.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

(Continued From Previous Page)

                                   Airport Geographic location   Airport size 
               San Francisco International    San Francisco, CA     Large     
              Seattle-Tacoma International          Sea-Tac, WA     Large     
           Washington Dulles International        Chantilly, VA     Large     

Source: GAO.

To determine what transportation strategies may help public decision
makers improve intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports, we interviewed
government, airline, rail, and airport officials from the European Union,
France, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands to obtain descriptive
information on their airport-rail connections. These nations were selected
based on research publications, which identified airports within these
countries as having best practices on intermodal airport connections. We
also reviewed and used information from our past reports on areas
including the interstate highway system, the nationwide rail system, and
transportation investment strategies. In order to determine basic
differences between the United States and Europe that could affect the
relevance of the European experience in the United States, we gathered and
analyzed information from intermodal transportation experts and
literature.

In addition, we obtained and analyzed information and documents from DOT,
the European Union, the National Research Council's Transportation
Research Board, the Transit Cooperative Research Program, and others. We
conducted our work between July 2004 and July 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

                  Intermodal Connections at Airports in Europe

While the European Union has developed a common transportation policy, the
actual implementation and development of transportation infrastructure,
including intermodal capabilities at European airports, remains the
responsibility of individual member nations. Their experiences may provide
examples of how intermodal connectivity could be improved in the United
States. However, significant differences between the United States and
Europe should be considered.

                              Role of the European
                              Union in Developing
                              Air-Rail Connections

In 1992, the European Union established a transportation policy with the
guiding principle to open up the transportation market between member
countries. This policy included increasing competition within the aviation
industry, striking a balance between growth in air transportation and the
environment, and building new transportation infrastructure. The European
Commission's Directorate-General for Transport and Energy is the
transportation agency for the European Union and is responsible for
developing and implementing transportation policy. This office carries out
these tasks using legislative proposals-which establish specific
requirements or regulations that member countries must implement-and
program management including the financing of certain transportation
projects. While the European Union has established a European Unionwide
policy, individual member nations are responsible for planning and funding
not only European Union-designated priority projects, but also their own
individual transportation priorities.

In July 1996, the European Union established guidelines for developing a
trans-European transportation network that comprises roads, railways,
airports, seaports, inland ports and traffic management systems that serve
the entire European Union. The guidelines included a list of priority
projects that can receive funding from the European Union. For those
priority projects, the European Union generally funded up to 50 percent of
the project study costs and up to 10 percent of project development
costs.1 Member nations are primarily responsible for planning, designing,
funding, and building these projects.

1The European Union's 10 percent funding of project development costs is
for sections of the projects that are linked to the trans-European network
objectives.

            Appendix II Intermodal Connections at Airports in Europe

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

During our interviews with transportation officials in four European
countries, we found that national governments, local governments, and
private transportation companies-such as airport and rail companies-all
take part in the development of intermodal capabilities at airports.2 At
the European locations we visited, airports, many of which are owned or
operated by private airport management companies, have taken the lead in
planning and funding major intermodal facilities on airport property. For
example, Fraport, a private company that manages Frankfurt's airport, and
Deutsche Bahn, the German rail company, invested over 300 million euros in
building a station for long-distance and high-speed trains at the
Frankfurt airport.3 Additionally, some European rail systems are also
privately operated. For example, both Germany and France have established
private companies to operate their nations' rail systems. However, the
national government still takes the lead in planning and funding the
building of the overall rail infrastructure, such as dedicated high-speed
rail tracks. Once this infrastructure is built, it is then turned over to
these private companies that operate and manage this infrastructure. At
the Frankfurt airport, Deutsche Bahn and Fraport funded the construction
of the long-distance train station, but all the track infrastructure was
funded by the German national government. We found that local governments
also are involved in providing intermodal transportation services to
airports, with local government-owned transit agencies providing either
rail or local bus service to the airport. For example, the Rhein-Main
Verkehrsverbund regional transit system provides 230 daily connections and
service to about 4,000 passengers per day from the Frankfurt airport.

Differences between the United States and Europe Limit Usefulness of
"European Model"

Examining international models can provide examples of how a more active
federal role can help in developing a nationwide rail network, including
intermodal capabilities at airports. However, significant differences
between the United States and other nations would limit the use of these
international models. Based on information we gathered from intermodal
transportation experts and research we reviewed, we identified

2Many European airports are either owned by private-for-profit companies
or are owned by regional or local governments and managed by
private-for-profit companies.

3The Frankfurt International Airport is owned and managed by Fraport, a
private airport management company. The state of Hesse, city of Frankfurt,
and German federal government own over 70 percent of Fraport's shares.

Appendix II Intermodal Connections at Airports in Europe

three basic differences between the United States and Europe that affect
the ability to use the European model in the United States.

o 	Population density. Experts and prior research highlight the greater
population density of European cities and that downtowns are major
destination points for passengers as key differences that affect the use
of intermodal systems. While some U.S. cities have population densities
comparable to European cities, in general, U.S. cities are more
decentralized. In addition, prior research has shown that European cities
generally have a greater downtown orientation for passengers as compared
to U.S. cities, and so intermodal systems providing direct access to
downtown will have a greater ability to draw passengers.4

o 	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.

o 	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.

4Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 62, Improving Public
Transportation Access to Large Airports (Washington, D.C.: 2000).

Appendix III

                   Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports

Intermodal projects are large capital projects that generally require
pooling money from different sources and different transportation modes.
The federal government can help finance local transportation projects
through federal transportation programs such as the New Starts program and
federal credit assistance programs such as the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act. State and locally generated money such as state
transportation trust funds, dedicated sales taxes, and highway tolls have
been used to match federal funds. In addition, airports have used
passenger facility charges (PFC) and airport revenue to fund rail access
at airports and public-private partnerships have been used to attract
private investment.

Federal Funding	The New Starts program is used to select for federal
funding new rail transit projects, including those that connect to
airports. New Starts is the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) capital
investment program for fixed guideway systems and extensions. For selected
projects, a maximum of 80 percent federal contribution to total project
costs can be funded, but projects that request a maximum federal share of
60 percent of the project's total cost receive higher priority. For
example, parts of the BART extension to the San Francisco International
Airport and the Hiawatha Light Rail Line to the Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport were funded through the New Starts program. Other
federal programs provide support for highway and transit systems that may
be connected to airports. For example, federal highway fuel taxes are
deposited into the Highway Trust Fund and distributed by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and FTA to state transportation departments
and local transit operators. While most federal funding sources and
programs are linked to highway or transit uses, some funding flexibility
between highway and transit is allowed under programs such as the Surface
Transportation Program and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program, both of which have been used to fund intermodal
projects.

                                  Appendix III
                   Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports

In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) provides grants to airports for planning and
development projects. The program is funded in part by aviation user
taxes, which are deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. Funds
are allocated to airports with scheduled commercial service and at least
10,000 enplanements each year.1 In terms of promoting intermodal
capabilities, AIP funds are generally used for access roads to airports
that are airport owned, on airport property, and exclusively serve airport
traffic.2

Furthermore, DOT provides credit assistance for highway, transit,
passenger rail, and intermodal projects under the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. Credit assistance includes
direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit. Project financing must
be repayable in part or in whole from tolls, user fees, or other dedicated
revenue sources.

Finally, Congress designates specific transportation programs and projects
for funding. For example, federal funds to Amtrak support nationwide
passenger rail service for operating and capital expenses. Congress also
designated funds for the construction of the Amtrak station at the
Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport.

State and Local Funding

State and local funding for intermodal capabilities can provide matching
funds for federal programs such as New Starts and can derive from several
sources. These sources have included state and local apportionments of the
Highway Trust Fund, state and local gas taxes, and motor vehicle taxes and
registration fees. In addition, some states have dedicated a percentage of
the general sales tax to fund rail transit projects.3 Some local
governments and transit agencies have also dedicated a portion of property

1Funds are allocated to smaller airports at a fixed amount each year based
on their FAAidentified capital needs and to airports with significant
all-cargo operations based on the airport's cargo tonnage. FAA also
distributes a portion of AIP funds each year based on discretionary
considerations.

2The facility must be owned by the airport but can be leased to a transit
authority for operations and maintenance. In addition, the facility must
be located on property that is either owned by the airport or included in
an airport lease or easement agreement.

3In the case studies that we examined, the respective counties that
include the cities of Seattle, San Francisco, and Miami passed ballot
measures dedicating a portion of the sales tax for rail transit projects.

Appendix III
Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports

tax or payroll tax for rail projects to airports. Also, bridge, tunnel,
and highway tolls have in part funded automated people mover systems at
John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and Newark Liberty
Airport in New Jersey. In addition, cities and counties can provide
capital and operating costs for rail projects. Further, local governments
have established special tax districts such as "transportation improvement
districts" that can tax businesses in order to capture the value added to
a business or property with close access to a rail project. In this way,
those who receive the benefits of increased economic activity or increased
property value contribute to project costs. For example, a transportation
improvement district was established to help fund the proposed rail
extension to the Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.

Like the federal government, states have their own credit assistance
programs. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 allows up to
10 states to capitalize transportation credit assistance banks to provide
loans and credit enhancement to eligible surface transportation projects.
For example, under this program, Florida used funds authorized under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to capitalize its credit
assistance bank, which funded in part the development of the Miami
Intermodal Center at Miami International Airport.

PFCs and airport revenue are the primary sources of local airport
contributions to funding projects that provide rail access to airports.
For a project to be eligible to use PFCs, it must be airport owned, on
airport property, and be exclusively for the use of airport passengers and
employees.4 Airports apply to FAA for approval of both the collection of
the fees and the use of the fee revenue for specific projects. FAA will
generally approve an airport's proposal for the collection or use of PFC
funds as long as the project is eligible, meets a program objective, and
is adequately justified. Airport revenue includes receipts from customer
facility charges,5 parking, terminal concessions, and airline landing fees
and rentals. For example, the Miami Intermodal Center will levy a customer
facility charge on car rentals to pay for its consolidated rental car
facility. The eligibility

4As with AIP grants, the facility must be owned by the airport but can be
leased to a transit authority for operations and maintenance. In addition,
the facility must be located on property that is either owned by the
airport or included in an airport lease or easement agreement.

5Customer facility charges are surcharges on car rentals that can pay for
the capital and operating costs of a transit system from a consolidated
rental car facility.

                                  Appendix III
                   Financing Intermodal Projects at Airports

criteria for the use of airport revenue are similar to PFCs, but projects
must only be directly or substantially related to the air transportation
of passengers and property rather than for exclusive use. FAA does not
approve the use of airport revenue for a particular project, unless an
airport or airport user complains that funds are being inappropriately
used.

State and local governments have used federal funding, PFCs, and airport
revenue to back tax-exempt bonds. Also, Grant Anticipation Notes backed by
New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreements6 were used for the BART extension
to the San Francisco airport. For on-airport projects, General Airport
Revenue Bonds have been issued by airports backed solely by, or in
combination with, PFCs and airport revenue.

Private Sector Investment

Private investment in intermodal capabilities has occurred through
publicprivate partnerships. For example, Portland International Airport
entered into a public-private partnership with the builder of its light
rail extension to the airport. In return, the builder has a 85-year lease
on the property to develop retail or office space.

6A New Starts Full Funding Grant Agreement defines the project including
cost, scope, and schedule and commits a maximum level of federal financial
assistance subject to appropriation.

Appendix IV

Survey Results

 Number of airports responding Don't knowQuestions Yes No Not applicable Local
                                  rail systems

1. Is there at least one rail system designed for local transportation
within the metropolitan area where ( ) Airport is located? Please consider
local rail systems to include light rail, commuter rail, and subways, but
not to include nationwide rail networks, such as Amtrak. 43 29 0

2. For this local rail system (or systems), please consider the stations
that are most
accessible to the airport. Is there regular, fixed-route shuttle service
from any of these local
rail stations to any of the airport's terminals? 22 18 3

3. Does the airport have a people mover (that is, an automated guideway
car or a moving
sidewalk) that transports passengers from any of these local rail stations
to any of the
airport's terminals? 8 34 1

4. Would it be convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk from
any of these local
rail stations to any of the airport's terminals? 11 31 0

                            Nationwide rail network

5. Is there at least one Amtrak station in the metropolitan area where ( )
Airport is
located?a 56 16 0

6. Please consider the Amtrak station (or stations) most accessible to the
airport. Is there regular, fixed-route shuttle service from any of these
Amtrak stations to any of the airport's terminals? 13 42 0

7. Does the airport have a people mover (that is, an automated guideway
car or a moving
sidewalk) that transports passengers from any of these Amtrak stations to
any of the
airport's terminals? 1 53 2

8. Would it be convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk from
any of these
Amtrak stations to any of the airport's terminals? 0 56 0

                               Local bus systems

9. Is there at least one system of scheduled, fixed-route buses designed
for local
transportation within the metropolitan area where ( ) Airport is located?
Please consider
local bus systems to include public transit buses, express buses, and bus
rapid transit. Do
not consider either nationwide bus systems, such as Greyhound, or
on-demand
transportation, such as taxi vans, hotel shuttles, or charter buses as
local bus systems. 70 2 0

10. For this local bus system (or systems), please consider the bus stops
that are most
accessible to the airport. Is there regular, fixed-route shuttle service
from any of these bus
stops to any of the airport's terminals? 48 19 3 0

11. Does the airport have a people mover (that is, an automated guideway
car or a moving
sidewalk) that transports passengers from any of these bus stops to any of
the airport's
terminals? 6 58 6 0

12. Would it be convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk from
any of these bus
stops to any of the airport's terminals? 56 14 0 0

                           Appendix IV Survey Results

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

    Number of airports responding Don't knowQuestions Yes No Not applicable
                             Nationwide bus systems

13. Is there at least one station for a nationwide bus system, such as
Greyhound, within the metropolitan area where ( ) Airport is located?
Please do not consider local transit

                                       a

buses, charter buses, or shuttle buses to be a nationwide bus system. 58
14 0

14. Please consider the nationwide bus station (or stations) most
accessible to the airport.
Is there regular, fixed-route shuttle service from any of these nationwide
bus stations to
any of the airport's terminals? 10 46 0

15. Does the airport have a people mover (that is, an automated guideway
car or a moving
sidewalk) that transports passengers from any of these nationwide bus
stations to any of
the airport's terminals? 1 55 2

16. Would it be convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk from
any of these
nationwide bus stations to any of the airport's terminals? 5 53 0

                Plans to build ground transportation facilities

17. Does ( ) Airport have a Capital Improvement Plan? 72 0 0

18. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to
build a train station
for a local rail system? Please consider local rail systems to include
light rail, commuter
rail, and subways, but not to include nationwide rail networks, such as
Amtrak. 14 55 3

19. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to
build a train station
for a nationwide train system, such as Amtrak? 0 72 0

20. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to add
stops for local
transit buses? Please consider local bus systems to include public transit
buses, express
buses, and bus rapid transit. Do not consider either nationwide bus
systems, such as
Greyhound, or on-demand transportation, such as taxi vans, hotel shuttles,
or charter
buses as local bus systems. 12 56 4

21. Does the airport's Capital Improvement Plan include a proposal to
build a station for a
nationwide bus system, such as Greyhound? Please do not consider local
transit buses,
charter buses, or shuttle buses to be a nationwide bus system. 2 69 1

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 19 50 2 
                           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? 13 53 3

Source: GAO.

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

Appendix V

Survey Results on Existing and Planned Bus and Rail Connections

The 72 airports we surveyed reported different levels of connections to
air and rail systems. As shown in table 9, most airports had direct
connections to local bus or rail systems, while fewer had connections to
nationwide transportation systems. Twenty airports reported plans to
develop connections to local transportation systems, while only 2 reported
plans to develop connections to a nationwide transportation system.

 Table 9: Existing and Planned Bus and Rail Connections at 72 Airports Planned
    local bus (n=12) Planned local rail (n=14) Planned nationwide bus (n=2)

Airport (n=72)

                       Local bus (n=64) Local rail (n=27)

Nationwide bus (n=12)

                         Planned nationwide rail (n=0)

Nationwide rail (n=13)

Albuquerque International Sunport

Austin-Bergstrom International x

Baltimore-Washington International x x x x x x

Bob Hope x x x

Bradley International x

Buffalo Niagara International x

Charlotte/Douglas International x

Chicago Midway International x x x

Chicago O'Hare International x x x x

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International x x

Cleveland-Hopkins International x x

Dallas Love Field x x

Dallas/Fort Worth International x x x x x

Denver International x x

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County x

Eppley Airfield

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International x x x

General Edward Lawrence Logan x x
International

General Mitchell International x x x

George Bush Intercontinental x x

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International x x x

Honolulu International x

Indianapolis International x x

Jacksonville International x x

John F. Kennedy International x x

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

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

Planned Local Local local Planned Planned Planned bus rail Nationwide
Nationwide bus local rail nationwide nationwide Airport (n=72) (n=64)
(n=27) bus (n=12) rail (n=13) (n=12) (n=14) bus (n=2) rail (n=0)

John Wayne Airport-Orange County x

Kahului

                           Kansas City International

La Guardia x x x x

Lambert-St Louis International x x x

Long Beach/Daugherty Field x

Long Island MacArthur x x

Los Angeles International x x x

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International x

Louisville International-Standiford Field x

Luis Munoz Marin International x

Manchester x

McCarran International x

Memphis International x x x x

Metropolitan Oakland International x x

Miami International x x x x

Minneapolis/St. Paul International x x
Nashville International x
Newark Liberty International x x x x
Norfolk International
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International x x
Ontario International x
Orlando International x x
Orlando Sanford x x
Palm Beach International x x x x
Philadelphia International x x x x
Phoenix Sky Harbor International x x x
Pittsburgh International x
Port Columbus International x
Portland International x
Raleigh-Durham International x x
Reno/Tahoe International x x
Ronald Reagan Washington National x x
Sacramento International x x
Salt Lake City International x x

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

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

Planned Local Local local Planned Planned Planned bus rail Nationwide
Nationwide bus local rail nationwide nationwide Airport (n=72) (n=64)
(n=27) bus (n=12) rail (n=13) (n=12) (n=14) bus (n=2) rail (n=0)

San Antonio International x

San Diego International x

San Francisco International x x

Seattle-Tacoma International x x x

Southwest Florida International x

Tampa International x x x

Ted Stevens Anchorage International x

Theodore Francis Green State x x x

Tucson International x

Washington Dulles International x x x x

Westchester County x

William P. Hobby x x

Source: GAO.

Note: For existing connections, we considered a transfer point (such as a
bus stop or rail station) to be a direct connection to the airport if: it
was convenient for an average adult with luggage to walk to the transfer
point from any of the airport's terminals; the airport had a people mover
(that is, an automated guideway car or a moving sidewalk) that transports
passengers from the transfer point to any of the airport's terminals; or
there was regular fixed-route shuttle service from the transfer point to
any of the airport's terminals.

Appendix VI

Selected Airport Case Studies

Airport and local transportation officials at each of our case studies
reported a number of primary benefits and primary barriers associated with
the development of intermodal facilities at the airport. As shown in
figure 10, the most commonly cited primary benefit for intermodal
facilities at the airport was providing alternative transportation options
for passengers, while the most commonly cited primary barrier to
developing such facilities was restrictions on the use of FAA funds. A
brief description of the intermodal facilities, plans for additional
facilities, and local stakeholders at each of the airports is presented in
this appendix.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

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

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Baltimore-Washington International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - Baltimore-Washington International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 11).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport's
terminal.

o 	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.

o 	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.

o 	Plans for additional facilities: The airport is evaluating the need for
and feasibility of developing a regional intermodal transportation center
and an automated people mover system that would connect the airport to the
Amtrak rail station, satellite parking lots, and a consolidated rental car
facility.

Key Local Stakeholders - The Baltimore-Washington airport is owned and
operated by the Maryland Aviation Administration, which is part of the
Maryland Department of Transportation. At the state level, the department
of transportation leads intermodal planning and coordination between state
transportation agencies through the airport's Access Coordination Group.
This group is comprised of various state and local government agencies
that coordinate project information and resolve any problems or issues.
The aviation administration is the lead agency in planning and
coordinating intermodal facilities at the airport with federal agencies
(such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), state agencies, local
governments, private sector organizations, and public stakeholders. Other
key organizations include the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, the
metropolitan planning organization for the Baltimore region, and Anne
Arundel County, which regulates land development on nonstate and federal
property. The Maryland Transit Administration provides local bus and rail
transit service, and Howard County Transit and Annapolis Transit provide
local bus service. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

provides express bus service to the Greenbelt station of Washington,
D.C.'s local rail transit system, Metro.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

                                  Source: GAO.

                           Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Los Angeles International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - The Los Angeles International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 12).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the Intermodal
Transit Center, which is connected to airport terminals by a free shuttle.

o 	Local rail: Passengers can access the local rail transit system at a
station connected to airport terminals by a free shuttle.

o  Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.

o 	Plans for additional facilities: The Los Angeles airport master plan
includes the development of an intermodal transportation center with a
direct connection to the local rail transit system. The plan also includes
the construction of automated people movers to connect the intermodal
transportation center to airport terminals.

Key Local Stakeholders - Los Angeles airport is owned and operated by Los
Angeles World Airports-a department of the City of Los Angeles-and
governed by the seven-member Board of Airport Commissioners. A number of
transit agencies-Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
Culver City Transit, Santa Monica Transit, and Torrance Transit-provide
local bus service from the airport to various locations within the Los
Angeles area. In addition, the airport also operates a dedicated express
bus service, Van Nuys FlyAway, which transports passengers to and from the
San Fernando Valley. The airport is taking the lead to develop the
intermodal transportation center with a connection to the local rail
transit system. Other state and local transportation agencies, such as the
Southern California Association of Governments (a metropolitan planning
organization) and the California Department of Transportation, have played
a limited role in planning ground access to the airport.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Source: GAO.

Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Miami International Airport

Intermodal Facilities --Miami International Airport has the following
intermodal connections (see fig. 13).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport's
passenger terminal.

o  Local rail: No connections.

o  Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.

o 	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.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

                                  Source: GAO.

                           Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport
has the following intermodal connections (see fig. 14).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at a bus stop about
1 block from the terminal.

o  Local rail: No connections.

o 	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.

o 	Plans for additional facilities: A proposed commuter rail line between
downtown Milwaukee and Chicago would include a station near the airport
that would be connected to the airport by a free shuttle. In addition,
there is a proposal to develop a network of five interconnected express
bus routes in the Milwaukee area, with one route directly serving the
airport.

Key Local Stakeholders -The Milwaukee airport is owned and operated by
Milwaukee County. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation was the lead
agency in developing and securing funding for the construction of the
airport's Amtrak service and rail track improvements. In addition, airport
staff participated in the planning and construction of the rail station.
Amtrak and the Canadian Pacific Railway, which owns the track next to the
airport, were key stakeholders. Amtrak agreed to make the additional stop
on its Chicago-Milwaukee route, and Canadian Pacific Railway agreed to
allow the construction of the new station subject to the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation providing funding for track improvements to
maintain freight capacity. Local bus service is provided by Milwaukee
County Transit. Midwest Airlines, which is the largest tenant at the
airport, advocated the development of the airport's rail station.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

                                  Source: GAO.

                           Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

                              Minneapolis/St. Paul
                             International Airport

Intermodal Facilities -The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport has
the following intermodal connections (see fig. 15).

o 	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).

o 	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.

o  Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.

o  Plans for additional facilities: None reported.

Key Local Stakeholders - The Minneapolis/St. Paul airport is owned and
operated by Metropolitan Airports Commission. The Metropolitan Council (a
metropolitan planning organization), Metro Transit (the transit operating
division of Metropolitan Council), Metropolitan Airports Commission, and
the Minnesota Department of Transportation were the major stakeholders in
building the local rail system, including the two stations at the airport.
The Metropolitan Council is the owner of the local rail system and
received the federal funds used to build the system. Metro Transit is the
operator of the local rail system and served as the coordinating agency
during construction. The Metropolitan Airports Commission managed
construction of the rail tunnel and stations on airport property and
provided partial funding. State and local governments, including the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and Hennepin County, provided
significant funding for this project. Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley
Transit also provide local bus service to the airport.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Source: GAO.

Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Newark LibertyInternational Airport

Intermodal Facilities -Newark Liberty International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 16).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at ground
transportation courtyards located at each of the airport's three
terminals.

o 	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.

o 	Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can also access Amtrak at the
airport rail station.

o  Plans for additional facilities: None reported.

Key Local Stakeholders - Newark airport is owned by the City of Newark and
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which also operates the
airport. The port authority was the lead agency in planning, coordinating,
and overseeing the construction of the automated people mover and the
airport's rail station. As the lead agency, the port authority also
coordinated with federal agencies such as FAA. New Jersey Transit and
Amtrak also participated in the development of the airport's rail station
and provide both transit rail service and nationwide rail service from the
airport rail station. In addition, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson
provides local rail transit service. Continental Airlines, which is the
largest tenant at the airport, supported the use of passenger facility
charges for this project.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

                                  Source: GAO.

                           Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

New York John F. Kennedy International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - New York John F. Kennedy International Airport has
the following intermodal connections (see fig. 17).

o 	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.

o 	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.

o  Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.

o 	Plans for additional facilities: There are plans to develop rail
transit service from the airport to lower Manhattan, which would include
building new rail infrastructure.

Key Local Stakeholders - The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
operates Kennedy airport. The port authority was the lead agency in
planning, developing and implementing the automated people mover. As the
lead agency, the port authority coordinated with key federal agencies,
including FAA, and state and local agencies such as the New York
Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (the local
metropolitan planning organization), airlines, and the local community
provided input during the planning and implementation of the automated
people mover. In particular, the port authority worked with the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority to adopt a similar fare system to
assure that passengers could use one fare card to access both the
automated people mover and the rail transit system, and to develop the
infrastructure to facilitate transfers between the automated people mover
and the rail transit system.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

                                  Source: GAO.

                           Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Oakland International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - Oakland International Airport has the following
intermodal connections (see fig. 18).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport's
terminals.

o 	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.

o 	Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can also access an Amtrak station
using the shuttle.

o 	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.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Source: GAO.

Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Portland International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - Portland International Airport has the following
intermodal connections (see fig. 19).

o  Local bus: No connections.

o 	Local rail: Passengers can access a local rail transit system at a
station located at the west end of the airport terminal.

o  Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.

o  Plans for additional facilities: None reported.

Key Local Stakeholders - Portland airport is owned and operated by the
Port of Portland and is required by state and local regulations to promote
the development of alternate modes of transportation. The light rail
extension at the airport was funded, in part, by the Bechtel Corporation
in exchange for a lease agreement with the airport allowing Bechtel to
develop retail, office, and hotel sites on airport property. TriMet, which
provides transit service to three Oregon counties, operates and owns the
light rail extension, except for the portion of the light rail extension
that is on airport property. The portion on airport property is owned by
the Port of Portland and operated by TriMet. The city of Portland provided
additional funding, and Metro (the region's metropolitan planning
organization) included the light rail extension in the Regional
Transportation Plan and provided travel demand forecasting. The Oregon
Department of Transportation assisted in coordinating a significant
portion of the light rail extension on a right-of-way in the median of an
interstate highway.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Source: GAO.

Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

Intermodal Facilities - Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
(National airport) has the following intermodal connections (see fig. 20).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at both of the
airport's terminals.

o 	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.

o  Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.

o  Plans for additional facilities: None reported.

Key Local Stakeholders - National airport is owned by the federal
government and leased to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority,
which is responsible for its operation and development. Plans to build a
local rail transit station at the airport were initiated in the 1960's
when the local rail system was being designed. The Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority operates and maintains the local rail system and
provides limited bus service to the airport. Other key stakeholders
include the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (the
metropolitan planning organization), which collects and processes air
passenger survey data for the airport.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Source: GAO.

Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

San Francisco International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - San Francisco International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 21).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at most airport
terminals.

o 	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.

o  Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.

o  Plans for additional facilities: None reported.

Key Local Stakeholders - The city and county of San Francisco own and
operate the San Francisco airport. San Mateo County Transit was the key
local agency that supported the development of the BART extension south of
San Francisco into San Mateo County. BART was the lead agency in planning
and coordinating the BART extension, while the airport managed the design
and construction of the airport station and guideway located on airport
property. The San Francisco airport provided funding to this extension by
signing an agreement with BART to pay up to $200 million for the costs
associated with the design and construction of the BART train station,
guideway, and operating systems on airport property. San Mateo County
Transit provides local bus service from the airport to San Mateo and San
Francisco counties.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Source: GAO.

Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
Airport has the following intermodal connections (see fig. 22).

o  Local bus: No connections.

o 	Local rail: Passengers can access two local rail transit systems at
stations connected to airport terminals by a free shuttle.

o  Nationwide bus or rail: No connections.

o 	Plans for additional facilities: There are plans to build an automated
people mover that would connect the local rail station, the airport, and
the local commuter rail station.

Key Local Stakeholders - The airport is owned and operated by the city of
San Jose. The Valley Transportation Authority, a public agency that
provides transit service, operates the shuttle that connects the airport
to the commuter rail and local rail stations. Additional transit services
to the airport are provided by a variety of local agencies, including the
city of San Jose and CalTrain. Private operators also provide some transit
services to the airport.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

                                  Source: GAO.

                           Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 23).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the south end of
the airport's main terminal.

o  Local rail: No connections.

o 	Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers may use a private shuttle operator
that charges a fee to connect to the Amtrak station.

o 	Plans for additional facilities: There are plans for a local transit
rail station to be developed at the airport to provide a connection to a
local rail transit system that is under construction. The station will be
located on the east side of the airport property, with passengers being
able to access the station using a walkway. In addition, officials stated
that a pedestrian bridge will be built to connect the airport with a
planned local transportation hub, which will provide bus service by a
number of local transit agencies. Completion is scheduled by December
2009.

Key Local Stakeholders - Seattle-Tacoma airport is owned by the Port of
Seattle. Transit services are provided by two local agencies, King County
Metro Transit and a tri-county agency, Sound Transit. Sound Transit not
only provides regional bus service, but also operates the regional
commuter rail service and is constructing the local rail transit system.
Also involved in building the local rail transit station at Seattle-Tacoma
airport is the city of Sea-Tac, which will permit all construction of the
rail line within its city limits.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Source: GAO.

Note: Map is not to scale.

                   Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

Washington Dulles International Airport

Intermodal Facilities - Washington Dulles International Airport has the
following intermodal connections (see fig. 24).

o 	Local bus: Passengers can access local bus service at the airport's
main terminal.

o 	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.

o 	Nationwide bus or rail: Passengers can access nationwide bus service at
the airport's main terminal.

o 	Plans for additional facilities: There is a plan to extend the local
rail system to the airport. The Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit project is a
planned 23 mile extension of the local rail system that will provide
service to the airport. The rail extension project, if completely funded,
will be developed in two phases, with the airport station planned for the
second phase. Phase 1 (currently in preliminary engineering) and phase 2
are scheduled for completion in 2011 and 2015, respectively.

Key Local Stakeholders - The airport is owned by the federal government
but is leased to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which is
responsible for its operation and development. Local bus service is
provided by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which also
performs corridor-level planning. The Virginia Department of Rail and
Public Transportation is the project leader for the local rail extension.
The state coordinates with other stakeholders such as the airport, the
Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments (the regional
transportation planning body), Fairfax and Loudoun counties, and the
Federal Transit Administration. Greyhound provides bus service to parts of
Virginia with connecting service as far as New York.

Appendix VI Selected Airport Case Studies

                                  Source: GAO.

                           Note: Map is not to scale.

Appendix VII

                     GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts	Katherine Siggerud (202) 512-2834 Teresa Spisak (202)
512-2834

Staff Acknowledgments

(542042)

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.

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone:	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***