dallas/fort worth international airport · american airlines kiosk or ticket counter to receive the...

PREPARED FOR THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Transit Access Follow-Up Report

December 2013



Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i

Table of Contents

Page

Background................................................................................................................................. 1

Key Findings.................................................................................................................................................. 1

Additional Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Near-Term Transit Needs and Opportunities .............................................................................. 2

New Ridership Opportunities .................................................................................................................... 3

Strengthening Existing Ridership ............................................................................................................... 3

Issues to Address .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Service Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 18

Inter-City Transportation: A Changing Market .......................................................................... 19

Inter-City Bus Renaissance ....................................................................................................................... 19

The Arrival of High Speed-Rail .............................................................................................................. 22

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 25

Table of Figures

Page

Figure 1 Southgate Plaza Site Plan ...................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2 Home Zip Codes of Transit Users Traveling to DFW Airport ........................................... 4

Figure 3 Corridor Anchors: CentrePort and Southgate ..................................................................... 5

Figure 4 Potential TRE Shuttle Routing through Southgate Plaza .................................................... 7

Figure 5 Rental Car Shuttle Passengers per Hour – 5/20/2013 ................................................. 10

Figure 6 Rental Car Shuttle Passengers per Trip – 5/20/2013 .................................................. 11

Figure 7 Terminal Destination of TRE Shuttle Riders – May 2012 ................................................ 12

Figure 8 TRE Shuttle Ridership per Hour – July 2011 ..................................................................... 12

Figure 9 TRE Shuttle Extension to Terminal E ..................................................................................... 14

Figure 10 Revenue Hour Impact of Service Modifications ................................................................ 15

Figure 11 Routing Alternative C1 (Green) and C2 (Blue) for TRE Shuttle Serving Southgate Plaza and Remote South Parking .................................................................... 17

Figure 12 Implications for Alternative Routings ................................................................................... 18

Figure 13 Annual Change in Inter-City Bus Departures ..................................................................... 19

Figure 14 Small Regional Jet at DFW Airport (with Larger Planes in Background) .................... 20

Figure 15 Regional Jet at DFW Airport (with Larger Planes in Background) ............................... 24



Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 1

BACKGROUND

In the fall of 2012, Nelson\Nygaard completed the Dallas/Fort Worth International

Airport Transit Service Planning Study. The principle purpose of the study was to

examine how well DFW Airport is prepared for the arrival of Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s

Orange Line and The Fort Worth Transportation Authority’s TEX Rail, which will both

provide passenger rail service to the Airport’s central terminal area.

Key Findings

The key findings of the study were that the existing airport circulators are generally well-

positioned to accommodate the expected passenger loads of the new rail services. When

the Orange Line begins revenue service in December 2014, passengers will arrive at a

station located between International Parkway and the northbound Service Road,

adjacent to Terminal A. A 435-ft. walkway will link the station to the terminal.

Connections to the Airport’s four other terminals are provided by the Skylink automated

people-mover system and the Terminal Link bus circulator system.

The Skylink people-mover system is the fastest way to move between terminals, but the

system's secure-side location limits ridership to the of the following groups:

Terminal-area employee with badge access;

American Airlines passengers. American Airlines currently operates out of

terminals A, B, C, and D at DFW airport, and passengers may check in at any

American Airlines kiosk or ticket counter to receive the boarding pass needed to

pass through security; or

Passengers of other airlines with a pre-printed boarding pass, and no luggage to

check.

In addition, airline passengers who arrive at a terminal other than Terminal A and leave

the secure side of the terminal for any reason, including to collect checked luggage, will

no longer be able to access Skylink to connect to Terminal A. Instead, these passengers,

and those not meeting the access requirements described above will need to use the

Terminal Link shuttle bus system to travel between terminals.

Terminal Link operates outside of security on the airport roadway network. Service is

frequent (every 8 to 10 minutes) and bi-directional, meaning that each terminal is at most

two terminals away from where a passenger boards a Terminal Link bus. Terminal Link

generally has two stops at each terminal, but a third stop is planned at Terminal A near

the walkway to the Orange Line station.

Over-all, our analysis concluded that with some slight modifications (including the third

Terminal A station and possibly the introduction of larger vehicles when TEX Rail service

begins), Skylink and Terminal Link will fit the roles of “last mile” connectors for rail

passengers.

Additional Issues

At the conclusion of the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Transit Service Planning

Study, several additional issues with potential Airport and transit implications were

raised. These issues include a new mixed-use development, called Southgate Plaza,




planned for the south side of DFW Airport, on-going efforts to bring high-speed rail to the

state and the region, and the continued growth of inter-city bus travel in the United

States. This document examines these additional issues and provides analysis and case

studies for consideration.

NEAR-TERM TRANSIT NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES

In May 2013, DFW Airport broke ground on the Southgate Plaza development, located

east of International Parkway, just south of the DFW Rental Car Center (Figure 1). The

mixed-use project will be anchored by a new consolidated headquarters building for DFW

Airport staff, and a 137-room Hyatt Place hotel. The project will also include several

restaurants and the airport’s relocated main post office.

Figure 1 Southgate Plaza Site Plan

Source: DFW Airport

From a development perspective, Southgate Plaza creates new revenue opportunities for

DFW Airport and its partner cities. It is also the airport’s first mixed-use development

and may set the tone for future projects on the Airport’s developable land. From a transit

perspective, Southgate Plaza has the potential to be a “game-changer,” in several

significant ways.




New Ridership Opportunities

Within the next two years, approximately 500 DFW Airport employees will move to the

Airport’s new headquarters building at Southgate Plaza. The majority of these employees

will be relocating from either the DFW Business Center, located between the northbound

and southbound lanes of International Parkway, or from the DFW Administration

Building, located along South Airfield Drive. Neither of these existing facilities is served

directly or within a reasonable walking distance of transit.

The design and location of Southgate Plaza make the development more conducive to

transit service than either the DFW Business Center or the existing DFW Administration

Building. Linking Southgate Plaza to the intra-airport and regional transit networks

would, for the first time, allow DFW Board employees to consider transit as a viable

option for their daily commutes. The availability of transit as a commuting option can

also impact employee recruitment and retention, as some otherwise qualified individuals

may be unwilling or unable to commute to the airport by car on a daily basis.

Other groups that would benefit from convenient transit connections to Southgate Plaza

include hotel, restaurant, and post office workers; Hyatt Place guests; and anyone

needing to visit DFW Headquarters for business (including airline representatives,

terminal concessionaires, and Airport employees stationed primarily at the terminals).

Strengthening Existing Ridership

Over the past decade, a strong transit corridor has emerged between DFW Airport and

the CentrePort development, south of the Airport. The Trinity Railway Express (TRE)

Shuttle, operated by DFW Airport, carries approximately 530 passengers per day between

CentrePort Station and DFW’s South Remote Parking facility, where frequent

connections are available to the Airport’s five terminals.

While the primary function of the shuttle is to facilitate connections between the TRE

Commuter Rail line and the Airport terminals, passenger surveys suggest a far more

diverse set of trip types making use of the service. For example, in an on-board survey of

transit users traveling to DFW Airport, the most frequently given home zip-code was

76155, which includes the CentrePort neighborhood (Figure 2).




Figure 2 Home Zip Codes of Transit Users Traveling to DFW Airport

Source: Nelson\Nygaard Intercept Survey – Summer 2012

This suggests that many riders of the TRE Shuttle are not in fact transferring to or from

the TRE, but rather using the shuttle as a local route between their home in the

CentrePort area and their destination at the airport, either for work or travel.

The addition of Southgate Plaza strengthens the corridor further by adding several new

trip generators. The development’s location between the CentrePort and both the Rental

Car Center and South Remote Parking (Figure 3) make it a logical addition to the TRE

Shuttle route, regardless of whether the route terminates at the South Remote Parking

lot, as it currently does, or the Rental Car Center, as will be discussed later in this

document.




Figure 3 Corridor Anchors: CentrePort and Southgate

Source: Google Earth

Southgate Plaza will transform the area south of the airport terminals (including South

Remote Parking and the Rental Car Center) from primarily a transfer point (between bus

and bus, or car and bus) to an important destination unto itself. With the new mixed-use

development, travel demand between the greater Southgate area and CentrePort is

expected to grow, driven by several “affinity pairs” or geographic locations linked by the

propensity of travel between them. These affinity pairs include:




American Airlines Headquarters <-> DFW Airport Headquarters

CentrePort residential <-> DFW Airport employment

TRE Station <-> DFW airport employment and travel

South Irving residential <-> CentrePort employment (via transfer in greater

Southgate area)

Internal circulation (i.e. south CentrePort <-> north CentrePort, or

DFW RAC <-> Southgate Plaza)

Issues to Address

Transit connections to Southgate Plaza are critical to the project’s success. Thus, DFW

Airport staff desire to explore transit options for the mixed-use development. In

addition, the development of transit service options for Southgate Plaza presents an

opportunity to examine other transit-related issues that have long been discussed by

regional leaders.

For example, the current connection between CentrePort Station and DFW Airport’s

terminals requires a bus transfer at the Airport’s South Remote Parking facility. Over-all,

this service structure is highly functional:

By terminating the TRE Shuttle route at South Remote Parking, the route is short

enough to provide frequent service with just two vehicles in concurrent service.

Existing resources are more productively utilized by serving both Remote Parking

patrons and transit users on the Remote Parking Shuttle (rather than operating

two parallel services).

Wait times at South Remote Parking are relatively short (6 minutes on average),

and travel times are minimized by allowing passengers to “skip” to the most

direct service from South Remote Parking to their destination terminal

(compared to an alternative scenario in which TRE Shuttles would circulate

through all five terminals to provide a one-seat connection from the CentrePort

area).

Never the less, there may be opportunities to improve the passenger experience by

shifting the northern terminus of the TRE Shuttle to the Rental Car Center rather than

South Remote Parking, and by eliminating the need to transfer between buses for at least

some passengers.

The Rental Car Center is considered by many to be a more appealing gateway to the

terminals than the South Remote Parking facility because it features a larger, more

inviting vestibule, more passenger amenities, and more frequent and direct shuttle

service to each of the Airport’s five terminals (by comparison, most Remote Parking

Shuttles serve two terminals each).

In the following section, several possible service alternatives will be presented for

Southgate Plaza. Each alternative will be evaluated for its ability to serve Southgate Plaza

effectively and efficiently, but the ability of each alternative to complement and improve

existing services will also be considered.




Service Alternatives

The location of Southgate Plaza along the CentrePort / DFW Airport corridor presents

several options for future transit service to the development. The TRE Shuttle, Rental

Car Shuttle, and Remote Parking Shuttle all operate within close proximity of the

Southgate Plaza site, and all three could potentially play a role in making Southgate Plaza

a transit-accessible destination. A stand-alone service linking South Gate Plaza with

major destinations in and around the Airport was not considered a viable option because

of the high level of redundancy that such a service would create, and the high costs that

would be required to match even the minimum service levels of the Airport’s other

shuttles. Instead, four alternatives that make use of existing resources were considered.

These are described below.

Alternative A: CentrePort to Rental Car Center via Southgate Plaza

DFW’s Rental Car Center (RAC) is located just north of the future Southgate Plaza.

According to the project’s site plans, the roadway network for Southgate Plaza will be

integrated with 24th Street, providing direct access to the RAC. This proximity and

connectivity makes the RAC an ideal turn-around point for buses serving Southgate

Plaza. Under Alternative A, the TRE Shuttle would operate between CentrePort Station

and the RAC via Southgate Plaza (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Potential TRE Shuttle Routing through Southgate Plaza

Source: Nelson\Nygaard and DFW Airport




Service Characteristics and Passenger Benefits

Terminating the TRE Shuttle at the RAC would allow for bi-directional service along a

consistent alignment through the heart of Southgate Plaza, meaning that the service

would be simple to use and highly visible – important features for maximizing ridership.

This service alternative would also allow DFW Headquarters employees, or anyone else at

Southgate Plaza, to quickly access any of the five Airport terminals by taking the TRE

Shuttle to the Rental Car Center and transferring to the appropriate Rental Car Shuttle.

Service between CentrePort Station and the Rental Car Center would likely require no

additional vehicles over current TRE Shuttle operations. Travel speed through Southgate

Plaza is expected to be slower than along South Airfield Drive, but the distance between

Centre Port Station and the Rental Car Center is also slightly shorter than the distance to

South Remote Parking (4.6 miles vs. 4.9 miles). Wait times and travel times for

passengers traveling to one of the Airport’s terminals would on average be less than what

passengers currently experience when transferring between the TRE Shuttle and Remote

Parking Shuttle as Rental Car Shuttles depart every five minutes (for most of the service

day) for each of the five terminals.

Challenges and Solutions

The primary challenges to routing the TRE Shuttle through the Rental Car Center are

likely to be the concerns of the rental car operators about the impact of the additional

riders on the capacity of the Rental Car Shuttle and Rental Car Center (elevator capacity,

for example). These concerns can be discussed and addressed as RAC tenant contracts

are renegotiated in the near future. Generally, any capacity impacts associated with the

TRE Shuttle or its ridership will be difficult to perceive, given the far higher ridership

volumes associated with the Rental Car Shuttle. This ridership disparity is furher

discussed in the Capacity section below.

A secondary concern is curb space at the Rental Car Center, but this issue can be

addressed by programming all schedule recovery time for the TRE Shuttle to occur at

CentrePort Station, rather than at the RAC. If buses do not “lay over” at the RAC, curb

space capacity is unlikely to be an issue. Currently, curbside capacity is managed by

having RAC Shuttle buses park in the infield of the RAC or at an off-site location for

breaks and lay-overs.

Capacity

The TRE Shuttle carries approximately 530 daily passengers. During certain times of the

day, the Rental Car Shuttles carry almost three times this number of passengers in a

single hour (Figure 5). Each Rental Car Shuttle has a seating capacity of 28 passengers,

and can carry a maximum of 35 passengers. From 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM, approximately

12 trips per hour depart the Rental Car Center for each terminal (60 trips total for all

terminals), and the same number return to the RAC (except from Terminal E, discussed

below). Before 6:00 AM and after 10:00 PM, four buses per hour serve each terminal

from the RAC (total of 20 trips to the terminals, and 20 trips back).

Figure 6 shows the approximate number of passengers on each trip to and from the

Rental Car Center. Only the Terminal E route experiences ridership levels that exceed

either seating or total vehicle capacity. However, between 10:00 AM and 10:00 PM, an

additional “sweeper bus” is used at Terminal E to handle heavy loads and pick up any




passengers who are not able to board a crowded Rental Car Shuttle. This extra bus

operates between Terminal E and the Rental Car Center, but only picks up passengers at

the terminal, dead-heading back after dropping off passengers at the RAC.

The sweeper bus provides three additional trips per hour from Terminal E to the Rental

Car Center, expanding available vehicle capacity and absorbing the high ridership

demand during most periods of the day.

DFW’s Airport Master Plan projects a 2.2% growth in aviation traffic in coming years.

This will certainly reflect in higher ridership on the RAC Shuttle and other airport

services. Based on Figure 6 below, most RAC Shuttle trips have the capacity to absorb

this anticipated ridership growth, although a few additional trips may experience

occasional standees. However, those trips that are most at risk of overcrowding, already

have capacity issues that necessitate the sweeper bus, or other capacity-expanding

solutions.




Figure 5 Rental Car Shuttle Passengers per Hour – 5/20/2013

TERM A to RAC RAC to TERM A TERM B to RAC RAC to TERM B TERM C to RAC RAC to TERM C TERM D to RAC RAC to TERM D TERM E to RAC RAC to TERM E

00:01 - 01:00 15 1 3 - - - - - 75 1

01:01 - 02:00 - - 1 1 - - 18 - 28 3

02:01 - 03:00 - - - - - - - 1 17 2

03:01 - 04:00 - 9 - - - 4 - - 7 38

04:01 - 05:00 - 17 1 - - 29 - - - 124

05:01 - 06:00 9 32 - - 5 43 2 11 9 218

06:01 - 07:00 8 35 - 19 3 60 17 76 20 215

07:01 - 08:00 11 66 52 20 36 52 37 33 30 83

08:01 - 09:00 209 51 96 2 184 90 74 41 154 179

09:01 - 10:00 259 50 64 17 135 65 99 34 488 270

10:01 - 11:00 154 61 40 9 159 75 78 53 267 180

11:01 - 12:00 173 68 45 19 225 63 209 56 309 205

12:01 - 13:00 172 44 64 46 185 71 75 40 368 360

13:01 - 14:00 155 38 104 18 65 72 31 71 361 258

14:01 - 15:00 63 40 36 6 112 58 55 58 429 224

15:01 - 16:00 66 60 35 14 57 45 45 64 286 221

16:01 - 17:00 67 34 47 10 95 62 54 36 350 179

17:01 - 18:00 117 82 34 14 96 72 77 27 295 104

18:01 - 19:00 141 15 33 24 70 34 66 20 211 129

19:01 - 20:00 91 11 26 1 131 15 50 13 250 38

20:01 - 21:00 90 8 31 3 144 8 66 3 269 37

21:01 - 22:00 54 5 22 4 143 10 52 9 198 27

22:01 - 23:00 60 3 4 1 54 10 51 6 363 14

23:01 - 24:00 25 - 1 - 28 8 23 3 95 5

Source: DFW Airport




Figure 6 Rental Car Shuttle Passengers per Trip – 5/20/2013

TERM A to RAC RAC to TERM A TERM B to RAC RAC to TERM B TERM C to RAC RAC to TERM C TERM D to RAC RAC to TERM D TERM E to RAC RAC to TERM E

00:01 - 01:00 4 0 1 - - - - - 19 0

01:01 - 02:00 - - 0 0 - - 5 - 7 1

02:01 - 03:00 - - - - - - - 0 4 1

03:01 - 04:00 - 2 - - - 1 - - 2 10

04:01 - 05:00 - 4 0 - - 7 - - - 31

05:01 - 06:00 2 8 - - 1 11 1 3 2 55

06:01 - 07:00 1 3 - 2 0 5 1 6 2 18

07:01 - 08:00 1 6 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 7

08:01 - 09:00 17 4 8 0 15 8 6 3 13 15

09:01 - 10:00 22 4 5 1 11 5 8 3 41 23

10:01 - 11:00 13 5 3 1 13 6 7 4 22 15

11:01 - 12:00 14 6 4 2 19 5 17 5 26 17

12:01 - 13:00 14 4 5 4 15 6 6 3 31 30

13:01 - 14:00 13 3 9 2 5 6 3 6 30 22

14:01 - 15:00 5 3 3 1 9 5 5 5 36 19

15:01 - 16:00 6 5 3 1 5 4 4 5 24 18

16:01 - 17:00 6 3 4 1 8 5 5 3 29 15

17:01 - 18:00 10 7 3 1 8 6 6 2 25 9

18:01 - 19:00 12 1 3 2 6 3 6 2 18 11

19:01 - 20:00 8 1 2 0 11 1 4 1 21 3

20:01 - 21:00 8 1 3 0 12 1 6 0 22 3

21:01 - 22:00 5 0 2 0 12 1 4 1 17 2

22:01 - 23:00 15 1 1 0 14 3 13 2 91 4

23:01 - 24:00 6 - 0 - 7 2 6 1 24 1

Source: DFW Airport

Exceeds seating capacity Exceeds maximum vehicle capacity




While the hourly ridership of the TRE Shuttle is far lower than that of the Rental Car Shuttles, there could be a perceptible impact on some Rental Car Shuttle trips if passenger from the TRE Shuttle overwhelmingly chose to transfer to one particular Rental Car Shuttle route (especially the Terminal E route, which is already at capacity on some trips). However, a survey of TRE Shuttle passengers conducted by the study team in the summer of 2012, suggests that passenger destinations are diverse (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Terminal Destination of TRE Shuttle Riders – May 2012

Source: Nelson\Nygaard passenger surveys

Given the distribution of TRE Shuttle riders, the expected impact on the Rental Car Shuttle capacity would be minimal. It should also be noted that in the sample day shown in Figure 5 and 6, the most extreme over-crowding occurs in the hour beginning at 10:00 PM. This is a time period where service frequency drops from 5 to 15 minutes and the sweeper bus ends operations, resulting in a drop in available seat capacity. This is also a time period when TRE Shuttle Ridership is extremely low (Figure 8).

Figure 8 TRE Shuttle Ridership per Hour – July 2011

0-Source: DFW Airport

Terminal A 24%

Terminal B 16%

Terminal C 23%

Terminal D 16%

Terminal E 21%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

TRE Shuttle




Resource and Cost Sharing

Rental Car Shuttle operations are currently funded through a Customer Transportation

Charge (CTC) added to the cost of each rental day. Rental car operators may be more

open to the idea of sharing resources if other parties (including DART, The T, and/or

DFW Airport) contributed to the operating cost of the Rental Car Center and/or Shuttle

service.

Alternative A does not present an obvious formula for cost sharing. Possible options

could include an access fee or impact assessment based on either the number of TRE

Shuttle buses or transferring passengers utilizing the Rental Car Center and Shuttles per

year.

The TRE Shuttle is funded jointly by DART , The T, and DFW Airport (with additional

support from Job Access / Reverse-Commute (JARC) Grant funding through the North

Central Texas Council of Governments). The agreement to pay any access fees proposed

by the rental car operators would likely require the approval of the Boards of the two

transit agencies, and is far from certain. This may prove to be the biggest hurdle to

shifting TRE Shuttle service to the Rental Car Center. However, the hotel and restaurants

planned for Southgate Plaza, together with the Rental Car Center, create a high

concentration of entry-level jobs, which can help ensure continued transportation grant

funding for the service. The latest federal transportation funding bill eliminated the

JARC grant program, but activities that were previously eligible for JARC funding are

now eligible under the Urbanized Area Formula Fund. This includes operating assistance

with a 50% local match for job access and reverse-commute activities.

One additional concern is the connection between the TRE Shuttle and DART’s Route

408. This connection currently takes place at the South Remote Parking facility which

also provides DART operators with a convenient end-of-the line layover point. Route 408

could remain unchanged, providing an on-street connection to the TRE Shuttle along

Rental Car Road, or the route could be restructured to terminate at the RAC or Southgate

Plaza. Service to the RAC would bring up the same issues described above regarding the

willingness of rental car operators to allow for non-rental car-related activities at the

Rental Car Center. Additionally, both the RAC and Southgate Plaza would provide

challenges for DART in identifying a suitable layover location for buses. More

information on the service and ridership characteristics of Route 408 are included in the

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Transit Service Planning Study that preceded

this document.

Alternative B: CentrePort to Terminal E via Southgate Plaza and the RAC

Terminal E has the highest percentage of DFW passengers with local destinations (as

opposed to transferring between flights without leaving the airport). Thus, it is not

surprising that the Terminal E route of the Rental Car Shuttle is by far the most heavily

used. As mentioned previously, an extra Rental Car Shuttle sweeper bus is used at

Terminal E to help absorb high passenger volumes. Alternative B would replace the

sweeper bus with an extension of the TRE Shuttle to Terminal E, via Southgate Plaza and

the Rental Car Center as shown in Figure 9.





Extending the TRE Shuttle to Terminal E, via Southgate Plaza and the Rental Car Center

would provide a one-seat connection from the CentrePort area or Southgate Plaza to

Terminal E. Passengers with destinations in other terminals could transfer to the

corresponding Rental Car Shuttle at the Rental Car Center, or use Skylink or Terminal

Link from Terminal E. Similarly airport employees could travel between Terminal E and

the DFW Airport Headquarters at Southgate Plaza without an additional transfer at South

Remote Parking or the Rental Car Center.

Figure 9 TRE Shuttle Extension to Terminal E

Source:Google Earth




Whether they transfer at the RAC or at Terminal E, this alternative would offer most

passengers a higher level of service than the current service design due to faster over-all

trip times and more direct service.


Routing the TRE Shuttle through the Rental Car Center would require the consent of the

rental car operators as described in the Alternative A. However, Alternative B presents a

very straight-forward opportunity for cost-sharing that may appeal to both the transit

agencies and the rental car operators:

A TRE Shuttle connection between the RAC and Terminal E would provide four

additional departures per hour from the Rental Car Center to Terminal E and from

Terminal E to the Rental Car center. This level of service would be comparable, and in

fact slightly better than the current sweeper bus approach to dealing with high ridership

volumes between Terminal E and the Rental Car Center. TRE Shuttle service to Terminal

E would allow rental car operators to discontinue the use of the sweeper bus, resulting in

a savings of approximately 12 revenue hours per day.

For DART and The T, the extension of the Rental Car Shuttle to Terminal E would require

the funding of a third bus (the current TRE Shuttle routing requires two buses for 15-

minute frequency). A third bus would add approximately 19 revenue hours of service to

the operating cost of the TRE Shuttle if the third bus were to be used for the entirety of

the service day (5:00 AM to 12:00 PM).

In exchange for extending the TRE Shuttle to Terminal E, which would provide added

capacity for Rental Car customers, the TRE Shuttle would be able to utilize the RAC,

offering an enhanced user experience to TRE Shuttle riders. The additional cost to the

transit agencies of extending the TRE Shuttle to Terminal E could be partially off-set by

eliminating redundant service elsewhere in the corridor between DFW Airport and to

CentrePort Station (Figure 10). For example, The T’s Route 30 operates three branches in

the CentrePort area. The central branch serves Amon Carter Boulevard, which is also

served by the TRE Shuttle. The elimination of this branch would save The T the cost of

6.75 revenue hours per weekday with little impact on ridership. It should be noted that

there are currently no bus stops on the southbound side of Amon Carter Boulevard, north

of Sovereign Road. If the Amon Carter branch of Route 30 is eliminated, stops will need

to be added to the southbound side of the street, across from the existing stops on the

northbound side of Amon Carter. These new stops would replace the current Route 30

stop along Cambridge Road.

Figure 10 Revenue Hour Impact of Service Modifications

Service Modification

Estimated Weekday Revenue

Hour Impact

Extend TRE Shuttle to Terminal E (via Rental Car Center)

19 hours

Eliminate Rental Car Shuttle Sweeper Bus

-12 hours

Eliminate Amon Carter Branch of The T’s Route 30

-6.25 hours




Alternative C: CentrePort to South Remote Parking via Southgate Plaza

If a suitable arrangement cannot be reached to allow the TRE Shuttle to serve the Rental

Car Center, Southgate Plaza can still be served by the TRE Shuttle through a modification

of the existing TRE Shuttle Route to and from South Remote Parking. Alternative C

includes two options for service between CentrePort Station and South Remote Parking,

via Southgate Plaza. These alternatives are described below and illustrated in Figure 11.


Two routing options could be considered in order to serve Southgate Plaza on the way to

and from the South Remote Parking facility:

C1. A peripheral routing that skirts the edges of Southgate Plaza (green route in

Figure 11).

C2. An internal routing circulating through Southgate Plaza on the way to and from

South Remote Parking (blue route in Figure 11).

The primary difference between the two options would be in total travel time

(approximately 4 more minutes, round trip, for alternative C2). Both options would

require one additional bus compared to the two buses in current use on the TRE Shuttle.


While Alternatives C1 and C2 would avoid the challenges of negotiating a use agreement

with the rental car operators, they would also result in longer over-all travel times for

passengers traveling between the CentrePort area and the Airport’s terminals. The

average wait time for a connecting shuttle is slightly longer at South Remote Parking than

at the RAC and trips to the terminals are also potentially longer, depending on which

terminal a passenger is traveling to (most Remote Parking shuttles serve two terminals,

making for a relatively long trip for passengers traveling to the second terminal on the

trip).

Neither Alternative C1 nor C2 would allow for bi-directional service along a single

alignment through Southgate Plaza. Instead, service would take the form of a loop, which

can be more complex for passengers to use because stops for service in different

directions may not be in close proximity.

In addition, Alternative C1 would only serve the perimeter of Southgate Plaza, requiring

an additional walk for passengers utilizing the service.

For the transit agencies, the inclusion of Southgate Plaza in the TRE Shuttle Route will

increase operating cost due to the extra vehicle needed to maintain a 15-minute frequency

on the longer route.

Over-all the primary benefit of Alternative C is simply the ease of implementation.




Figure 11 Routing Alternative C1 (Green) and C2 (Blue) for TRE Shuttle Serving Southgate Plaza and Remote South Parking

Source: Google Earth




Conclusion

Figure 12 shows a comparison of characteristics and implications of the current TRE

Shuttle and the four service alternative described above. Under any scenario, the TRE

Shuttle is the most logical way to link the new development into the airport and regional

transit networks. Adding Southgate Plaza as a destination to the current CentrePort <->

South Remote Parking service design can only be achieved by increasing the number of

vehicles in circulation. On the other hand, the fleet size can be maintained by routing the

TRE Shuttle through the Rental Car Center instead of the South Remote Parking facility,

but as discussed, this will have implications on the nature of the Rental Car Shuttle

service (i.e. serving a broader market than just rental car customers). The extension of

the TRE Shuttle to Terminal E, offers a potential compromise in which the Rental Car

Shuttle takes on a broader role in the airport and regional transit network, but Rental Car

Operators are able to reduce operating costs by eliminating the need for a sweeper bus to

absorb heavy loads at Terminal E. Ultimately, each scenario has costs and benefits, and

the intent of this document is to highlight the key issues to consider as the integration of

Southgate Plaza is being considered by relevant stakeholders.

Figure 12 Implications for Alternative Routings

Alternative

One-Way

Travel

Time

(Minutes)

Estimated

Vehicles

Needed to

Maintain

15-Minute

Frequency

Estimated

Additional

Daily

Revenue

Hours of

TRE Shuttle

Service

Estimated

Additional

Daily

Operating

Cost of

TRE

Shuttle1

Other

Potential

Costs

Benefits for

Riders

CentrePort to Remote South Parking (Current)

11 2 - - - -

A: CentrePort to RAC via Southgate Plaza

11 2 No Change from

Current

No Change

from Current

Access fee for use of

RAC facility

Faster travel time to terminals

/ Access to Southgate Plaza

B: CentrePort to Terminal E via Southgate Plaza and RAC

19 3 19 $1,300 Access fee for use of

RAC facility

Faster travel time to terminals / One-seat ride to terminal E /

Access to Southgate Plaza

C1: CentrePort to Remote South via Southgate Plaza

13 3 19 $1,300 No Change from

Current


C2: CentrePort to Remote South via Southgate Plaza

15 3 19 $1,300 No Change from

Current


1 Operating cost assumes $67.73 per revenue hour based on current cost of TRE Shuttle operations.




INTER-CITY TRANSPORTATION: A CHANGING MARKET

In 2012, inter-city bus service was the fastest growing form of inter-city transportation in

the United States. Between 2011 and 2012, the number of daily inter-city bus departures

grew by 7.5%. By comparison, domestic airline capacity grew by only .4% as airlines

worked to control capacity after a period of over-expansion and several bankruptcies.

Other forms of inter-city travel are also receiving renewed attention from investors and

government leaders. Several high-speed rail lines are under consideration in the United

States, including two parallel studies in Texas that would serve the DFW region. This

section provides a high level description of the challenges and opportunities associated

with integrating inter-city bus and high-speed rail service into an airport environment.

Inter-City Bus Renaissance

2012 was the 6th consecutive year of growth for the inter-city bus industry nationally

(Figure 13), and included the introduction of Megabus service to the Dallas/Fort Worth

region.

Figure 13 Annual Change in Inter-City Bus Departures

Source: Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development – DePaul University

The renaissance of the inter-city bus market in the United States coincides with changes

in the domestic airline industry as well. Sustained high fuel costs over the past decade

have forced airlines to re-examine the role of small regional jets in their fleets and

operating plans.

Small regional jets (50-seat or less) emerged as a popular alternative to propeller planes

in the 1990s, when fuel costs were low and accounted for only about 15% of airline

operating expenses (compared to 35% today). These planes allowed airlines to market jet

service to smaller communities, but as fuel costs rose, the small regional jets’ low seat




counts made them economically unsustainable for airlines - there simply aren’t enough

revenue-generating seats to divide the flight operating cost by to keep fares competitive

or to keep flights profitable.

Figure 14 Small Regional Jet at DFW Airport (with Larger Planes in Background)

Source: CBS

As the inter-city bus market expands, and small regional jets fall out of favor with

airlines, there has been speculation that buses may replace planes on some regional

routes. If inter-city buses take the place of small planes in airline feeder networks, then

airports may have to adapt to facilitate large volumes of bus to plane and plane to bus

transfers. However, a close review of trends in both the airline and inter-city bus

industries suggest that this scenario is unlikely in the near future.

While orders for small regional jets are falling in the United States and elsewhere, orders

for larger regional jets (more than 50 seats) and small “turboprops” are rising. Modern

turboprops have 66% higher fuel economy than small regional jets on short-haul flights

(within 200 nautical miles), and offer comparable travel times at this distance. Larger

regional jets have more seats to offset the operating cost of a flight (assuming most seats

are sold).

While airlines do not appear to be making plans to integrate buses into their feeder

networks, neither do inter-city bus operators appear to be building their networks to

complement airlines. The growth of interest in inter-city bus service can be attributed to

a new generation of operators that have introduced new features and new business

models (many pioneered in the airline industry) to the inter-city bus market. For

example, Megabus, which began operating in Texas in the summer of 2012, includes the

following features:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Gn6gxb-oTblJqM&tbnid=OKfzm86-74_rDM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/10/08/amr-lands-pilot-deal-with-american-eagle/&ei=KFntUYaIGfj94APDuIEo&psig=AFQjCNE6BsYW_9U1P4RkcqixKoTGXh6wVw&ust=1374595638166263




Low-cost – advertised fares as low as $1 for a one-way trip. There is typically

just one seat per bus at that price (which doesn’t include taxes and fees), but even

at full price, Megabus trips between Dallas and Houston, for example, are less

than $30 one-way. Other cost-saving features include no baggage fees and one-

class service.

High-tech – tickets can only be purchased on-line. Wifi service is standard on

all buses and power outlets are available at every seat.

Express – non-stop service between major hubs. Rather than connecting a

string of small communities to a large metro area, as was common with previous

generations of inter-city bus service, Megabus mostly operates non-stop or one-

stop service between major hubs. The one exception being college towns, which

are often small but have high population densities and high propensities for

public transportation use.

Urban – pick-up and drop off points are almost exclusively in urban, pedestrian

and transit-friendly environments. Parking is generally not provided, so

proximity to transit and pedestrian networks are key to the business model.

Urban environments also align well with the demographics and lifestyles of the

new generation of inter-city bus riders, who are overwhelmingly young (75%

under the age of 36), and who often choose to live car-free in urban

environments.

Ultra sensitive to costs and markets – to reduce expenses, Megabus

operates from on-street bus stops wherever possible. The company has no

purpose-built terminals, which saves costs and allows unproductive service to be

eliminated quickly. Where on-street pick-ups are prohibited, Megabus often

leases spots in surface parking lots close to major transit centers, and operates

from traditional multi-modal bus stations as a last resort only.

Based on these characteristics, modern inter-city bus services are, in effect, vying for the

same rather than complimentary markets as the airlines, and are using the differences

between the two modes as selling points for their service.

In the case of DFW Airport, the features that have made it one of the most convenient

airports in the county for automobile access make it a challenging environment for inter-

city bus operations. For most passengers, DFW Airport is not a destination unto itself,

but rather a gateway to the region. The airport is located just over 20 miles from

downtown Dallas and downtown Fort Worth, which is convenient for residents driving to

points throughout the region, but would negate the time savings of inter-city bus service

to downtown Dallas (and perhaps eventually to downtown Fort Worth, which Megabus

has been exploring as a destination).

DFW Airport is served indirectly by the Trinity Railway Express, and will soon be served

directly by DART’s Orange Line and The T’s TEX Rail. However, if Megabus served DFW

Airport only, many bus passengers would likely take these services to downtown Dallas or

downtown Fort Worth anyway, either as their final destination or to access the two transit

system’s primary hubs with dozens of connecting services. Over-all, there is little benefit

to arriving at an airport for bus passengers.

The supporting services available at an airport (long-term parking, car rental, and airport

hotels) are also unlikely to appeal to inter-city bus passengers, who are generally cost-




conscious (even choice riders) and tend to be less averse to using local transit than other

inter-city travelers.

Adding DFW Airport as a second stop in the region would incur additional costs on inter-

city bus operators in the form of additional hours and miles of service and additional

access and lease fees, with little practical benefit. It is unlikely that inter-city bus

operators will abandon downtown service, and from their perspective they are already

serving the Airport in the same way that they serve countless other destinations in the

region - by siting downtown pick-up and drop-off points close to local transit lines serving

these destinations.

There are very few examples of inter-city bus service to airports in the United States

(other than charter services). Those airports that do have inter-city bus service usually

also have a unique set of market conditions that do not necessarily translate to other

locations. For example, in Buffalo, NY, Megabus serves both Buffalo Niagara

International Airport and downtown Buffalo. For Canadian travelers, the Buffalo airport

is a popular alternative to Toronto’s Pearson International Airports. Buffalo is

approximately 100 miles from Toronto, but airfares are often 20% to 30% lower from

Buffalo, especially to US destinations. Thus, there is a strong market for inter-city bus

service between Toronto and Buffalo Niagara International Airport, serving Toronto

residents who do not have cars, or who prefer to leave their cars at home.

Another airport served by inter-city bus service is Miami International Airport (MIA).

MIA is a “close-in” airport, just 15 to 20 minutes to downtown Miami by Metrorail

(compared to an hour or more between DFW and downtown Dallas by TRE or the future

Orange Lines when transfers are taken into account). Additionally, the new Miami

Intermodal Center (set for completion in 2013) will include rental cars, local bus, inter-

city bus, Metrorail, Tri-Rail (commuter rail), Amtrak, and future high-speed rail all in one

location connected to the airport’s terminal area by an automated people mover.

Compared to MIA, DFW Airport is a highly decentralized environment. Inter-city buses

would need to serve multiple locations at the Airport to provide access to rental cars, local

transit, regional transit, long-term parking, and the passenger terminals. If a single

location at the airport were served (the Rental Car facility, for example) passengers not

renting cars would need to make connections on their own using the Airport’s various

shuttle services. Either way, the over-all travel times associated with inter-city bus

service to DFW Airport is generally inconsistent with the business model that emphasizes

express connections to city centers.

The Arrival of High Speed-Rail

Modern inter-city bus service mimics the characteristics of high-speed rail in many ways,

most notably the focus on providing express or very limited stop service between major

regional hubs. As inter-city bus service is an unsubsidized industry in Texas, much can be

learned from the decisions made by bus operators in terms of designing a system to

maximize ridership and productivity.

The experience of peer systems can be instructive as well. The California High Speed Rail

(CAHSR) project, while still in the planning and design stage, is a few years ahead of

similar efforts in Texas. Initial funding for the project was approved by state voters in




2008, and the first construction contract associated with the project was awarded in

June, 2013.

The CAHSR project would link major cities between San Francisco and San Diego,

including San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, and Riverside. Spurs would also

connect Sacramento, Anaheim, and Irvine into the system (Figure 16).

Several airports will be served by California’s high-speed rail line, including the airports

in San Francisco, Palmdale, Burbank, Ontario, and San Diego. Other airports, such as

those in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, Orange County, Long Beach, and Sacramento

will not be served. The rationale behind which airports to serves is based on a policy of

no major deviations. For example, a spur to LAX was rejected because it would have

required too much additional travel time.

Some airports happened to be “on the way” of the preferred CAHSR rail alignment, and in

some cases alignments were selected specifically because they would serve an airport, but

there is only one example in the entire system of an airport being selected as a station site

instead of a downtown: San Diego International Airport is located just one mile from

downtown Dan Diego, and is close enough to the city center to effectively serve as a

downtown station.




Figure 15 Regional Jet at DFW Airport (with Larger Planes in Background)

Source: UCLA

With the exception of San Diego, every other airport station is in addition to the

community’s downtown or major suburban center, not instead of it. Ridership

projections for CAHSR indicate that business travelers will be the rail system’s core

market, making central business development access paramount.

Capturing the business travelers market will likely be key to the success of high-speed rail

in Texas as well. The challenge is that while the DFW Metroplex is oriented along a

horizontal axis connecting Dallas, DFW Airport, and Fort Worth, the region as a whole is

located along several important north-south corridors.

From a local perspective, the desire to connect the two downtowns, and the region’s

primary airport with high-speed rail is clear, and is the stated position of the Regional

Transportation Council. However, from a broader perspective, the added travel time of

serving three nodes in one metro region will certainly have a negative impact on through-

ridership such as between Austin and Oklahoma City.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=5bKb9QGJ23KlvM&tbnid=Pn2Ar92ynYn_6M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/srp-view.aspx?id=194416&ei=TjvvUa6uEoz54AOpsIDAAw&bvm=bv.49641647,d.dmg&psig=AFQjCNGJBQQiKYBOBidEnDGE_zmHpUcCoA&ust=1374719086752538




Finally, the practical matter of DFW’s decentralized design, which has been discussed in

many contexts before, would be a limiting factor for effective high-speed rail service to

the airport as well. A single station at the Airport will not be sufficient to provide direct

access to the terminals, remote parking, local transit connections, and rental car center.

However, multiple stops in close succession would also be undesirable unless the stops

are at the end of the line and have no travel time impact on through-passengers.

Conclusion

As regional decision makers consider the appropriate roles and alignments of high-speed

rail and inter-city bus service in the North Central Texas transportation network, the case

studies presented in this document can help inform the debate. As has been seen in other

regions, the characteristics of bus and rail trips do not always align with the design

parameters of large airports. Major airports usually require large “footprints” and are

often sited some distance away from areas of high population density, while bus and rail

stations are most effective in dense urban environments. These differences are not easily

reconciled without compromising the ridership and productivity potential of high-speed

rail or inter-city bus service. As a result, inter-city bus operators rarely serve airports,

and major airports tend to be secondary priorities in the design of high-speed rail lines.

dallas/fort worth international airport · american airlines kiosk or ticket counter to receive the...

Documents