Trajectorybased, Sectorless Air Traffic Management

1
COST 340, Paris 13-15 June 2005
I n t e r m o d a l i t y from Passenger
Perspective or
PASSENGERS CHOICE BETWEEN HIGH-SPEED TRAIN AND
AIR TRANSPORT
PhD Candidate EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre
(France) University of ZILINA
(Slovakia) Antonia COKASOVA antonia.cokasova_at_eur
ocontrol.int Supervisors Vu DUONG Ludek BENO
European Organisation for the Safety of Air
Navigation
2
Air traffic today
Traffic forecast
3
Airports bottleneck hubspoke
50 of traffic less than 800 km

• - airport ATFM delay compared to total delay
  increased to 49 in 2004 (increased 8)
• - 75 of airport derived ATFM delays caused by
  only 11 European airports
• - airlines hub spoke way of operation

X - cities of France Y - cities abroad

X Y 12 14 26 flights
X Y 12 14 168 flights
4
Why intermodality in Europe
!

• Robust traffic growth is anticipated in the
  coming years
• Airport capacity problems are becoming visible
  more than ever
• Substitution for short haul flights is much
  needed
• Only HST has a commercial speed that can
  successfully compete with air services

5
What is intermodality

• What is intermodality?

FRA 3.7 million HST users CDG 0.7 million HST
users
6
Travel time AIR vs. RAIL

• What is the efficient distance/time for PAX
  (TIME is prior to distance)

!

• High Speed Trains (HST) can be used to replace
  airline services
  
  - in practice air-rail compete
  between 300 600 kms
• Very few examples of elaborate intermodal
  connection in Europe
  
  - questions of luggage
  transfer, liability issues, intermodal ticketing,
  passenger information, etc
• The modal split depends on passengers
  sensitivity to different travel attributes

7
Intermodality has to serve passengers!

• basic physical retroaction
• 
  - how to make
  intermodality work for passengers, so passengers
  can work for aviation, choosing High Speed Train
  instead of air services on short haul

• There is more to journey than an equation of
  time, distance and speed
• There is - baggage
  transfer -
  integrated ticketing
  - quality of interconnection points
  - on-board comfort
  - mileage acquisition
  - ...
• Having sound knowledge of PAX expectations 1st
  step towards well-organized intermodal connection

8
Questionnaires
Methodology stated preferences
questionnaire (1) The main type of data
collection instruments (2) The method of
approach to respondents (3) The build-up of
question sequences or modules (4) The order of
questions within module (5) The type of
questions to be used
THALYS International 260 Eurostar 276 Paris
CDG 215 Lisbonne Airport 162
Scales used to obtain responses that will be
comparable - verbal frequency scale - ordinal
scale - forced ranking - paired comparison
9
Preliminary results passenger comparison
10
business and leisure
11
is there a common denominator?
12
gender significant differences
Women 63 said price Men 50 access to airport
or station
13
travel behaviour in general
14
Luggage handling
a counter- intuitive factor 10 for
women only 3 more air passengers attach
importance to luggage handling than rail
15
travel time
CORRELATION WOMEN choice of airplane
comfort choice of HST price of
travel LEISURE choice of HST and nationality
16
More results
!

• Only 7 of PAX would be willing to pay more for
  train ticket than plane ticket
• Only 8 of PAX check about luggage handling
  possibilities
• 64 find connection issues very important
• 65 wait at airports more than an hour before
  scheduled flight time
• 55 arrive to train station less than ½ hour
  before train departure time
• 16 would be willing to pay extra for luggage
  through check, but 34 strongly denies spending
  any extra money on luggage through check
• 66 base their choice of transport mode on travel
  time
• 21 would pay extra to have luggage delivered to
  their domicile
• 42 passengers have different preferences when
  travelling business
• and more

• Passenger preferences vary with nationality,
  purpose of travel, frequency of travel, etc
  
  - challenging to
  assign common denominators
• 60 PAX agree that travel time , ticket price
  and access to airport and station is one of the 3
  main decision makers
• 40 PAX agree to on-board comfort, schedule
  frequency, punctuality reliability and
  walking/waiting time
• On-board services and luggage handling have
  little importance
• Some factors can be very influential decision
  maker, but important only to specific group of
  people fear of flying and fear of crossing the
  Channel Tunnel

17
Passenger movement at airport terminalACARE
- Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in
Europe

• Airport Terminal Resources
• One of the ACARE challenges is to ensure that
  passengers spend only
• 15 minutes in the airport terminal for short-haul
  flights and 30 minutes for
• long-haul flights. We need quantum improvements
  in passenger flows in
• the terminal and in particular baggage check-in,
  passport control and
• security screening
• The layout of intermodal terminal can strongly
  influence the outcome of
• integrated intermodal services efficiency, for
  this reason detailed analysis
• is needed allowing the airport to benefit from
  its intermodal premises and
• provide user friendly services to passengers
• Passenger and luggage movement simulation at
  intermodal airport terminal

18
Passenger movement at terminal

• Software PaxSim Simulation Tool (developed by
  the Preston Group)
• - the most sophisticated fast-time simulation
  model available for Passenger Simulation
• obtained free Student License until September
  2005
• Input data airport terminal layout - Lisbon
  Airport DXF format
• - Frankfurt Air-Rail Connection A1
• traffic data - ICE train schedule
• - CFMU traffic data
• passengers - questionnaire results
• - movement speed analyses
• Objective
• Reduction of demand on the airport resources
  the main cause of delay at airports at the moment
  (in
• the absence of bad weather) is the saturation at
  the various choke-points (passport control,
  security
• screening and sometimes even check-in)

19
PaxSim in Action
A Boeing Company
19
20
Impact of Intermodality on air traffic
Microscopic level impact on 1 airport !
European level airport pairs network effect
Better distribution of transport demand More
satisfied passengers less waiting time Released
airport terminal resources Released runway and
ATC resources Reduced negative environmental
impacts Improved ground access to airports
21
Conclusion
!

• Passenger perspective a key to well organised
  intermodal solution
• Given that most regional airports are connected
  to several European hubs, the intermodal
  connection will only work if the passenger
  considers it to be more efficient and competitive
  than the use of the aeroplane via an alternative
  hub
• Intermodality is a partial solution to solve
  existing airport capacity constraints
• Impact of Intermodality on airports
• - Frankfurt 5
• - London Heathrow 8
• - Barcelona 19

22
long way ahead

• Ladies and Gentlemen,
• Thank you very much for your attention

QUESTIONS