AET – October 2004 – session 7 – Air services
Do high-speed trains really promote airports?
Arnaud CHI, Laboratoire d’Economie des Transports, Lyon, France
High-speed train stations in airports? Twenty years ago, this question would be rapidly cut
short, for the simple reason that trains were associated as opponents of aeroplanes. The
development of a high-speed link was originally associated with the decline of air traffic
between the two cities. In 1982, Air France was forced to reduce drastically the number of its
flights between Paris and Lyon as the TGV joined the two cities in two hours. At the time,
there was no interconnection and the competition was total. The rapidity of aeroplanes was
opposed to a better local accessibility of the railway system.
Consequently, for a long time, intermodality between air and rail was restricted to local
accessibility’s issues. From the end of the 50s till the 70s, the rail interconnection has taken
place in local networks. Brussels (1955) and Gatwitck (1958) were the first European airports
to have a local rail interconnection. Berlin and Frankfurt airports (1972) have been connected
to S-Bahn network. In 1976, Roissy airport has been connected to the RER network in France.
In 1977, Heathrow airport was connected to the tube.
In the 80s, the movement of infrastructures' interconnection get on extra-regional networks.
Amsterdam Shipol, Frankfurt and Zurich airports were crossed over by national trains. But in
fact, it is only in the 90s, with the coming out in 1994 of the TGV stations of Roissy Charles
de Gaulle and Lyon Satolas in France, that the compatibility with the high-speed network has
became a reality. Thus, the last decade has been marked by an increase of infrastructure
investments to promote air / rail intermodality. Germany has recently opened ICE stations in
Düsseldorf (2001), Frankfurt and Cologne (2002) airports. In the future, Amsterdam will be
crossed by Thalys services (2006) and many projects of interconnection with high-speed lines
are in study for the main European platforms. Orly in Paris or Brussels have planned an
interconnection with high-speed lines for the next years and Milan planned a high-speed
branch route to connect Malpensa airport (LOPEZ PITA, 2003).
If twenty years ago, relations between the air and the rail system were only regarded through
competition, it is no longer the case today. With interconnection projects, airports are
investing greatly to develop the rail system. Beyond the competition, airports have taken into
consideration the advantages of high-speed train to develop new travel solutions. More over,
with the increase of international traffics, the competition becomes more and more severe
between the main European plate-forms to keep and to develop their hub.
Do high-speed trains really promote airports? If the advantages of high-speed trains are easy
to hand over, it is actually more difficult to assert that interconnected airports are
comparatively more competitive than non-interconnected ones. The paper tries to give an
overview of the question 10 years after the first interconnections between airports and highspeed trains observed in France.
1
1. The interconnection issue
At first, it may be important to go back to the basics of the relationship between high-speed
trains and aeroplanes. From competition to intermodality, this paper tries to make an overview
of the interconnection issue. It begins with some definitions [1.1.]. Part [1.2.] replaces the
interconnection issue in the economic background of air and rail transport systems. For
conclusion of this first part, the paper will expose the theoretical potential advantages of
infrastructures interconnection for all actors [1.3.]. In final, two main advantages are
considered for airports. The first deals with the potential gain of traffic and the second deals
with the potential gain of time slot capacities.
1.1. Some definitions
Before setting out if interconnection with high-speed trains really promote airports, it is
necessary to define the different words used in the paper.
¾ Competition
According the basic economic theory, there is a competition between two transport systems
when they can be substituted each other. The two systems can thus satisfy the same need. The
consumer has the choice between two solutions to travel from a point A to a point B.
Competition supposes the existence of a rail service between two cities as well as an airline
offering a service. Price and time travel are also recognised as keys to explain the consumer’s
choice.
¾ Complementarity
In the other hand, two modes of transport are complementary when they are used successively
for a trip. Thus, the two solutions do not satisfy the same need.
This definition of complementarity covers two different dimensions:
-
When the successive consumption of the two modes is necessary to satisfy the need of the
user. The two modes do not satisfy the same need, and the need of travel of the consumer
cannot be satisfy by one of the mode alone. It is the case for airplanes with local bus or
rail network, or when there are no airlines for a destination covered only by train. The
complementarity between the two modes is also obvious, the complementarity exist when
the competition do not exist.
-
When the competition does exist, the complementarity can also be expected for the two
modes. In an international flight, the user can have the choice between a single flight, a
combination of two flights with a hub transfer or a successive utilisation of a train and a
long-haul plane. The two modes will thus be regarded as complementary when their
successive utilisation is preferred to the utilisation of a single mode (witch is still
possible).
2
¾ Interconnection
In theory, even if where is no interconnection of infrastructures, a consumer can use
successively the train and the plane, by using local transport link between the city center (the
rail station) and the airport. In practice, if the use of the single air mode is possible, the user
will prefer a trip by plane, even if where is a transfer by hub.
Interconnection is the condition for a successive utilisation of two transport modes in a
situation where the competition exists. It covers technical dimension, as the distance between
the two nodes of transport. Interconnection of infrastructures means that terminals are close to
the train station.
¾ Intermodality and integrated system
Intermodality covers all the projects to encourage the complementarity between the two
transport modes. Beyond the interconnection of infrastructure, it deals with the price issue, the
timetables compatibility, the services on board, the information, the codes share, …
The system is regarded as integrated when the two transport modes propose a common
solution combining the two systems. Each transport system is aware of the good proceeding
of the travel on the other mode and there is a common response for the price issue or in terms
of information. The user can consult both the two networks to buy the same integrated
transport service.
1.2. A background in favour of infrastructures interconnection
At first sight, the situations of air transport and rail transport in Europe seem to be in favour of
a development of air / rail intermodality.
¾ Air traffic growth and congestion in airports
In the last few decades, European countries have to face up to a continual increase in long
distance travel mobility. Even if recent events have corroborated the sensibility of the air
travel activity to the international economic background, the trend is still a continual increase
of demand and distance travel. In the last decade (from 1990 to 2000, source ITA), the world
traffic as increased by:
-
+41% in terms of passengers (from 1.165 billions in 1990 to 1.647 billions in 2000)
-
+59% in terms of PKT (from 1,894 billions to 3,017 billions)
After the 11th September in 2001, the air traffic has get down to a depressed situation, with a
decrease of 2% passengers from 2000 to 2001 and a decrease of 0,5% in 2002. Analyses of
2003’s figures show a stationary situation. Despite Gulf War II and the SARS have delayed
the traffic growth return, main forecasts maintain the same increase for the next decade than
the increase observed from 1990 to 2000. The first six months of 2004 confirm that we are in
same trends of increase. IATA indicates that in comparison with the first six months of 2003
the international traffic has increased of 20,4% in terms of passenger, and planned an increase
3
of two numbers for the year. The number of people travelling by air can exceed 2.3 billion by
2010 (AEA, yearbook 2003, .III.3.).
In fact, the traffic growth of passengers has only accentuated the already grave congestion
problem on main airports due to the high concentration of the system. The organisation of the
air transport network in hub configurations has increased the needs of capacity of the main
platforms as a result of the concentration in time and in space of flights. The 10 largest
airports in EU handle the majority of the long-haul traffic. Hubs are thus the critical nodes of
the system. In addition to this situation of high concentration, an undeniable rigidity has to be
taken in consideration. Airports in the same area cannot be easily substituted for each other.
Each major has a principal hub located and the place for new entrants, so new platforms, is
actually very limited. The traffic growth has to be considered in a limited airspace.
The increase of long distance traffics has creating a demand for new long-haul routes. Or, in
Europe, the largest airports are congested or on the way to being so soon.
¾ The difficulties for capacity increase
If the capacity of planes can support the increase of passengers, the main European platforms
will at least have to find solutions to increase the number of flights.
Nowadays, every one is aware of the environmental and urban constraints that make it very
difficult for major airports to build news runways and to supply all the terminal space and
facilities that aeroplanes need. In addition to it, the capacity of road and rail services to and
from airports has to be taken into consideration. Even if airports are in the situation of
important land reservation, they have to face up important local oppositions. Roissy Charles
de Gaulle in France has for instance air traffic restrictions of 55 millions passengers while
ORLY has a restriction of the numbers of flights.
For technical solutions, everyone is aware that we are maybe next too the limits. Beyond what
has already been accomplished, the marginal capacity increase of new solutions of control
may be minor. For runways, we are close to the limit determined by the safety intervals
required as a result of turbulence of aeroplanes. Technological changes in aeroplanes (new
capacities with airbus A 300 for instance) or air control may also generate new capacities in
air but are not real solutions for terminal and runaway’s congestion.
¾ The development of the high speed rail network
The background of rail transport is different. Interconnection with airports or not, the high
speed rail network is spreading out rapidly. In 2002, 3 260 km of high-speed lines were
opened to commercial services in Europe. In 2010, the total length of the European highspeed network will exceed 7,500 km (PITA, 2003). The development of the “Trans-European
Network” will also create great opportunities of infrastructure interconnection for airports.
Of course, the air transport may have a better life if high-speed rail technology wasn’t
developed. But, as the network does exist, airport authorities are aware of the advantages of
high-speed train accessibility to enlarge their potential market and to propose more routes.
National authorities and major companies are also aware of the potential advantage of high-
4
speed train services to feed their international hub. A report for french government
(FAVENNEC, 2003, p.69) highlight the potential role of high-speed train to support the
previous increase of air traffic of the Parisian platform. This report estimates that the modal
split from airplanes to high-speed trains can be from 15 to 20 millions of air passengers in
departure, arrival or transit in Paris.
¾ An economic and environmental issue
National authorities may profit of the high-speed network expansion to promote the passenger
split from domestic flights to trains. As a result of European liberalisation, each major can
now transport passengers from anywhere in Europe to feed its’ hub for a long-haul
international flight. Where is thus a competition between the different hub, moreover between
the different countries, to maintain their position, in regard with the important economic
impacts of air traffic on the airport area.
The figures of AEA assert easily this important economic issue for national and local
authorities. “The thirty members airlines of the AEA alone employed more 358,000
employees. It is estimated that every airline job generates between 4 and 10 airports jobs, as
well as 3 in the neighbourhood of the airport” (AEA, Yearbook 2003, p.III-3). More
common rates estimated at 3 to 10 the numbers of jobs locally generated by each million of
passengers in an airport. In Roissy Charles de Gaulle, the air transport activity generates more
than 60,000 jobs in the platform, and three times more in the hinterland of the airport for
activities not directly rely to air transport.
The environmental issue has to be taken into consideration too. The train mode is considered
as more ecological than planes. High-speed trains on upgraded lines may consume from twice
to five times less than a plane.
Figure 1, source ITA, 1991, p.83.
5
Despite technological changes can reduce the energy consumption of the air transport activity,
the split of passenger from planes to trains have positive effects on the environmental issue.
In this background, each actor can also expect benefits of a better complementarity between
the two transport systems.
1.3. The basics : competition on point to point and in hub access
The trend of infrastructures’ interconnection is thus powerful, according to the different
projects in European airports and rail network development. In the future, high-speed trains
will transport more and more consumers for airports and air companies. The possibilities of
co-operation and substitution between trains and aeroplanes will be increasingly. Does it
mean then that the interconnection of infrastructures has definitely put an end to competition?
The response to this question is certainly negative. Despite the induction of the travel market
due to a better accessibility of the air transport network, the competition does still exist and
will have rising consequences on the traffic distribution.
As trains carried more and more air travellers, it means also that the volume of air traffics is
reduced in the other hand. This is particularly true for the national air traffic market, where
the modal split is largely in favour to train solutions when the travel time do not exceed three
hours. For this level of time travel, the rapidity advantage of aeroplanes is reduced by the
rigidity of the air travel production process. A trip by train is such easier in its process than a
trip by plane.
Actually, a trip by plane requires many operations, principally for safety reasons. The time
travel includes a time on air and a time on “ground”. Passengers have to arrive from 1 to 2
hours prior departure and complete the different check-in and safety modality. This delay can
be theoretically reduced to 45 minutes for domestic flights. Despite many solution are
developed to reduce this time on ground (e-check or self-service check-in), this delay before
departure will still an important part of the travel time for domestic trips. In addition to it, the
time travel may include the connection time between airports and cities’ center, both at
departure and arrival. With nodes located in cities’ center, the railway system may be more
efficient in reducing accessibility times.
In last but not least, the analysis of the different times may take into consideration the
instability of flights’ timetables. The world’s context has important impacts both on the air
travel demand and the punctuality performance of the air transport system. Within Europe1,
19.9% of departure delayed more than 15 minutes in 2002. From 1999 to 2001, more than one
flight on four was delayed, due to the different world crisis (30.4% in 1999, 24.2. in 2001).
Even if the past few years have seen a reduction of this rate, we are still far from the levels
around 13% recently observed in the period1993-1994. In a time / price competition with the
high speed trains, this parameter may be important as the rate of long distance trains delayed
more than 14 minutes varies from 4 to 8 % (6.3% in 2002 and 6.8% in 2003 in France2) with
higher frequencies.
1
2
Source AEA, yearbook 2000-2003
Source SNCF, Memo-stat 2003.
6
An analysis with a time / price approach achieved by ITA on a sample of 1543 European
routes in 1991 has defined the respective potential markets of airplanes and high-speed trains
(next figure). The distance of 1000 kilometres represents nearly the distance limit covered by
a high-speed train in three hours travel.
train
zone of price/time competition
The train is
faster than
the airplane
0
250
The airplane is at
least twice as fast
as the train
Modal split in
favour of the
train
Modal split in
favour of the
airplane
600
airplane
The airplane is on average
three times as fast as the
train
1000
1500
Orthodromic
distance (km)
Figure 2 : the market share, source ITA, 1991, p.39
Thus, in a point to point market, the development of the high speed network will undoubtedly
be in favour of a modal split of passengers from plane to train services for short-haul and
continental distances. In France, the construction of the new TGV line between Paris and
Marseille put the two cities’ center in three hours travel in 2002. More over, this new line has
allowed the creation of train services between Marseille city center and Roissy Charles de
Gaulle airport in less than four hours time travel. A years after the beginning of the high speed
train line, the figure of air traffic between Paris and the south-east of France shows an
important loss of consumers (-30% on Paris-Marseille, -59% on Paris-Nîmes).
But, moreover than the competition on domestic point to point travel demand, interconnection
has bring the competition between aeroplanes and high-speed trains on the market of hub
access for long distance travels. Before interconnection, these customers were constrained to
take a short-haul flight and reach an international airport to make their correspondence. Now,
with interconnection, they have the choice between a travel combining two aeroplanes or a
travel combining a high-speed train to reach a hub, and take an international long-haul flight
in departure of this hub.
The interconnection of airports with the high-speed train network may thus promote the
railways system in the national traffic split. In terms of numbers of passengers, an
interconnection may have finally more negative impacts for the air transport system than the
potential induction due to better long distance accessibility.
In these conditions, what are the reasons for the different actors of the air transport system to
promote interconnection projects as the success of these projects may reduce the numbers of
air transport travellers? It is a non-sense for airports to be aware of having the most possible
high-speed trains although where will be a loss of passenger traffic on their domestic flights?
3
61 international routes, 49 domestic routes in France, 44 domestic routes in Germany.
7
The paper will try in the next part to make an overview of the different advantages that an
interconnected airport can expect with interconnection.
1.4. What can airports theoretically expect?
For customers, interconnection of infrastructure may create new possibilities of long distance
travels, by combining trains and planes. An intermodal flight with a long distance train access
to the hub has also the advantage of a departure in the train station, which is usually located in
a central position with good public transport accessibility. For all transport operators, these
new possibilities of travel may have “induction effects” on the global market. In this
background, trains can be part of the solution for increasing the number of routes, both for
airports and companies. But for airports, the real advantages expected deal with capacities and
market shares.
¾ A gain of time slot capacity for airports and companies
The split on rail of one part of the air traffic is often put forward as a possible solution for
overcrowded airports where land expansion is problematical.
Theoretically, airports can expect that the passengers split from air to rail will be able to
create new slot capacity, by subsiding some domestic flights by train services. With the loss
of passengers on the domestic air routes in competition with train, companies will have to
redefine their product on the route. Airports can also expect a reduction of the number of
flights between the two cities and then liberation of slot time capacity. “Feeding traffic into a
multimodal hub by high-speed train frees time slots at the airports” (ITA, 1991, p.104).
However, this potential slot liberation cannot be considered as a direct result of the
infrastructure interconnection. In practice, we will see later that many conditions are required.
As opponents of train, companies have to maintain their air services to feed their hub for their
customers. They can rationalise their lines by using smaller planes or upheld low rental lines
in most constraint periods, only for passengers in transit. Thus, the capacity gained may in
fact only take place on low congestion period.
Interconnection can be part of the congestion problem only in a case of an integrated system,
with a total split of passenger on train services. This hub transfer by train has thus the
advantage of freeing slot time capacity in the most constraint period of aeroplanes meeting.
The slots released can thus be re-affected for new long-haul routes or more profitable flights.
At least, the transfer on train services can have positive effects on the terminals’ capacity for
passengers in transit. By splitting a part of passengers from air to rail, airports can report
supply needs from terminals to train stations. Airports can thus expect that their investments
in infrastructure’s interconnection with high-speed train will have positive effects on the
congestion issue and therefore reduce the needs of investments on terminals or ground
installations.
8
¾ An increase of market shares
The second advantage deals with traffic increases. It seems reasonable to think that the
attractiveness of combined train / plane transport solution will generate news traffics for the
interconnected airport. This increase can have four main causes.
The first is the pure induction of new passenger demands on long distance trip in the
provincial areas connected to the airport by high-speed trains. This is particularly true for
provincial areas, which doesn’t have a continental or domestic air platform. The train will
thus create new solution of travel. For some air routes, the high-speed train services feed the
hub in the same way as sort-haul domestic flights do, and there is thus an increased of the
frequencies. The second case of traffic increase comes from the modal split from exclusive
train or car solutions. The volume of traffic split may also be minor as the market modal share
is already in favour of air solutions for such distances.
Pure induction
Ó
Ó
Traffic split
from trains and roads
Ó
Regional city centre
Ó Regional airport
Main city
Ó Hub
Ó Interconnected Hub
High speed train service
Flight
Other land modes
Figure 3: the traffic increase by a modal split from train point to point and road solution
The third source comes from the modification of the traffic share between the airport of the
city connected by train and the interconnected airport. If the area connected to the hub has a
domestic platform, the induction of traffic in the hub can also come from decrease of the
international point to point traffic in profit of combined train / plane solution. Interconnection
can thus promote interconnected airports to catch point to point passenger from others
regional airport. This is the case for instance on the route Nantes–Milano. The traffic on the
point to point line will decrease in favour of combined solution transiting by Roissy in the
case of an interconnection of the airport with the TGV Atlantique, and then generate
additional passengers on the route Roissy Charles de Gaulle – Milano Malpensa. This
increase of traffic in the interconnected airport is thus not an induction for the global air
system. However, theses additional passengers for airport as to be moderated by the volume
of the travel demand. Actually, the volume of travel demand from provincial areas to
international capitals is minor in regard with the traffic between international capitals. For
smaller airports, the competitive advantage is more territorial by enlarging the potential
market for point to point travel. With a high-speed rail interconnection, airports will be at onehour accessibility from cities’ center in a distance of 250 or 300 kilometres. For medium-haul
flight, the geographic market share can be modified by high speed train services. A customer
located in a city centre interconnected by high speed train can thus reach to the interconnected
9
airport located in another region as fast as the regional airport located closer, or at least more
easily from the city centre.
Ó
Traffic split from regional
long haul flights
Ó
Ó
Regional city centre
ÓRegional airport
Ó
Ó
Main city
Hub
Interconnected Hub
High speed train service
Flight
Figure 4: the gain of traffic of interconnected airport by a better land accessibility
The last case of traffic increase for an interconnected airport comes from the traffic capture in
a continental competition between platforms of the same dimension. This is the case for
instance for Brussels. As the THALYS join Brussels City to Roissy Charles de Gaulle, one
part of the traffic of the airport can be thus captured by Roissy airport. With a speed train
interconnection, a hub can be thus more competitive by proposing a departure from the city
center with a train access. It can be for example the case for the route Lille – New York.
Without interconnection, this passenger can have the choice between Roissy CDG and
London Heathrow for the transit by air. With interconnection, train can thus make the access
of the hub with a departure from the city centre, which will promote the hub of Roissy CDG.
Ó
Ó
Ó
Traffic split
from other hub
Ó
Point to point
traffic capture
from other airports
Ó
Regional city centre
ÓRegional airport
Main city
Hub
Interconnected Hub
Ó
Ó
High speed train service
Flight
Figure 5: traffic capture from other hubs or airports
Beyond the traffic increase that interconnected airport can theoretically expect,
interconnection may profit main platforms to hold up their dominant position.
10
2. Does interconnection really promote airports?
To go further these statements, the paper tries to highlight in witch specific cases airports can
really expect gains of a high-speed train interconnection. By examination of the two examples
of Roissy and Lyon [2.1.], the paper shows that the infrastructure interconnection is only
enough to make certain an intermodal success. Many other conditions have to be taken into
consideration, as the size of the airport. In terms of time slots capacity, it is also difficult to
observe and quantify real gains for airports. The example of Frankfurt shows that it is difficult
to substitute all airplanes by high-speed trains. Air services will be upheld, especially in peak
periods [2.3.]. In terms of traffic, if the success of interconnection can be reveal by the use of
combined train – aeroplane solutions, it is also difficult to rely the intermodal figures with
passenger’s traffic grothw.
2.1. The conditions of success are many
The last decade have seen an increase of airport’s investments for rail interconnection. In
Europe, this quest of infrastructures concerned the main hubs as well as smaller platforms.
Nevertheless, the first part of this paper shows that the success of such investments depend on
many conditions beyond the infrastructure issue.
¾ The size condition
The examination of the potential gains made in part [1.4.] reveals that the size of the airport is
fundamental. The traffic split from other regional airports, which means to substitute a direct
flight by a combined train / plane trip, will be effective only for long distance travels,
particularly intercontinental flight. It is thus difficult to imagine such split for short or middle
haul routes. The traffic split from other hub and the traffic capture from other airports suppose
that the interconnected airport can propose the same destinations. This size condition is then
obvious. In terms of traffic, intercontinental hubs will benefit more of a high-speed train
interconnection comparatively to a continental platform. The case of France is significant.
TGV station traffic in 2002
Numbers of train per day
Part of intermodality in the TGV station
traffic
Intermodal passenger
Intermodal passenger / per day / per train4
Air traffic (except transit)
Part of intermodality in the point to point
traffic
Data 2002 from SNCF
4
Roissy TGV
Lyon Saint Exupery
TGV
2,4 millions
0,284 millions
≈ 50
≈ 18
67%
10%
≈ 1,8 millions
≈ 90
32,6 millions
≈ 0,028 millions
<5
5,1 millions
4,9%
0,55%
Intermodal traffic / 365 days / numbers of trains
11
In the same year, 1994, the intercontinental hub of Roissy Charles de Gaulle and the airport of
Lyon Saint Exupery (named formerly Lyon Satolas) were interconnected to the TGV, the
french high speed train network, with contrasted results. If we examine the traffic figures of
the two TGV stations, we see that intermodal practices are very low in the case of Lyon Saint
Exupery comparatively to the case of Roissy Charles de Gaulle.
If the condition of having long haul flights to promote intermodality is evident, many airports
consider in the other hand that the infrastructure interconnection will be an advantage to
develop such routes. For airports, interconnection with high-speed train services has become a
commercial message to interest new companies and news consumers. The interconnection
between high-speed trains has put emphasis on the competition between the main platforms in
Europe. In practice, the example of Lyon Saint Exupery shows that the infrastructure
interconnection cannot really cope up with the size difficulty. Despite the TGV
interconnection, the airport wasn’t able to uphold the intercontinental route between Lyon and
New York. The airline, opened on the 1st April of 2000, has been closed by DELTA
AIRLINES only one year after on the 31 August of 2001. In opposition to it, the noninterconnected airports of Nice or Toulouse proposed many flights per day for the United
States.
¾ The necessity of an integrated system
Many other causes of the low intermodality observed in Lyon Saint Exupery can be held out.
More over than the question of size or the nature of the flights proposed, there is actually no
real integration of rail services.
To have a real collaboration between trains and planes, the compatibility of timetables are at
least required. It supposes to have many trains per day for a destination. The trains have also
to be placed in order to minimise the connecting times. More over, a real collaboration
supposed that the rail system might be able to propose other travel solutions in case of flight
delayed. It means that 3-4 departures (and arrivals) per day located with respect to the
connecting times are a minimum to have a system and encourage intermodal practices for one
direction.
In terms of frequencies and destinations, about 50 TGV per day are available in Roissy
Charles de Gaulle airport. Many cities, as Lille or Brussels, have more than 3 relations per day
by TGV located in peak period. In addition to it, an intermodal product, named TGV Air, is
proposed by SNCF in collaboration with air companies. This product is a commercial
collaboration between air companies and SNCF. A company can buy, in advance, many
places in the different TGV in departure or arrival at Roissy Charles de Gaulle. The travellers
change their air reservation into a train ticket in an exclusive desk in the TGV station. Thus,
they travel by train under a number of flights. TGV Air is disposable for 14 national
destinations5 from Roissy Charles de Gaulle and concerned 8 companies6. The travel check-in
can be done in the TGV station for Air France travellers for many destinations. Travellers can
also receive their boarding pass for Roissy Airport before getting in the TGV. They buy their
trip as a trip by plane.
5
In 2003 : Lille-Europe, St-Pierre des Corps, Rennes, Nantes, Angers, Le Mans, Poitiers, Bordeaux St Jean,
Lyon Part-Dieu, Valence TGV, Avignon TGV, Marseille St Charles, Nîmes and Montpellier.
6
In 2003 : Air France, Lufthansa, United Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air lines, KLM, Amirates and
Continental Airlines.
12
In Lyon, the situation is very different. Less than 20 TGV stop daily in the TGV station but
there is no real integration of rail services. Except for Paris City center, the numbers of
relations with the other cities are very low. In addition to it, the timetables are not built to
maximise the number of possible connections with flights. There is no intermodal product
disposable with the infrastructures’ interconnection.
Interconnection of infrastructures is then not enough to expect the gains highlighted before.
The size of the airport and the nature of the flights in one hand, and the level of rail services
integration in the second hand, are also important conditions to expect a real gain for
interconnected airports.
2.2. Do interconnection really free capacity for airports?
¾ The transfer on rail do not directly impact the numbers of flights
The ITA’s study (ITA, 1991, p.104-105) has point out this advantage as a possible important
income for airports. By analysing the potential splits of traffic with the TGV Atlantique
achievement, ITA has estimated rapidly that the transfer of passengers on TGV services
interconnected with Paris can free:
-
400 time slots on the route Nantes – Milano Malpensa if the consequences of the traffic
diminution lead to a close of the direct route. All the traffic on the route is thus supposed
to be transfer into Paris. The 5,000 additional on the route Paris - Milano represent a
marginal part of the traffic between the two cities, and then will not generate new needs of
slot capacity than the existing services.
-
2,500 time slots on the route Nantes – Paris with 50% of modal split on train services.
Then, in this specific case, Roissy Charles de Gaulle can expect to free 2,500 time slots on the
domestic route Nantes-Paris and a gain of 5,000 passengers in correspondence to fill the
existing flights joining Milan – Malpensa.
However, these projections have to be moderated by the many realities. At first, as precise in
ITA’s study, these time slots liberation doesn’t really cope up with the congestion problem, as
the time slots cut out are not located in peak periods. If the reduction of the number of the
flights can be expected on average, it is most difficult to assert that the train services will free
capacity in peak period.
Moreover, the traffic reduction on a route doesn’t necessary means a reduction of the number
of flights. In the specific case of Nantes-Paris7, the development of the TGV network has
reduced the air traffic of the air traffic of 30%. Air Inter, to cope up with this decrease, has
first restructured its services by using smaller airplanes without reducing the numbers of
flights between the two cities (7.5 per day). In spite of a reduction of 15% of the traffic in 92,
Air Inter has upheld 12 flights per day between Paris and Bordeaux, as in 1988 before the
TGV Altantique has been achieved (in 09/1990). The same situation is observed for several
other routes, as Paris-Rennes or Paris-Brest.
7
Source PERRIN, 1995, p.14-16.
13
Even if in 1991, Roissy airport wasn’t interconnected yet, the experience of Nantes shows the
transfer on trains do not result directly on time slot liberation, particularly in peak periods.
¾ The necessity of an integrated system
Actually, only a real integrated system can allows airports to expect real gains of capacity
coming from the infrastructure interconnection. Companies will substitute entirely their air
services on rail services only if where is an integration of the air transport process on rail
services. Except this last condition and without changes of slot allocation practices,
companies will still upheld low rental lines to feed by airplanes their hub especially in peak
periods.
Further than the geographic continuity of the travels permitted by an infrastructure
interconnection, there must be thus an integration of the different aspects of transportation
services. At first, there must be a continuity of timetables. Train services have to respect the
timetables of other planes. After that, the continuity of the quality of service seems to be
important too. If the trains are as comfortable as planes, the lack is essentially on board
services, like the presence of a steward, the food distribution or newspapers disposability. At
least but not last, it must be continuity in the trip production for airline. The information about
the transfer of its customers is important for the company, which requires the possibility of a
trip check-in in the train station. More over the luggage transfer has to be taken in charge,
which is not the case today in trains. Passenger information continuity seems to be important
too. These conditions need an adaptation of train services, which are not design to propose
such functions. The security issue has to be elucidated, with respect to the Minimum
Connecting Time of the hub. The transfer from a train to a plane has to be at least as fast as a
transfer from plane to plane. At least but not last, the pricing question has to be treated, as
many air customers may benefit of airlines’ fidelity programs, they will beware of the
possibility of accumulating miles on the train integrated services.
Thus, if airports can theoretically expect a gain of capacity by investing in interconnection,
the real gain will depend on the capacity (or motivation) of both rail operator and air
companies to created an integrated travel system.
¾ A example of integrated system in Europe
In Europe, one of the most integrated systems combining high-speed train services for hub
feeding is running at the moment in Frankfurt airport.
With infrastructure interconnection, the airport benefits of a good accessibility by long
distance train services. The two ICE lines Hamburg – Bremen – Münster – Dortmund
Cologne – Frankfurt Airport– Mannheim – Basel and Berlin – Hanover – Dortmund –
Cologne – Frankfurt Airport – Frankfurt City – Nuremberg crossed the airport every hour.
The ICE line Hamburg – Hanover – Kassel – Frankfurt City – Frankfurt Airport – Stuttgart
crossed the airport every two hours. In addition to it, an IC line between Dresden and Passau
crossed the airport every two hours. The airport is already connected with the S-Bahn
(commuter trains network), the R-Bahn (regional trains) and bus services.
To go further the simple interconnection of transportation services, the integrated product
AIRail has been developed on the ICE route Stuttgart city – Frankfurt airport and is a jointventure of Lufthansa, Deutsche Bahn and FRAPORT AG. On the existing ICE from Stuttgart
14
performed by DB, air travellers of Lufthansa can check in and out and pass custom controls at
Stuttgart central train station. The check-in has to be made until 20 minutes before train
departure. They also receive their airline-boarding pass before reaching the train, where a
specific railway wagon is reserved for Lufthansa. Onboard service, comparable to European
Lufthansa business class service is proposed. The baggage is transfer automatically. A
Lufthansa terminal for flight and baggage check-in is available in the train station. In 2003,
the AIRail service has been extended to Cologne. The tickets are available directly from
Lufthansa or travel agencies under a flight number. 6.5 trains per day are available with
AIRail service from/to Stuttgart and 15 trains from/to Cologne. These trains, running seven
days of the week, covered in time the principal needs of peak periods.
The advantage for Lufthansa is obvious according to the increase of AIRail services in its
timetable. In terms of time slot capacity, the airport timetable of 2004 reveals that, even from
Cologne with the 15 daily frequencies of AIRail service, the air traffic between the two
airports has not been cut out. Lufthansa have still maintained flights sometimes very close in
time departure or arrival to train services in peak period. If the gain of capacity is obvious, by
the decrease of the number of flights for the cities interconnected with AIRail, it is difficult to
assert that this element is significant for the capacity issue considering peak periods.
Example of interconnection with high-speed trains, particularly in Frankfurt, shows that in
practice, the substitution cannot be total yet, even with high integration of rail services. Some
air travellers will prefer to use airplanes. One reason can be the location of the train station
itself. If in average the train station has a better ground accessibility by a more central location
than airports, this is not absolute for all passengers. People around the airport are closer to it
and the ground congestion of cities’ center has to be taken into consideration too.
2.3. Does interconnection really promote the airport passenger traffic?
For a specific interconnected airport, how to estimate easily the number of additional
passengers fed by high speed train services? A first, the use of the trains services for
intermodal practices can be a good indicator of additional traffics. In this case, the intermodal
traffic figures of the train station can be used. But many precautions have to be taken.
To illustrate that, we can take a look at the figures of the TGV stations of Roissy Charles de
Gaulle. As indicated before, crossed by more than 50 TGV per day Roissy Charles de Gaulle
interconnection is one of the most integrated multimodal places in Europe. Passengers can
also benefit of an integrated service named TGV Air. In 2002, about 2.4 millions of
passengers have transited in the TGV station. The part of intermodal air-rail passengers is
close to 2/3, which correspond to 1.6 millions passengers. The intermodal practice allowed by
interconnection represents thus 1.6 millions passengers for Roissy airport in 2002.
At this stage, a methodological precision must be defined for taking into consideration the
traffic feed by train services. The traffic of an airport can be divided into two distinctive parts.
The point to point traffic composes the first part and the second is composed by the transit
traffic. In the point to point traffic, a majority is local demand. Trains, roads, bus and all
ground transport system in competition make the rest of extra-regional demand feed with
short-haul flight. As high-speed trains impact directly both on point to point and transit
traffics, the figures of intermodal traffic can be taken into consideration in two ways.
15
TRANSIT TRAFFIC
Long distance ground
access (except trains)
Train
Access
LOCAL TRAFFIC
Feed by local networks
Figure 6: the traffic structure of an airport
In a non-integrated system, high-speed train services must be considered as ground
transportation system for airport access in the same way as for roads or buses. Passengers
reaching the airport by high-speed trains are thus considered as point to point travellers. In the
case of Roissy CDG, the traffic except transit is about 32.8 MPAX in 2002. The 1.6 millions
passenger feed by TGV represent thus 5% of the local traffic of the airport. In an integrated
system, high-speed train services must be considered as real air services. Passengers,
travelling by train under a number of flights, are thus assimilated as transit passengers. In the
case of Roissy, the 1.6 millions passengers feed by TGV represent thus 8% of the transit
traffic. We can also consider that passengers travelling by trains under a number of flight are
air passenger in transit, while the other passenger in correspondence with a train are thus point
to point traffic.
But considering that the high-speed train interconnection promotes the airport traffic of 5% or
8% is will be a too fast and wrong statement. All the traffic feed by train services cannot be
considered as pure additional traffic for airports.
A part of this traffic comes from the modal split from road in the hub access, and was already
point to point travellers. Another part comes from the split from short-haul flights for the hub
access. In an integrated system, the impact of this modal split will be null in the traffic figure.
Passengers on trains are in this case with a number of flights, they are thus still passengers in
transit. In a non-integrated system, these intermodal passengers will increase the figures of the
long-haul point to point traffic and decrease the numbers of passengers in transit. In final, we
have to consider only the intermodal passengers coming from the spatial split from other
airports or coming from pure induction.
Actually, the real impacts of the interconnection on the global traffic figures are difficult to
estimate finely. Only a fine analysis of the figures, routes by routes, before and after setting
train services, can reveal the gain of traffic. For this paper, we don’t have the figures to make
such an analysis. As for the gain of capacity, the gain of passenger due to the interconnection
is difficult to estimate.
16
Conclusion
Even if the profits of a rail interconnection are actually difficult to quantify, both in terms of
slot capacity and passenger traffic, it is evident that the increase of intermodal practices has
positive advantages for all actors, from passengers, airports to air and rail companies. At least,
the presence of high-speed train station is a major signal used by airports in their business
plan.
However, the paper shows that the infrastructure achievement is far to be enough for having a
successful wedding between the rail and the air system. As important as the infrastructure
interconnection itself, many conditions are required to come to the benefits expected. The
paper points out the necessity of having an integrated system. It supposes that the train station
will be crossed by a real intermodal rail system. To bring the train operator and air companies
to operate together in such direction, there is a clear question of size of the airport itself. The
creation of an integrated system has to cope up with the financial constrains of the two
systems. In main situations, the intermodal traffic alone cannot be sufficient to justify the
creation of high-speed train services. If the infrastructure can be a motor for the airport
development, it will not be able to resolve alone all the original problems due to the air
market.
Other questions have to be discussed in the next few years. We have seen that the substitution
of short-haul flights by trains cannot be total. In the future, will systems be able to propose a
complete integration, and then liberate massive slot capacity? As train stations in airports will
become commonplace in Europe, what will be the real impact of rail infrastructures in the
market share?
Even if in the last decade the relations between trains and planes have turn from competition
into co-operation, we are maybe only at the beginning of a real integration of air and rail
systems. The future of the high speed train integration in air transport process is maybe in
what is already done in local express train services dedicated for airports.
17
Some references
BARLA P. et al., 1998, Les aéroports de demain, dixièmes entretiens jacques Cartier, actes
du colloque, Laboratoire d’Economie des Transports, collection études & recherches, 370p.
BERNARD F., High-speed rail and air transport. 4th World Congress on high speed rail,
Madrid, October 2002.
CAA, Civil Aviation Authority, London, 1995, The single european aviation market :
Progress so far, 223p. ISBN 0 86039 639 3
Conseil Economique et Social, 2002, Aéroports de proximité et aménagement du
territoire, rapport
DURET E., 1995, Complémentarité TGV-Aérien, Rail International 15-17, août-septembre
1995.
FAVENNEC Y. (rapporteur), juillet 2003, Rapport d’information sur l’avenir du
transport aérien français et la politique aéroportuaire, Assemblée nationale, 89p.
GRÜBMEIJER J. et al., Les raccordements ferroviaires d’aéroports en Allemagne : une
forme de coopération entre le rail et l’avion, Rail International, 2-7, juillet-août 1998.
LEBOEUF M., Rail links with the Roissy Charles de Gaulle Airport Hub, Rail
International, 8-13, March 2001.
LOPEZ PITA A., 2003, Airport connections if high-speed lines, Temes de Tranport i
Territori (TTT), 138p. ISBN 84-8301-683-4
PAVAUX J. et al., 1991, RAIL / AIR; Complementarity in Europe – The impacts of HighSpeed Train Services, Institut du Transport Aérien (ITA),study prepared for the DirectorateGeneral for Transport (DG VII), 162p., ISBN 2-908537-04-04
PERRIN J.-L., 1995, Le développement de l’intermodalité rail / avion en France, thèse
professionnelle pour le Master de Management Public et Maîtrise Technique, STBA, 50p. +
annexes.
VARLET J., 1992, Interconnection of transport networks in Europe, Institut du Transport
Aérien (ITA), coll. Studies & Reports vol. 24, 196p. ISSN 1011-615X
Figures and statistics
Association of European Airlines (AEA), yearbook 1999-2003.
Institut du Transport Aérien (ITA), Tableau de Bord du transport aérien dans le monde données 1990 – 2001.
Aéroports Magazine, Trafic aéroportuaire 2003 – le palmarès mondial, hors série mai 2004,
40p.
SNCF, memo-stat, 2003.
EUROSTAT, theme 7, Transport by air ; data 1993-2001, CD Rom ISSN 1725-164X
www.lufhtansa.com for AIRail and flights timetables of LUFTHANSA in Frankfurt
www.airfrance.com for informations on TGV-Air
18