Passengers represent the majority of surface access journeys at an airport, with the remaining trips undertaken by the other major airport user groups; airport employees, people dropping-off/collecting other passengers (so called meeter-greeters), and cargo, supply, delivery, and other commercial vehicles. Passengers changing or transferring between flights at an airport are not considered in a surface access context as they do not require surface travel to and from the airport in question. This is why at large hub airports the proportion of surface access passengers will typically be lower than airports that predominantly serve point-to-point originating and destination (O–D) markets. For example, in 2016 over 75 million passengers passed through London Heathrow, of which just over 27 million (or 36.1%) were connecting to other flights. In comparison, at Manchester Airport, a regional airport in England’s northwest, only 2.9% of the airport’s 21.6 million passengers used the airport to connect to other flights (Civil Aviation Authority, 2017).

Surface access passengers are conventionally classified as being either originating (outbound) or terminating (inbound) passengers. This distinction matters primarily as a reflection of whether or not the passenger is likely to have access to a private vehicle when starting their trip. Clearly, a passenger arriving at an airport is less likely to have access to their own vehicle than someone starting their journey from their home or place of work. As a result, an airport with a predominant focus on originating/outbound traffic will likely need to accommodate a larger proportion of private vehicles than an airport with a strong focus on inbound passengers (e.g. airports located in popular tourist destinations with comparatively small resident populations).

Regarding the factors that govern decisions about how to travel to the airport, as already mentioned, the time and financial costs associated with being late or missing a flight mean that passengers are highly time sensitive and hence require a mode of transport that is affordable, efficient, and reliable. Overall, it is posited that passenger mode choice is a function of perceptions regarding the relative cost, comfort, and convenience of competing modes (Ashford et al., 2013). These findings are variously supported by research showing that travel time, cost, and comfort/convenience are pivotal considerations when deciding how to travel (e.g. see Psaraki and Abacoumkin, 2002; Pels et al., 2003; Tam et al., 2005; Chang-Jou et al., 2011). Importantly, whilst the overall door-to-journey time is an important consideration for passengers, the reliability of that journey may be valued as highly, if not more so, by some passengers and/or in certain circumstances. In other words, a passenger may be happy to sacrifice a slightly longer journey for one that they consider to be more reliable and less susceptible to delays.

In addition to factors of time and cost, there may be important mediating factors relating contextually to the nature of the passenger’s trip that influence decisions about travelling to the airport. Arguably the most important of these contextual factors relates to whether the passenger is travelling for leisure or business purposes. People travelling for leisure purposes, especially those staying away for a few days or more, are more likely to be carrying larger luggage items with them than a business traveller, who will typically only be staying away from home for a relatively short period of time. Generally speaking, passengers encumbered with heavy or bulky luggage will favour using a private car (where available) or a taxi than public transport. Even relatively small suitcases designed to fit into the overhead ‘bins’ on an aircraft can be problematic to take on some public transport services, which may be crowded and/or provide little space for luggage storage. This issue is recognised as a key challenge in encouraging more passengers to use public transport (Coogan et al., 2008, p. 107).

Leisure passengers are also more likely to be travelling as part of a group (e.g. with family and friends) than the business traveller. Hence, it may be more cost efficient for the passenger to share the cost of using a car or a taxi, than pay for separate tickets on public transport. Business and leisure passengers may also vary in terms of their relative sensitivity to time and cost factors. Research here shows that business passengers generally place a higher value on journey time than they do on the cost of their trip (e.g. see Pels et al., 2003; Hess and Polak, 2006). This will typically cause business passengers to favour the mode that offers the most efficient journey time. For example, in London the premium nonstop express rail service, ‘The Heathrow Express’, is targeted primarily with the business user in mind, with an accompanying premium price point to reflect this. The preference for shorter journey times over cost considerations is easy to understand, given that business travellers may need to travel on a regular basis and, crucially, will usually have their travel costs paid for by their employer or third party (Coogan et al., 2008).

A relatively new phenomenon in a surface access context is that of the airline-operated private luxury limousine services. These are currently offered by a small selection of full-service network carriers (e.g. Emirates, Qatar, and Etihad Airways) at selected airports to passengers travelling in either business or first-class cabins (or equivalent). Passengers travelling to/from a specified distance from the airport can prebook a chauffeur-driven car from their point of origin/destination at no additional cost over and above the price of the airfare. For these passengers, there is clearly little incentive to choose to travel by any other mode, hence the traditional mode choice considerations are virtually redundant. Alongside the traditional transfer coach, which is most commonly associated with so-called package holidays, the airline-operated limousine represents one of only a small number of examples where the surface access portion of a passengers’ trip is provided by the airline or tour operator, and where the price is incorporated with the price of the air fare.

12.2.2 The Journey to the Airport

Passengers generally favour using private cars because of the perceived comfort, availability, flexibility, reliability, improved personal safety and security, low-marginal costs, ease of transporting heavy luggage, and the short door-to-door journey times they provide (Kazda and Caves, 2008; Humphreys and Ison, 2005). Taxi use is generally higher for passengers than for other airport users for similar reasons (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). When discussing the share of journeys made by different modes at airports, private cars and taxis are commonly grouped together and termed ‘private vehicle trips’, reflecting the characteristics of the vehicle itself and the ‘private’, as opposed to shared, nature of the journey.

At airports worldwide, private vehicle trips represent the vast majority of passenger surface access journeys. In 2005 Humphreys and Ison showed that at large airports in Europe (defined as those handling > 10 million passengers per year), around 65% of all journeys were made by private vehicles. In 2016, 60.7% of passenger journeys at Heathrow were undertaken by private vehicle (CAA, 2017). This figure is typically much higher for smaller regional or secondary airports where lower passenger numbers make it harder to sustain economically viable public transport services (see Fig. 12.1). Whilst there are examples of large airports where public transport mode shares are higher, for example, Tokyo Narita in Asia or Oslo Gardermoen in Europe, and public mode shares at some airports have improved over the past decade, the growth in overall demand over the same time period largely outweighs these changes.

This reliance on private vehicle journeys poses considerable challenges for decision-makers, most notably in terms of minimising the potential for traffic congestion around airports and the associated negative implications for reduced local air quality and increased greenhouse emissions. Peaks in surface access traffic will typically follow prevailing airline schedules, with peaks in activity in the morning (06:00–08:00) for passengers on the first ‘wave’ of departing flights, and a similar peak in the evening at the end of the working day. Where these coincide with peaks in normal commuter traffic, the potential for traffic congestion and unreliable journey times is greatly enhanced.

The coinciding of airport and nonairport-related peaks in traffic can also be a problem with regards to public transport, where airport passengers carrying luggage may have to share buses and railway carriages with nonairport users. Often, these services will not be adequately configured to store higher volumes of luggage, adding difficulty and stress to the journeys of both the airport and nonairport user. To try and alleviate these problems, there have been some attempts to develop facilities whereby passengers can check in their luggage at off-site locations, including major railway stations, before proceeding to the airport. Perhaps the most notable example of such a scheme is Hong Kong’s ‘in-town check-in’ facility, which serves Hong Kong International airport via their MRT subway system at no additional charge to the passenger. However, similar facilities elsewhere have generally been less successful. In 1999 a downtown check-in facility at London’s Paddington railway station was opened for passengers travelling to Heathrow by train. However, the facility did not receive sufficient patronage to make it economically viable and it was subsequently closed in 2004 (Coogan et al., 2008). Increased security concerns following the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, and the subsequent fall in demand for air travel, combined with increasing availability of online ticketing and check-in procedures over this period have limited the potential for more widespread adoption of these facilities at other airports.

An alternative system for handling luggage is offered in Switzerland, where the national railway company SBB allows passengers travelling from either Zurich or Geneva airport to check-in their luggage at their local railway station. Inbound passengers can then also collect their luggage at their railway station on their return. Third-party commercial operators (e.g. Airportr) may also offer passengers the chance to have their luggage transported to and from the airport for a fee at some airports.

Unsurprisingly, services that operate directly to/from an airport will be preferred by passengers over those where it is necessary to change modes (e.g. bus to train, train to train, etc.). This is known as the ‘interchange penalty’, whereby the likelihood of a passenger choosing to use public transport diminishes significantly if they are required to change modes along the way. Clearly, the more changes that are required, the less attractive the service becomes to the passenger.

By comparison, dedicated airport express services offer direct or even nonstop services to/from an airport and a city or major urban area. These can be operated by rail, bus, or in some rare cases driverless/autonomous vehicles (e.g. the Incheon ‘Maglev’ train in South Korea). Examples of express rail services include the Heathrow Express (London), Arlanda Express (Stockholm), and Narita Express (Tokyo). These will be configured specifically with the needs of the airport passenger in mind (i.e. space for storing luggage, low-step access, and single deck) and are less likely to be shared with large numbers of nonairport users, given the few stopping points and their comparatively high price. However, these may be ill suited for passengers wishing to travel to locations other than the city centre. Research from the United States estimates that < 30% of passenger trips to/from airports begin or end in the downtown region (LeighFisher et al., 2010).

Whilst express rail services are more commonly associated with major airports and those serving longer haul routes, smaller regional or secondary airports are more likely to operate some form of express bus service. These are typically far less cost intensive to construct, operate, and maintain, but retain similar characteristics in terms of offering passenger-oriented services to predominantly downtown destinations. Ticket prices on express services tend to be priced higher than comparative regional services, which typically offer more connections to the wider catchment area but are generally slower (in terms of door-to-door journey time) and may be tailored less towards the needs of the airport passenger.

Of the UK’s large airports, Stansted has the highest proportion of journeys made by public transport, including by rail, bus, and coach (50.9%; CAA, 2017). Whilst it may be tempting to suggest that high public transport use is a direct function of the perceived preferences of the ‘typical’ low-cost passenger (i.e. price sensitive and willing to trade some comfort and convenience for reduced costs), the research is inconclusive in this regard. Whilst it is true that low-cost carriers have helped make air travel accessible to a broader populace, generally speaking, passengers flying with low-cost carriers are by no means more or less likely to be from any other socioeconomic background than people travelling with any other carrier. For example, easyJet’s first route from the United Kingdom to Nice was targeted to serve people who owned a second home in France (a market they continue to serve very well), and a significant share of low-cost winter traffic in the United Kingdom is to skiing and winter sports destinations.

In certain circumstances, it has been suggested that low-cost passengers may even pose additional surface access challenges by being prepared to travel further to access their departure airport to take advantage of the lower fares offered (e.g. see Transportation Research Board of the National Academies et al., 2011). Instead, it seems likelier that the trip characteristics typically associated with short-haul air travel, combined with the provision of readily available, reliable, affordable public transport services, can in some cases be favourable to increased public transport use. In the case of Stansted, public transport mode shares are boosted by having a strong focus on inbound passengers (who are less likely to have access to a car), with a significant share of passengers needing to travel to/from London (i.e. a large market conducive to higher volume public transport).

12.2.3 At the Airport

One of the first requirements a passenger will have of the on-site surface access system is a clear and easily navigable signing and wayfinding system. This will typically consist of permanent static directional signs (e.g. located on approach roads) and variable message signs (VMS) displaying pertinent contextual information (e.g. the location of areas with available car parking spaces). Whilst the majority of passengers will ultimately need to reach security screening in the terminal, there are a myriad of other passenger flows that an airport’s wayfinding infrastructure needs to accommodate. These may include transitions between terminals, car parking and public transport facilities, as well as between airport hotels, business centres, or cargo and maintenance areas. The growing number of passengers, combined with the wide range of airport sizes and configurations can make this even more challenging. There are various principles airports can adhere to when designing their wayfinding system (see Case Study 12.1, adapted from Gresham, Smith and Partners et al., 2011).

For passengers parking their car at the airport, facilities will generally be differentiated according to how long the vehicle will be left parked. Long-term parking facilities, where a vehicle will typically be left for 24 h or more, are generally located further from the terminal building and connected via a shuttle bus. In Europe and North America, it is also common for third-party providers to operate off-site car parks. These are often priced competitively compared with comparable facilities offered by the airport, but they may be located much further from the airport. Generally speaking, the requirement for longer term parking is more commonly associated with use by leisure passengers, who may be staying away from home for some time.

In contrast, short-term parking facilities (< 1 h to a few days) will be located much closer to the terminal building to allow quicker access (normally on foot). These facilities will be priced to deter passengers from leaving their vehicles for longer periods of time. Their added convenience, combined with the shorter nature of these trips, means that short-term parking facilities are often favoured by business passengers. Various ‘value-added’ services, including car washing or valeting, are also commonly offered by airports to generate additional revenue and may be available in either short- or long-term facilities.

Whilst perhaps not a primary concern for passengers, the predominance of private car journeys at airports has profound implications in terms of increased greenhouse gas emissions and reduced local air quality. The need to reduce private car journeys on environmental grounds has long been recognised in national Government policy, especially in Europe, and meeting mode share targets is now commonly a prerequisite for receiving planning approval for expansion projects. Herein lies a potential conflict of interests on the part of the airport operator. On the one hand, increasing policy and regulatory pressure encourages airports to reduce private vehicle use, whilst on the other hand, the commercial realities of running an airport mean that passenger car parking represents a vital revenue stream, accounting for as much as 25% of total revenues in some cases (Jacobs Consultancy et al., 2009). Successfully balancing these competing pressures consequently represents “…perhaps one of the most difficult problem areas to face airport management (Ashford et al., 2013, p. 411)”. Relatively few examples exist of airports who have been able to dramatically reduce emissions from their surface transport activities (see Case Study 12.2).

Environmental and congestion problems may be increased at an airport if the passenger chooses to be dropped-off and/or picked-up by a friend or relative in a private car. This is to say that the passenger is left/collected at the terminal curbside or the vehicle is parked for a short duration whilst the passenger is accompanied to/from the terminal. Whilst this may be convenient for the passenger, these ‘kiss-and-fly’ trips, as they are also referred to as, generate additional vehicle traffic and can exacerbate problems of congestion. They also provide little (if any) financial contribution for the airport operator. In a study of the five largest airports in the United Kingdom, Budd (2016) found that millions of additional ‘meeter–greeters’ travel to and from airports for the sole purpose of dropping-off and collecting passengers (see Table 12.1). This represents something of a hidden element of surface access travel, given that data on the extent of these trips is rarely recorded or published.

Consequently, airports are increasingly seeking means by which they can reduce the volume of drop-off/pick-up journeys. One mechanism commonly employed, especially at regional or secondary airports, is to charge passengers a fee to be dropped-off/picked-up outside the terminal. For example, at London Luton Airport, a fee of £3.50 (around US $4) is charged for cars to access the terminal for a period of 10 min, with an additional charge of £1 (US $1.40) for every minute thereafter. However, there is little to suggest that the implementation of these charges actually discourages the use of drop-off/pick-up in reality, and they have proven largely unpopular with airport users. Budd et al. (2014) found that passengers who currently favour being dropped-off/picked-up (collectively termed the ‘Dogmatic Drop-offs’) showed strong attachments to using their cars, have low perceptions of the environmental problems of car use, and consequently show little potential to change their travel behaviour (Case Study 12.3).

For passengers arriving by public transport, there are a number of important design requirements that an airport needs to consider over and above the provision of key infrastructure (rail and bus terminals, waiting areas, and ticketing facilities). The positioning of these facilities relative to the passenger terminal is clearly an important planning consideration. As passengers will typically be travelling with luggage, it is necessary to minimise walking distances and the number of changes in level required to access the terminal, and to provide shelter from the weather. Where possible, passengers should also be physically separated from vehicle or other traffic flows. This obviously has important safety implications but also yields operational benefits in terms of ensuring smoother traffic flows on airport roads. Public transport options are likely to be less attractive in comparison to private vehicle modes if the former are located further from the terminal than the latter. Consequently, there is a strong case for prioritising terminal access to public transport users over those using a private vehicle. This philosophy is evident at airports including Amsterdam’s Schiphol, where railway passengers can almost instantaneously access the very heart of the terminal complex via a single escalator from platforms located beneath the terminal.

At some larger airports passengers may also require the use of Automated People Mover (APM) systems. These may resemble light-rail or urban trams in appearance and are fully automated, driverless systems used for moving large volumes of passengers between key areas of an airport. Landside APM may be used to connect separate terminals or provide connections to key landside facilities, including car parks or public transport terminals. Airside APM typically provide connections to remote or satellite aircraft gates/stands whilst maintaining suitable connection times for passengers connecting between flights. APM have been crucial in enabling airports to expand their facilities and, subsequently, facilitate large-scale airline hubbing operations. APM typically operate on fixed guideways or tracks and are electrically powered, meaning that there may be local air quality benefits over systems where passengers are transported by a shuttle bus. There are many examples of APM currently in operation at airports worldwide, with the majority of these implemented airside (e.g. in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Orlando in the United States). By comparison, landside APM are generally less common, but are in evidence at airports including London Gatwick (United Kingdom), Paris CDG (France), New York JFK and Newark (United States), Dusseldorf (Germany), and Chicago O’Hare (United States). Singapore’s Changi airport is relatively unusual in that it has both airside and landside APM systems in operation (Lea and Elliott, Kimley-Horn, and Associates Inc. and Randolph Richardson Associates, 2010).

Reduced walking distances and connection times within the airport may be especially valued by passengers with reduced mobility or those with other requirements affecting their ability to navigate the airport. These passengers can include a very broad spectrum of conditions and abilities, including wheelchair users or those who require additional help walking, passengers who may be visually or hearing impaired, or those with autism or forms of dementia. Whilst not purely a concern for older passengers, the stress affecting someone undertaking a journey may be felt more acutely by an older person due to the normal physical and psychological deterioration associated with the ageing process. Research by Mein et al., (2014) highlights four prevalent issues for older passengers:

Wayfinding—unfamiliarity with a complex environment, comprehension of directional signs/information screens, and understanding key terminology.

Fatigue—having to stand in queues, long walking distances, and handling heavy luggage.

Technology and equipment—understanding and using self-service devices and using escalators and moving walkways.

Amenities—ready access to washroom facilities and use of congested environments.

For the reasons outlined, private cars and taxis are strongly favoured by older passengers over public transport modes. Generally, the ageing population and the increased number of older people using air travel poses broad design, operational, and technical challenges for providers. Namely, there are questions as to how airlines and airports can best accommodate the specific physical and psychological needs of this demographic in a cost-efficient and operationally workable manner. This may include provision of additional seating in waiting areas and at key transition points in the airport, staffed information desks, and assistance at self-service devices, as well as audible alerts at escalators and moving walkways. Some airports also operate systems whereby passengers are able to self-identify as requiring additional assistance, and are given a visible yet discrete identifier (normally a coloured lanyard or badge) that alerts airport staff that the passenger may require additional help. In terms of surface access, this could mean assistance with purchasing of tickets, identifying the correct shuttle bus, or finding a suitable taxi on arrival.

12.2.4 Arrival and Onward Travel

As mentioned, the arriving passenger represents a key market for public transport at airports given that these passengers are less likely to have access to a private car for their onward journey. It is important that steps are taken to accommodate this important market segment by ensuring that that there are regular, reliable public transport services available when passengers require them. However, this is considerably easier said than done, especially when passengers may be travelling very early in the morning or late at night (i.e. when public transport services are generally less frequent). In most cases an airport operator will have little direct control over the timetabling and schedule arrangements of the bus and rail companies that serve the airport, but it is important that airports work closely with transport providers where possible to ensure suitable service provision.

In some cases, airlines may encourage the use of onward travel by public transport by selling tickets for these services to passengers onboard the aircraft. Tickets may be offered at a discounted or preferential rate over the ‘walk-up’ fare, with the airline typically receiving commission on any tickets sold. Low-cost carriers have been especially quick to adopt this model. In Europe, easyJet operate their ‘easyBus’ service, a self-styled low-cost airport transfer bus service at London’s Gatwick, Stansted, and Luton Airport; Manchester Airport; as well as Geneva, Milan Malpensa, and Pisa Airport.

It is common for hotels surrounding an airport to be served by a purposely operated hotel ‘shuttle’ style bus or mini-van service. These may operate on a scheduled or on-demand basis and may be offered free of charge or for a fee. These services are required even where the distance between the hotel and the airport terminal is relatively small, given that it can be difficult to access these sites on foot.

For airports located in traditional holiday destinations, a considerable share of passengers may be travelling on prearranged tour coaches. These will typically be included as part of a holiday package booked through a tour operator or travel agent and will transfer passengers directly to and from their accommodation. The highly seasonal and uneven nature of the demand at these airports (which may be relatively quiet throughout the rest of the year) can make efficient management of capacity challenging. This may be compounded by the fact that the typical operating characteristics of coaches vary significantly from other road vehicles and require considerably more vertical and horizontal space for parking and manoeuvring. For example, coaches will typically require passengers to access the side of the vehicle in order to load and unload their luggage. This can pose both operational and safety challenges, especially if passengers need to access the traffic side of the vehicle to do this.

Conversely, for passengers who are not part of a tour party, taxis and minicabs are also widely used. From a definitional perspective, taxis are considered distinctive from minicabs in that the latter describe private hire cars that are booked in advance (these drivers are commonly seen in the arrivals hall of airports waiting for passengers who booked the journey). Typically, minicabs will be left in short stay car parking facilities. In contrast, taxis operate on a ‘first-come-first-served’ basis and will typically have designated waiting areas (or ‘ranks’) close to the front of the terminal building. Airport operators will generally have commercial agreements with taxi and minicab operators granting the company licences to either drop-off and/or collect passengers from the airport. The ease and convenience offered by taxis may be favoured by arriving passengers, who are less likely to be familiar with using public transport in the region. In some countries, there may be problems of unlicenced drivers seeking to solicit business, usually by offering cheaper fares than the licenced alternatives. Aside from the commercial issues this can cause, there are obvious safety implications for passengers using vehicles and drivers that are unlicenced, unregulated, and uninsured for the purpose at hand. The recent growth in the popularity of transport technology providers, including Uber (see Chapter 2), is a new manifestation of the planning and policy challenges airports face.

A relatively small, albeit still significant, share of passengers will rent private cars for their travel. Rental car facilities will typically be located in designated parking areas or as part of larger shared facilities, which are often located away from the terminal. Airports will generally receive commercial revenues from rental car firms in a similar fashion to other airport tenant companies.