This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-691 
entitled 'Intermodal Transportation: A Variety of Factors Influence 
Airport-Intercity Passenger Rail Connectivity' which was released on 
August 2, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

August 2013: 

Intermodal Transportation: 

A Variety of Factors Influence Airport-Intercity Passenger Rail 
Connectivity: 

GAO-13-691: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-691, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Increasing passenger travel has led to growing congestion in the nation’
s air transportation system, and projections suggest that this trend 
is likely to continue. The integration of air and intercity passenger 
rail service, which is provided in the United States by Amtrak, has 
been suggested by some transportation experts as a strategy to 
increase mobility and reduce congestion in the United States. The FAA 
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 mandated that GAO review issues 
related to air-rail connectivity. This report discusses (1) the nature 
and scope of air-rail connectivity, (2) the benefits and costs of air-
rail connectivity, (3) factors affecting the development and use of 
air-rail connectivity, and (4) potential strategies to improve air-
rail connectivity. 

GAO reviewed laws, strategic plans, and academic studies. GAO analyzed 
data to determine distances between Amtrak stations and large and 
medium hub airports and interviewed officials from DOT, and 
representatives from Amtrak, the airlines, and aviation and rail 
industry associations. GAO interviewed stakeholders at eight large and 
medium hub airports, which were selected based on geographic location 
and extent of connectivity with Amtrak. In addition, GAO surveyed 
experts from the aviation industry, rail industry, state and local 
governments, academia and the private sector about air-rail 
connectivity issues. The survey and results can be found at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-692SP]. 

What GAO Found: 

Most major U.S. airports have some degree of physical proximity to 
intercity passenger rail stations, though only 2 airports are 
currently collocated with intercity rail stations. Specifically, 42 of 
the nation’s 60 large and medium hub airports are located within 10 
miles of Amtrak stations; 21 of the 42 airports are within 5 miles of 
Amtrak stations. At the 2 collocated airports, passengers can access 
Amtrak either via an automated people mover (Newark Liberty 
International Airport) or by walking (Bob Hope Burbank Airport). At 
some airports, such as Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood 
Marshall Airport, passengers can take a direct shuttle between the 
airport and the nearby Amtrak station, while at other airports, 
connections to Amtrak can be made through other modes of 
transportation. Studies and data, while limited, suggest that 
relatively few passengers in the United States use intercity rail to 
travel to and from the airport or through more integrated travel such 
as code-sharing agreements, whereby airlines sell tickets for Amtrak’s 
service. The only existing air-rail code-sharing agreement in the 
United States is at Newark Airport. Amtrak and states are considering 
projects to expand intercity rail connectivity with airports, 
including as part of the construction of high-speed rail in California. 

Air-rail connectivity may provide a range of mobility, economic, and 
environmental benefits, though the financial costs of building these 
connections could be substantial. Specifically, based on discussions 
with industry stakeholders, input from surveyed experts, and a review 
of academic literature, GAO found a general consensus that air-rail 
connectivity can provide a range of mobility benefits for travelers, 
though less agreement existed on the importance and extent of economic 
and environmental benefits. However, achieving these benefits could 
require significant trade-offs, because the costs of expanding the 
existing intercity passenger rail network and constructing viable 
connections can be significant. Given these costs, based on GAO’s 
work, there are currently limited locations where benefits are high 
enough to justify funding to improve air-rail connectivity. 

Air-rail connectivity remains limited in the United States, according 
to experts, as a result of institutional and financial factors, among 
other things. In particular, the limited nature of the existing 
intercity passenger rail network, including the frequency of service 
and connectivity to other transportation modes, remains an obstacle to 
developing and using air-rail connections. Securing funding for air-
rail projects also remains a barrier. While funds from some federal 
grant programs can be used to help facilitate air-rail connections, 
there is no single funding source for air-rail projects. 

There are strategies to improve air-rail connectivity, but adopting 
them involves trade-offs. Experts generally focused on, among other 
things, leadership, funding, and infrastructure improvements, though 
the effectiveness of these strategies may depend on a project’s local 
characteristics. There has been little emphasis on air-rail 
connectivity by either the Department of Transportation (DOT) or 
Amtrak. Furthermore, experts noted that some of the strategies could 
be particularly challenging or costly to implement, such as in 
locations where the rail network was developed decades before 
airports. For example, increasing intercity passenger rail’s frequency 
could improve air-rail connectivity but could also be expensive. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making recommendations in this report. DOT and Amtrak 
provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-691]. For more 
information, contact Gerald Dillingham at (202) 512-2684 or 
dillinghamg@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Connectivity between Major Airports and Intercity Passenger Rail 
Remains Limited, as Does Passenger Usage: 

Air-Rail Connectivity May Provide a Range of Benefits for Passengers 
and Others, but Costs Can Be Significant: 

Air-Rail Connectivity Is Influenced by a Variety of Factors: 

Strategies to Improve Air-Rail Connectivity May Require Substantial 
Coordination and Funding: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Experts Participating in GAO's Survey on Air-Rail 
Connectivity: 

Appendix III: Examples of Potential Federal Financing and Funding 
Sources for Air-Rail Projects: 

Appendix IV: Distances between Large and Medium Hub Airport Terminals 
and Amtrak Stations in the Contiguous United States: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Benefits of Air-Rail Connectivity Most Frequently Cited as 
"Very Important" by Experts Surveyed: 

Table 2: Projected Construction Costs of Selected On-Going Projects to 
Expand Air-Rail Connectivity: 

Table 3: Factors Surveyed Experts Most Frequently Cited As Greatly 
Facilitating and Greatly Hindering Air-Rail Connectivity: 

Table 4: Experts' Rating of Importance and Feasibility of Selected 
Strategies to Improve Air-Rail Connectivity: 

Table 5: Airports and Stakeholders Selected for GAO Review: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Large and Medium Hub Airports within 10 Miles of an Amtrak 
Station, May 2013: 

Figure 2: Construction of the Miami International Airport Miami 
Central Station, February 2013: 

Figure 3: Signage and Information at the BWI Airport Amtrak Station: 

Abbreviations: 

AIP: Airport Improvement Program: 

Amtrak: National Railroad Passenger Corporation: 

BTS: Bureau of Transportation Statistics: 

BWI: Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration: 

FRA: Federal Railroad Administration: 

HSIPR: High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail: 

NextGen: Next Generation Air Transportation System: 

PRIIA: Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008: 

Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: 

RITA: Research and Innovative Technology Administration: 

RRIF: Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing: 

TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 
1998: 

TIGER: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

August 2, 2013: 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John Thune: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Bill Shuster: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

Mobility--the movement of passengers and goods through the 
transportation system--is critical to the nation's economic vitality 
and the quality of life of its citizens. Mobility provides people with 
access to goods, services, recreation, and jobs; provides businesses 
with access to material, markets, and people; and promotes the 
movement of personnel and material to meet national defense needs. 
However, increasing passenger travel has led to growing congestion in 
the nation's transportation system, and projections of future 
passenger travel suggest that this trend is likely to continue. For 
example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that the 
number of airplane passengers using U.S. airports is expected to grow 
by 23 percent from over 730 million in 2011 to nearly 900 million by 
2021. At the same time, intercity passenger rail service, provided by 
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak, has been 
increasingly used by passengers to travel between cities, as airlines 
have reduced the number of short-distance flights and airports have 
implemented heightened security procedures in the wake of the events 
of September 11, 2001. Amtrak's ridership has increased by nearly 55 
percent over the last 15 years to over 31 million riders in 2012, with 
nearly 27 million of these passengers traveling over short distance 
corridors (which Amtrak defines as less than 750 miles), such as the 
Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C., and Boston, 
Massachusetts, or the Cascades Corridor between Seattle, Washington, 
and Portland, Oregon. 

The integration of air and intercity passenger rail service has been 
suggested by some transportation experts as a strategy to increase 
mobility and reduce congestion in the United States based on 
experiences in other parts of the world. For example, European 
transportation policy has increasingly focused on intermodal 
transportation--that is, a system that connects the separate 
transportation modes and allows a passenger to complete a journey 
using more than one mode--and included improving connections between 
airports and intercity passenger rail, also known as air-rail 
connections. We reviewed intermodal connectivity at airports in 2005, 
and found that air-rail connections involving intercity passenger rail 
were limited.[Footnote 1] Such integration can be challenging, in part 
because of the costly long-term investments that are needed to connect 
airports to intercity passenger rail and difficulties in developing 
intermodal services and ticketing options that are attractive to 
travelers. Furthermore, U.S. intercity passenger rail service offers 
limited service in many heavily traveled corridors, and its overall 
service has slower average speeds relative to other transportation 
modes, often a result of delays from sharing track with freight rail 
and commuter rail services. 

In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress directed us 
to examine issues related to air-rail connectivity.[Footnote 2] This 
report discusses (1) the nature and scope of existing air-rail 
connectivity in the United States; (2) the benefits and costs of 
developing air-rail connectivity; (3) the factors that facilitate and 
hinder the development and use of air-rail connectivity; and (4) 
potential strategies, including lessons learned from other countries, 
that may help inform deliberations regarding air-rail connectivity 
policy. 

To address these objectives, we obtained and analyzed information from 
a variety of sources. To obtain insight on issues related to air-rail 
connectivity, we collaborated with the National Academy of Sciences to 
identify 25 experts from the aviation and rail industries, Amtrak, 
state and local governments, academia, and the private sector. These 
experts were selected based on their knowledge of one or more of the 
following topic areas: intermodalism, airlines and the air travel 
industry, airport operations, the rail industry, and passenger travel. 
We identified an additional 17 experts in these fields through a 
review of academic literature, our previous work, and interviews with 
stakeholders. We developed and conducted a web-based survey in which 
we asked these 42 experts for their views on benefits of air-rail 
connectivity, factors that facilitate and hinder its development and 
use, differences between air-rail connectivity efforts in the United 
States and Europe, and strategies that could improve air-rail 
connectivity. We conducted the survey in two stages. The first round 
of the survey asked the experts to respond to five open-ended 
questions about various aspects of air and intercity passenger rail 
connectivity.[Footnote 3] We analyzed the responses provided by the 
experts and developed close-ended questions for the second round of 
the survey where we asked each expert to rate the ideas and other 
information that came from the first part of the survey.[Footnote 4] 
The information and perspectives that we obtained from the expert 
survey may not be generalized to all experts that have an interest or 
knowledge of air-rail connectivity issues. The full survey and 
responses are contained in an e-supplement to this report.[Footnote 5] 

In addition, we reviewed federal laws related to air and intercity 
passenger rail transportation, and strategic plans from Amtrak and the 
Department of Transportation (DOT). We reviewed and synthesized 
information from academic literature and our body of work on air-rail 
connectivity and air-rail "code-share" agreements in the United States 
and internationally. We obtained data from the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics (BTS) on the location of Amtrak stations 
near large and medium hub airports and determined the linear distance 
between each airport and the nearest Amtrak station.[Footnote 6] Based 
on the BTS data's use as a widely accepted federal statistical 
database, we determined these data to be generally reliable for our 
purpose, which was to provide context on existing air-rail 
connectivity. We reviewed completed, ongoing, and future air-rail 
connectivity efforts at eight large and medium hub airports in the 
United States, and interviewed various stakeholders at each site, 
including airport authorities, state and local transportation 
agencies, local transportation-planning organizations, and air and 
rail industry associations.[Footnote 7] These eight airports were 
selected to include airports that have recently planned, constructed, 
or completed an air-rail project and are dispersed in various regions 
of the country. Lastly, we interviewed officials from DOT and Amtrak, 
transportation experts, and representatives from U.S. airlines and 
industry associations to obtain their perspectives on air-rail 
connectivity issues. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to August 2013 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Additional information on our methodology and the experts who 
participated in our survey are found in appendixes I and II, 
respectively. 

Background: 

For the purposes of this report, an air-rail connection refers to a 
connection between an airport terminal and an intercity passenger rail 
station (in other contexts, an air-rail connection may refer to a 
connection between an airport terminal and an intracity rail station 
that serves other forms of local rail, such as commuter rail or a 
subway system). An air-rail connection facilitates mobility between a 
rail station and an airport terminal through a variety of modes and 
methods, such as an airport shuttle, local transit connection, 
automated people mover or guideway car, or by walking. Depending on 
the extent of the connectivity, intercity passenger rail can perform 
three main roles for air passengers. 

* First, intercity passenger rail may serve as a short-distance 
connection to the nearest local airport from a metropolitan area along 
a more extensive intercity rail corridor. 

* Second, intercity passenger rail may serve as a competitive 
alternative to air travel. For example, for distances less than 500 
miles, our prior work has shown that intercity passenger rail, 
particularly high-speed rail, offers some potential advantages over 
air travel, including reduced times for security screening and baggage 
checks.[Footnote 8] 

* Third, intercity passenger rail can serve as part of an integrated 
intercity transportation solution with air travel, where the passenger 
travels significant distances using both modes. For these types of air-
rail connections, travel may be further integrated by code-sharing, 
which refers to the practice of airlines applying their names and 
selling tickets to rail service operated by other organizations, such 
as Amtrak.[Footnote 9] 

Amtrak provides intercity passenger service to 46 states and the 
District of Columbia, operating over a 22,000-mile network, mainly 
using track owned by freight railroads. Amtrak owns about 655 miles of 
rail lines, primarily on the Northeast Corridor between Boston, 
Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C. Most of Amtrak's passengers travel 
within the Northeast Corridor or over relatively short-distances, 
though Amtrak also operates a number of long distance routes across 
the country. The speed of service varies across the country. For 
example, according to Amtrak, its Heartland Flyer service connecting 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Fort Worth, Texas, averages about 50 
miles per hour (mph) over the 206-mile corridor while its Acela 
Express higher-speed service averages less than 80 mph throughout the 
Northeast Corridor (reaching top speeds up to 150 mph). While Amtrak's 
Acela Express service is currently the fastest intercity passenger 
rail service in the United States, California has begun developing a 
520-mile high-speed rail line designed to operate at speeds up to 220 
mph.[Footnote 10] 

Transportation projects at airports are typically initiated and 
developed by local transportation agencies, including some combination 
of state departments of transportation, local planning bodies, and 
other local agencies. While roles may vary, one or more state and 
local transportation agency will generally take the lead in project 
development and implementation. Airports typically are also heavily 
involved with developing intermodal capabilities on airport property. 
This is especially true if the project involves construction of a 
major intermodal facility. For example, the Miami International 
Airport, working in cooperation with the Florida Department of 
Transportation, has been one of the leaders in the development of the 
Miami Intermodal Center, which will provide on-site access to Amtrak, 
multiple other rail systems, local transit services, and a rental car 
center through the use of an automated people mover.[Footnote 11] 
Airlines also play a role in developing intermodal projects at 
airports. Use and lease agreements between airlines and airports are a 
major revenue source for most large airports, and because of this 
financial arrangement, airlines may have influence in or participate 
in airport decision making. The ability of airlines to participate in 
decision making depends on the specific airport and the structure of 
the lease agreements between the airport and airlines serving that 
airport. Amtrak generally becomes involved in the planning process at 
airports when a state or local government proposes a project that 
could potentially affect its intercity passenger rail service. 

Federal laws and planning guidance have limited emphasis on air-rail 
connectivity, but have a broad goal of establishing a system-wide, 
intermodal approach to addressing transportation needs. For example, 
federal aviation policy encourages the development of intermodal 
connections on airport property and systems that serve air 
transportation passengers efficiently and effectively and promote 
economic development.[Footnote 12] Additionally, FAA's 2012 
reauthorization legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
encourage airport planners to consider passenger convenience, airport 
ground access, and access to airport facilities during the development 
of intermodal connections on airport property.[Footnote 13] Similarly, 
the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) 
authorized development of high-speed intercity passenger rail 
corridors and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
(Recovery Act) appropriated $8 billion to fund development of these 
corridors and intercity passenger-rail projects.[Footnote 14] In June 
2009, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) established the High-
Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program that provides 
discretionary grants for high-speed or intercity passenger rail 
projects. In allocating funds, PRIIA directed FRA to give greater 
consideration to projects that, among other things, encourage 
intermodal connectivity among train stations, airports, subways, 
transit, and other forms of transportation.[Footnote 15] However, 
federal policy for surface transportation, aviation, and passenger 
rail is established through separate legislation. For example, the 
planning and funding for highway and transit projects are addressed 
under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,[Footnote 
16] the planning and funding of U.S. airports is addressed under the 
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and the planning and funding 
for intercity passenger rail is addressed under PRIIA. 

While the federal government does not provide funding specifically for 
air-rail connections, it has established a number of other funding 
mechanisms that can be used to enhance elements of air-rail 
connectivity. (See appendix III.) Most federal funding for 
transportation projects is provided through grant programs through the 
individual specific modal administration and reserved for improvements 
specific to that mode. For example, most direct federal financial 
support for airport capital projects has been provided through grants 
from FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP).[Footnote 17] While AIP 
grants may be used to fund intermodal projects, an airport's use of 
its funds is generally restricted to an airport project that is owned 
or operated by the airport sponsor and that is directly and 
substantially related to the air transportation of passengers or 
property.[Footnote 18] Airports have funded portions of light rail and 
transit (such as subway or bus) using AIP funds at airports meeting 
these restrictions.[Footnote 19] Funding for intercity passenger rail 
has been provided in the form of operating and capital subsidies to 
Amtrak, as well as the HSIPR grant program. 

Federal oversight of air-rail projects is primarily divided across 
DOT's respective modal administrations, though DOT has established 
some practices to coordinate oversight of intermodal projects. For 
example, for an air-rail connection project, the aviation component is 
overseen by FAA, while the rail component is overseen by FRA. As 
another example, according to DOT, its Research and Innovative 
Technology Administration (RITA) works closely with DOT's modal 
administrations to improve intermodal cooperation, solve 
transportation challenges that cut across modal boundaries, and remove 
barriers to intermodal projects through a variety of research 
efforts.[Footnote 20] In addition to these efforts, in 2012 DOT 
established a working group consisting of representatives from each 
modal administration to track intermodal initiatives and projects. The 
goal of the working group is to provide non-monetary resources such as 
recommendations of policies to promote intermodal transportation 
projects, including air-rail connectivity projects. 

In contrast to the United States, European policy and European 
governments have promoted connections between passenger high-speed 
rail systems and airports as part of establishing high-speed rail 
service between cities as an alternative to air and car travel. Since 
1992, the European Commission has periodically published a common 
transportation policy in response to increased ground and air 
congestion, as well as concerns about the dependence on oil and the 
level of carbon emissions resulting from the current transportation 
system. A key component of the European Commission's transportation 
policy is improving the connections between air and rail, thereby 
transforming competition between those modes into complementary 
service using high-speed train connections located at European 
airports. The current European Commission transportation policy, 
adopted in 2011, aims to connect all 37 core airports to the rail 
network, preferably through high-speed rail, and shift a majority of 
medium-distance passenger transportation (which the European 
Commission defines as under 300 kilometers or 186 miles) to the 
passenger rail network by 2050.[Footnote 21] 

Beyond these policy differences, our prior work has also noted that 
differences related to population density, geography, and private 
automobile use have contributed to differences in the development and 
use of air-rail connections in Europe compared to the United States. 
[Footnote 22] This prior work has highlighted the greater population 
density of European cities and that downtowns are major destination 
points for passengers as key differences that affect the use of 
intermodal systems. While some U.S. cities have population densities 
comparable to European cities, in general, U.S. cities are more 
decentralized. Furthermore, distances between many major cities in the 
United States are generally greater than in Europe, which can affect 
the ability of intercity passenger rail to be competitive with air 
travel, depending on price and the speed of service. In addition, 
private automobile use has affected air-rail connections. 
Specifically, the rate of car ownership is generally higher in the 
United States compared to Europe, while at the same time, retail 
gasoline prices in the United States are much lower than in Europe 
because of substantially lower taxes.[Footnote 23] Furthermore, in the 
United States, surface transportation policy has primarily focused on 
developing and improving highways, while the transportation policy of 
European countries have placed a greater comparative emphasis on the 
development of intercity passenger rail and public transportation. 
Accordingly, people traveling to airports in the United States are 
more likely than in Europe to drive and park their cars at the 
airports, which could reduce the demand for (as well as the benefits 
of) intercity passenger rail connections at U.S. airports. 

Beyond Europe and the United States, the integration of air travel and 
intercity passenger rail varies. For example, in Japan, air service 
and high-speed intercity passenger rail compete and do not complement 
each other as in Europe.[Footnote 24] The uniqueness of Japan's 
transportation system stems from the fact that two-thirds of its 
population, or almost 100 million people, live in a narrow, densely 
populated corridor. Furthermore, Japan has nearly 5,600 miles of 
private tollways, which makes intercity travel by car expensive. In 
China, the Shanghai Railway Bureau and China Eastern Airlines 
commenced operations of air-rail combined services in May 2012 to and 
from Shanghai Hongqiao International Airport, marking China's first 
air-rail combined service. The service allows passengers to transfer 
between domestic or international air services and train operations 
with a single ticket. 

Connectivity between Major Airports and Intercity Passenger Rail 
Remains Limited, as Does Passenger Usage: 

Most Major Airports Are near Intercity Passenger Rail Stations, but 
Air-Rail Connectivity is Rare: 

Most major U.S. airports have some degree of physical proximity to 
intercity passenger rail stations; however, few are collocated with 
rail stations.[Footnote 25] Specifically, our analysis found that 42 
of the 60 large and medium hub airports in the contiguous United 
States are located within 10 miles of an Amtrak station; 21 of the 42 
airports are within 5 miles of a station.[Footnote 26] (See fig. 1.) 
Newark Liberty International Airport and Bob Hope (Burbank) Airport 
are the only airports where passengers can access the Amtrak stations 
via an automated people mover (Newark) or by walking (Burbank). 
[Footnote 27] Airline passengers at Miami International Airport will 
be able to connect to Amtrak via an automated people mover upon 
completion of the Miami Central Station in 2014. Amtrak officials 
noted that, in some locations, it provides service that may operate in 
close proximity to an airport, but may not have an Amtrak station near 
that airport.[Footnote 28] Passengers at the nation's other major 
airports have to rely on another transportation mode such as shuttle, 
taxi, or transit (intracity rail, subway, or bus) to connect to an 
Amtrak station and some passengers must make multiple connections. For 
example, passengers at Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood 
Marshall (BWI) and Milwaukee's General Mitchell International can take 
a free airport shuttle to and from Amtrak stations, while passengers 
choosing to take public transportation to access Amtrak from Norman Y. 
Mineta San Jose International Airport would have to take both a free 
shuttle and light rail. However, some officials we interviewed told us 
that passengers are less willing to consider intermodal travel as the 
number of modes needed to complete a single trip increases. 

Figure 1: Large and Medium Hub Airports within 10 Miles of an Amtrak 
Station, May 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Distance to Amtrak Stations: 

0 to 5 miles: 
Albuquerque International Sunport; 
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall; 
Bob Hope (Burbank); 
Bradley International (Windsor); 
Buffalo Niagara International; 
Chicago Midway International; 
Eppley Airfield (Omaha); 
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International; 
General Edward Lawrence Logan International (Boston); 
General Mitchell International (Milwaukee); 
Metropolitan Oakland International; 
Miami International; 
Newark Liberty International; 
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International; 
Ontario International; 
Reno/Tahoe International; 
Ronald Reagan Washington National; 
Salt Lake City International; 
San Diego International; 
Seattle-Tacoma International. 

More than 5 miles to 10 miles: 
Austin-Bergstrom International; 
Charlotte/Douglas International; 
Chicago O'Hare International; 
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International; 
Dallas Love Field; 
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County; 
Indianapolis International; 
Jacksonville International; 
John Wayne-Orange County; 
La Guardia (New York); 
Memphis International; 
Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain; 
Orlando International; 
Philadelphia International; 
Portland International; 
Raleigh-Durham International; 
Sacramento International; 
San Antonio International; 
Tampa International; 
Theodore Francis Green State (Warwick); 
William P. Hobby (Houston). 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT data. 

Note: The distance between each airport and the nearest Amtrak station 
was calculated using the linear distance between longitude and 
latitude coordinates of each large and medium hub airport and each 
Amtrak station, as identified in the National Transportation Atlas 
Database 2012. The distance between each airport and the nearest 
Amtrak station reflects the linear distance between the two locations, 
and may be affected by existing buildings, roads, bridges, or other 
obstacles in the path of a traveler connecting between an airport and 
an Amtrak station. Amtrak officials noted that, in some locations, it 
provides service that may operate in close proximity to an airport, 
but may not have an Amtrak station near that airport. For detailed 
information on the distances between each large and medium hub airport 
and Amtrak stations, see appendix IV. 

[End of figure] 

Stakeholders at many of the airports we visited have placed a greater 
emphasis on intracity connectivity (or connections within a local 
metropolitan region) to the airport through local rail or other 
transit, as opposed to connectivity through intercity passenger rail. 
While a local transit system may provide a connection between an 
airport and intercity passenger rail, such a connection is generally 
not the primary goal. For example, at Dallas/Fort Worth International 
Airport, officials are working with the Dallas Area Rapid Transit 
agency to provide an intracity rail connection to the airport from 
downtown Dallas by 2014. Officials noted that an intracity rail 
connection was preferable to connectivity through Amtrak because of 
the limited frequency of service provided by Amtrak in the region, 
among other factors. When the extension is completed, airport 
passengers would be able to connect to the Amtrak station located in 
downtown Dallas through the intracity rail connection. Similarly, 
officials at Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport in 
California noted that policymakers should focus on connecting 
intracity rail to their airport, rather than intercity passenger rail, 
in part, because the San Jose airport is not a hub airport and most of 
its customers reside in the surrounding San Francisco Bay area. 

Amtrak and state transportation agencies are considering projects to 
expand connectivity with airports. Amtrak's strategic plan states that 
it will increase connectivity with airports in key markets and has 
established a strategic goal to increase the number of air-rail 
connections in the Northeast Corridor from two to five by 
2015.[Footnote 29] However, Amtrak officials we spoke with stated that 
they do not believe Amtrak will achieve this goal because of limited 
available funding for intercity passenger rail. Some states, such as 
California, Illinois, and Texas, are looking at options to enhance air-
rail connectivity by developing high-speed rail connections at nearby 
large and medium hub airports. For example, in addition to Illinois' 
development of high-speed rail between Chicago and St. Louis, several 
options for possible future opportunities for improving Amtrak 
passengers' connectivity to Chicago O'Hare International Airport have 
been proposed.[Footnote 30] 

Few Passengers Use Air-Rail Connections: 

Studies and data, while limited, suggest that relatively few 
passengers and airport employees use the limited air-rail connections 
available to travel to and from U.S. airports. Ground access studies 
have shown that intercity passenger rail is rarely used to connect to 
airports compared to other modes of transportation. For example, a 
2012 study stated that Amtrak accounted for 3 percent of ground access 
mode share at Newark Liberty International; 2 percent at BWI, and less 
than 1 percent at Bob Hope Airport.[Footnote 31] By comparison, 
another study observed that at some European airports with direct air-
rail connections, long-distance intercity passenger rail accounts for 
20 to 25 percent of the ground access mode share.[Footnote 32] In 
general, transportation and airport officials told us that demand for 
public transportation options to airports is limited, as the vast 
majority of passengers still use personal automobiles to access the 
airport. 

Collocated Airport Terminals and Rail Stations Allow for Code Sharing: 

The only current code-sharing agreement for air and rail travel in the 
United States is at Newark Liberty International Airport, though code-
sharing has been implemented or explored at other airports.[Footnote 
33] The code-sharing agreement between United Airlines and Amtrak 
allows passengers to make reservations with United Airlines for both 
air and rail travel, and Amtrak provides the connecting service on its 
trains between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Wilmington, Delaware; 
Stamford or New Haven, Connecticut, and to anywhere United Airlines 
flies from Newark Liberty International Airport.[Footnote 34] 
According to Amtrak data, about 24,000 passengers a year take Amtrak 
to Newark to connect to United Airlines flights, with 90 percent of 
those passengers originating from Philadelphia. However, United 
Airlines representatives pointed out that most passengers at the 
Newark Liberty International Airport rail station--which Amtrak 
estimated at over 120,000 passengers in fiscal year 2012--are not 
traveling through the code-share agreement. No additional code share 
agreements are currently planned between Amtrak and other airlines we 
contacted.[Footnote 35] Representatives from the airlines and Amtrak 
told us that code-sharing agreements are generally most effective when 
the rail station is located at the airport and within a high-traffic 
rail corridor, which is the case with Newark Liberty International 
Airport and the Northeast Corridor. As previously noted, few rail 
stations are collocated with a major airport. Both airline and Amtrak 
officials indicate that for code-share agreements, airlines require 
frequent rail service with minimum passenger transfer time between 
modes. Amtrak officials stated that they provide that frequency of 
service in very few markets, generally located on Amtrak's Northeast 
Corridor serving highly populated metropolitan areas. 

Air-Rail Connectivity May Provide a Range of Benefits for Passengers 
and Others, but Costs Can Be Significant: 

Benefits: 

We found that air-rail connectivity has the potential to provide a 
range of mobility, economic, and environmental benefits. In our 
discussions with stakeholders, including state departments of 
transportation, local transportation-planning organizations, and 
airlines; our review of academic literature; and the expert opinions 
obtained from our survey, we found that a general consensus exists 
that air-rail connectivity can provide a range of mobility benefits 
for travelers; however, we found less agreement exists on the 
importance and extent of other types of benefits, including economic 
and environmental benefits. Table 1 shows the benefits most frequently 
cited as "very important" by the experts, five of which focus on 
mobility benefits.[Footnote 36] However, our review suggests that the 
particular benefits for a given project are generally site-specific, 
and depend on the particular characteristics of the rail operators, 
the airports, and underlying regional characteristics. As a result, 
the benefits we identified through our work are not generalizable to 
all air-rail connections. 

Table 1: Benefits of Air-Rail Connectivity Most Frequently Cited as 
"Very Important" by Experts Surveyed: 

Traveler Benefits; 
* Increased passenger convenience; 
* Increased reliability of travel to the airport; 
* Increased number of travel options for passengers; 
* Reduced travel time to and from airports; 
* Increased passenger satisfaction. 

Economic Benefits; 
* Increased catchment area for airports; 
* Increased catchment area for airlines; 
* Allows short-haul flights to be replaced by intercity rail 
connections. 

Environmental Benefits[A]; 
* Reduced carbon emissions; 
* Reduced energy use. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: We identified the most important benefits based on the number of 
respondents in the survey who rated these benefits as "very important." 

[A] Experts in our survey suggested that the reduced carbon emissions 
and energy use could result from, among other factors, a reduction in 
automotive miles traveled to the airport and through the substitution 
of intercity passenger rail service for short-distance flights. 

[End of table] 

Air-rail connections can potentially provide mobility benefits, such 
as increased options for passengers connecting to the airport, and 
improved convenience for airport and airline customers. Specifically, 
over half of the experts responding to our survey agreed that 
increasing passenger convenience and travel options were "very 
important" benefits of air-rail connectivity,[Footnote 37] and airport 
representatives cited both benefits as driving factors for intermodal 
projects at a number of our site visits. For example, representatives 
at Miami International Airport noted that in the 1980s a lack of 
ground transportation options, including connectivity to rail, had 
reduced passenger traffic at the airport. Beginning in 2001, the 
Florida Department of Transportation began to construct an intermodal 
center, which will provide passenger access to the airport through 
multiple ground transportation modes, including intercounty and 
intercity passenger rail. According to airport representatives, 
directly connecting Amtrak service to the airport will provide an 
additional option to passengers connecting to the airport and 
encourage passengers to be more willing to try other non-automotive 
forms of transportation. Construction of the new Amtrak terminal 
(Miami Central Station) began in 2011, and representatives anticipate 
the terminal will be completed in 2014. (See fig. 2.) Furthermore, air-
rail connections can provide airport access to commuter trains in 
addition to intercity trains operated by Amtrak, as many of the Amtrak 
stations located near airports are served by both types of services. 
In addition, rail connectivity to airports has the potential to 
improve the passenger experience traveling to the airport. In 
particular, half of the experts (22 of 41) rated increased reliability 
of travel to the airport, and nearly half (18 of 40) rated reductions 
in the travel time to and from the airport as very important benefits 
of air-rail connections. Representatives from the airlines and 
airports we interviewed noted that their employees might also 
similarly benefit from an air-rail connection, specifically by 
providing increased options to and from the airport and improved 
convenience for airport and airline employees. However, 
representatives from one airline cautioned that the extent of any 
benefits would depend upon the cost of the air-rail connection and how 
such a connection was funded. 

Figure 2: Construction of the Miami International Airport Miami 
Central Station, February 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Air-rail connections also have the potential to provide economic 
benefits for some transportation operators, such as an increased 
customer base. We found that some of the experts (16 of 40) 
participating in our survey and a majority of the stakeholders at six 
of our eight site visits highlighted the potential for intercity rail 
to access populations outside of the major metropolitan area served by 
a large or medium hub airport. Specifically, the experts and 
stakeholders noted that an air-rail connection may increase an 
airport's or airline's passenger base by attracting additional 
passengers from outside an airport's local market, thus potentially 
generating additional revenue for airports and airlines in that 
metropolitan area. Some studies suggest that the existence of an air-
rail connection affects a passenger's choice of airport in areas where 
multiple options exist. In particular, a recent study of passengers 
using Amtrak to connect to General Mitchell International Airport in 
Milwaukee found that approximately one-third of passengers reported 
that they would have used one of the two Chicago area airports if the 
Amtrak-Mitchell Airport connection was not available.[Footnote 38] In 
addition, Amtrak service can also complement existing rail connections 
made by commuter rail, offering additional frequencies between points 
served by the commuter trains. However, where transit already offers a 
connection between a city center and airport, stakeholders at two of 
our eight site visits noted that an intercity passenger rail 
connection to the airport may potentially compete with transit service 
in the same area, thus limiting any increase in airport or airline 
customers and benefits from enhanced connectivity. 

In addition, air-rail connectivity could allow for the substitution of 
rail service for short-haul flights, freeing up capacity for long-haul 
flights and reducing airport and airspace congestion, though the 
importance of this benefit varies depending on the airport and the 
rail service's operating characteristics. Specifically, nearly half of 
the experts (19 of 41) in our survey and stakeholders at three of our 
eight site visits noted that the potential replacement of short-haul 
flights by rail was a "very important" potential benefit of air-rail 
connectivity. Our prior work has found that intercity passenger rail, 
particularly high-speed rail, could serve as a substitute for air 
service for distances of up to 500 miles.[Footnote 39] Our previous 
work on intercity passenger rail has found that for rail 
transportation to capture the market share necessary to reduce air 
travel congestion, the distance between cities must be short enough to 
make rail travel times competitive with air travel times (at 
comparable costs and levels of comfort).[Footnote 40] In practice this 
has been observed to a great extent in the Northeast Corridor, where a 
number of major urban areas are located within close proximity and 
where there are significant constraints on the capacity within the air 
transportation system. For example, Amtrak's share of the air-rail 
market for trips between Washington, D.C., and New York City has 
increased from 37 percent to 75 percent since the introduction of the 
higher speed Acela Express service in 2000. However, studies of air-
rail connections in other countries suggest that the complete 
abandonment of air service in response to the introduction of rail 
service serving the same markets is rare.[Footnote 41] Furthermore, 
this benefit may be limited given that most airports in the United 
States are not currently capacity-constrained, though we have 
previously reported that FAA projects that a number of airports will 
be significantly capacity-constrained and thus congested within the 
next 15 years.[Footnote 42] For example, officials from Chicago O'Hare 
International Airport stated that because their airport is not 
capacity-constrained, the benefits from a direct connection with 
Amtrak would be limited. Amtrak officials noted that they are 
exploring options to connect to Chicago O'Hare International Airport, 
but noted that it was premature to speculate on the benefits of such a 
connection, particularly given Amtrak's ongoing efforts to upgrade 
track speeds to major cities from Chicago. 

Over one-third of the experts participating in our survey rated 
environmental benefits, including reduced carbon emissions (17 of 41), 
and reduced energy use (15 of 40), as "very important" benefits of air-
rail connectivity. For the European Commission, enhancing air-rail 
connectivity has been embraced as part of its strategy to reduce 
greenhouse gases, including carbon emissions, by 60 percent by 2050 
while improving mobility.[Footnote 43] However, academic studies vary 
on the extent to which environmental benefits can be achieved from 
increased air-rail connectivity.[Footnote 44] For example, energy 
savings from high-speed rail connectivity may depend, in part, on the 
extent that passengers use rail to connect to the airport rather than 
other automotive transportation.[Footnote 45] Studies have also 
suggested that the substitution of long-distance flights for short-
haul flights that have been replaced by rail service could potentially 
increase carbon emissions.[Footnote 46] 

Costs: 

Expanding the current intercity passenger rail network and connecting 
it to airports would be expensive. However, the costs of facilitating 
connections between intercity passenger rail stations and airports 
could vary significantly, depending in part on the complexity and 
scope of the project. (See table 2.) Air-rail connectivity efforts may 
be as simple as providing shuttle bus service between the Amtrak 
station and the airport terminal or as complex as relocating the 
intercity passenger rail station closer to the airport and integrating 
it into a multimodal transportation center. For example, BWI Airport 
operates a free passenger shuttle between the nearby Amtrak station 
and the airport terminal, at a cost of $2 million per year. In 
addition to the shuttle service, the Maryland Transit Administration 
has used $9 million from the HSIPR grant program to make BWI Airport 
Amtrak station improvements, including planning for track and rail 
station upgrades. In contrast, the development of the Miami Intermodal 
Center--which includes construction of a rail station collocating 
Amtrak, commuter rail, and heavy rail transit access at Miami 
International Airport, a rental car facility, and an automated people 
mover--is estimated to cost approximately $2 billion. Depending upon 
the scope of new infrastructure, project costs may include 
constructing stations, structures, signal systems, power systems, and 
maintenance facilities; relocating utilities; and obtaining rights-of-
way, among other things. In addition to infrastructure costs, on-going 
operation and maintenance costs can be high for states and local 
transportation agencies. For example, airport officials estimate that 
the automated people mover system that connects Newark Liberty 
International Airport and the nearby Amtrak station costs $26 million 
per year to operate and maintain. Furthermore, PRIIA requires that 
operating and capital costs be allocated among the states and Amtrak 
in connection with the operation of certain Amtrak routes.[Footnote 
47] Absorbing such costs could be challenging for states and 
localities as they continue to face near-term and long-term fiscal 
challenges resulting from increasing gaps between revenue and 
expenditures.[Footnote 48] 

Table 2: Projected Construction Costs of Selected Ongoing Projects to 
Expand Air-Rail Connectivity: 

Description: Miami Intermodal Center including construction of a 
rental car facility, intercity passenger rail station, automated 
people mover, and local transit connection to existing Metrorail 
system at the airport; 
Location: Miami International Airport, Miami, FL; 
Projected cost: $2.023 billion; 
Funding source(s): 
* Federal funding (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act loans); 
* State funding (Florida Department of Transportation loans); 
* Local funding (Miami-Dade County contributions); 
* Other funding (rental car customer facility charges, toll road 
revenue)[A]; 
Targeted completion: 2014. 

Description: Regional Intermodal Transportation Center, which will 
connect the airport to the existing Amtrak station and include a 
commuter rail link; 
Location: Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA; 
Projected cost: $112 million; 
Funding source(s): 
* Federal funding (Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway 
Administration grants); 
* Passenger facility charges; 
* Other funding (rental car customer facility charges); 
Targeted completion: 2014. 

Description: Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall 
(BWI) Airport Amtrak station improvements, including planning for 
track and rail station upgrades; 
Location: BWI Airport, Baltimore, MD; 
Projected cost: $9 million; 
Funding source(s): 
* Federal funding (High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grants); 
Targeted completion: 2014. 

Source: GAO analysis of state DOT and airport data. 

[A] The amount of private sector funds for this project are to be 
determined. 

[End of table] 

In addition to the direct financial costs of constructing, operating, 
and maintaining air-rail connections, economic costs may arise due to 
impacts on other transportation modes. For example, representatives 
from the Association of American Railroads noted that there is limited 
additional capacity on the freight rail lines shared between Amtrak 
and the freight railroads.[Footnote 49] Accordingly, these 
representatives stated that any additional intercity passenger traffic 
initiated to enhance air-rail connectivity on existing freight rail 
lines could increase the cost and reduce the timeliness of freight 
shipped on these lines. In such an event, Amtrak and the freight 
railroads may have to revisit agreements over the usage of the freight 
rail lines, which can be a lengthy and costly process for all 
stakeholders. Alternatively, Amtrak or other intercity passenger rail 
service operators may need to acquire additional right-of-way and 
construct additional tracks to accommodate increased connectivity 
between airports and intercity passenger rail, which, as discussed 
previously, could increase the cost of providing air-rail 
connectivity. Similarly, representatives from two of the four airlines 
we interviewed stated that developing intercity passenger rail service 
that provides an alternative to air travel could affect their 
profitability. 

As with many large capital projects, committing financial resources 
for air-rail projects may also impose opportunity costs as a result of 
delaying or deferring other projects or initiatives. Specifically, the 
financial cost of air-rail connectivity projects could affect the 
ability of governmental entities to pursue other types of 
transportation projects, particularly in the current fiscal 
environment. For example, one airline representative we interviewed 
noted that air travel is in direct competition for resources with 
other modes of transportation and suggested that any federal funds 
provided to enhance air-rail connectivity could come at the expense of 
funding for other programs, including the Next Generation Air 
Transportation System (NextGen) air traffic control modernization 
initiative.[Footnote 50] 

Given the high potential costs of air-rail connections, it is likely 
that only a limited number of places could demonstrate potential 
benefits high enough to justify improved air-rail connectivity 
investments. For example, if air passengers could access a nationwide 
rail network directly at an airport, some passengers might travel to 
that airport from other cities by train rather than on highways or 
short-haul flights, which might reduce highway or airport and aviation 
congestion. However, the demand for such service is likely to be low 
except in a few highly congested travel corridors, such as the 
Northeast Corridor, where the distances are short enough to make rail 
travel times competitive with air travel times. At airports that do 
not have substantial highway or airport congestion, such benefits 
would not be realized. There might still be some emission and energy 
benefits, but since the number of travelers likely to use these 
facilities at such airports is limited, these benefits will be limited 
as well. Amtrak officials noted that costs and benefits are relative 
to the scope and complexity of each air-rail connectivity option. For 
example, they noted that providing an air-rail connection that serves 
both intercity and local commuter rail, such as those provided by many 
of Amtrak's airport-adjacent stations, can provide benefits that might 
not be justified if the station was served only by intercity rail. 
Furthermore, Amtrak officials noted that exploring air-rail 
integration early during the planning and development of an airport 
can help reduce the overall cost of developing air-rail connectivity, 
while still achieving substantial mobility benefits. 

Air-Rail Connectivity Is Influenced by a Variety of Factors: 

Based on input from our expert survey; discussions with stakeholders, 
including state departments of transportation, local transportation 
planning organizations, airports, and airlines; and our review of 
academic literature, we identified five categories of factors that can 
greatly affect air-rail connectivity, including the degree of 
leadership and collaboration among stakeholders, resource 
availability, the extent of passenger demand for air-rail 
connectivity, the ease of the air-rail connection, and the passenger 
rail service operating characteristics.[Footnote 51] (See table 3.) 

Table 3: Factors Surveyed Experts Most Frequently Cited As Greatly 
Facilitating and Greatly Hindering Air-Rail Connectivity: 

Category: Leadership/stakeholder collaboration; 
Factors that facilitate: 
* Integration of air-rail connections into an overall, multi-modal 
transportation plan/strategy; 
* Communication, collaboration, and consensus across stakeholders, 
including, local, state, federal, and private sector entities; 
Factors that hinder: 
* Lack of integration of air-rail connections into an overall, multi-
modal transportation plan or strategy; 
* Lack of leadership for air-rail project or leadership is diffused 
across many stakeholders. 

Category: Resource availability; 
Factors that facilitate: 
* Available funding for air-rail connectivity projects; 
Factors that hinder: 
* The financial cost of air-rail connectivity projects; 
* Lack of dedicated funding for air-rail connectivity projects; 
* Lack of existing intercity passenger rail infrastructure, including 
tracks and stations; 
* Lack of available right-of-way, land, or other physical space for 
air-rail projects. 

Category: Passenger demand; 
Factors that facilitate: 
* Sufficient passenger demand for intercity passenger rail service; 
Factors that hinder: 
* Lack of demand for intercity passenger rail service to the airport. 

Category: Ease of connection; 
Factors that facilitate: 
* Close proximity between airport and intercity passenger rail station; 
* Ease of use of the airport-rail connections; 
* Availability of information, including signage, provided to make the 
connection between the airport and rail service; 
Factors that hinder: 
* Lack of close proximity between airport and intercity passenger rail 
station. 

Category: Rail service operating characteristics; 
Factors that facilitate: 
* Frequent intercity passenger rail service; 
* Reliable intercity passenger rail service that departs and arrives 
on schedule; 
* High-speed intercity passenger rail service connects to the airport; 
Factors that hinder: 
* Lack of frequent intercity passenger rail service; 
* Lack of reliable intercity passenger rail service. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: We identified these factors based on the number of experts 
rating that a given factor "greatly facilitates" or "greatly hinders" 
the development and use of air-rail connectivity. 

[End of table] 

Leadership and Stakeholder Collaboration: 

The degree of leadership and the extent of stakeholder collaboration 
across air-rail projects can affect project development. Specifically, 
almost half of the experts (18 of 40) rated the lack of leadership as 
greatly hindering air-rail connections. Stakeholders we interviewed 
during our site visits told us that when there is an absence of 
leadership, stakeholders are unlikely to assume roles outside of their 
typical responsibilities and interests, a limitation that makes 
project development more difficult. Conversely, leadership that helps 
build bridges across stakeholder groups can help develop a shared 
vision and foster collaboration, thereby facilitating project 
development. 

However, we found there is limited federal leadership for air-rail 
projects, and no modal administration has a primary responsibility to 
oversee air-rail projects, as responsibilities for transportation 
projects are segmented by mode. Furthermore, according to an academic 
study and stakeholders we interviewed, the United States is lacking a 
national policy framework and vision to guide investment in the needed 
infrastructure to develop air-rail connections.[Footnote 52] For 
example, FRA's High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan does not address 
connectivity between airports and intercity passenger rail.[Footnote 
53] In addition, while DOT's 2012-2016 strategic plan broadly 
discusses connectivity between airports and intercity passenger rail, 
DOT has not established any specific goals for air-rail connectivity. 
[Footnote 54] This is consistent with our previous work that concluded 
that the absence of specific national goals to develop intermodal 
capabilities at airports is a significant barrier to developing air-
rail connections.[Footnote 55] For example, half of the experts (20 of 
40) rated integration of air-rail connections into an overall, multi-
modal transportation plan or strategy as an approach that would 
greatly facilitate air-rail connectivity in the United States. In 
addition, officials we interviewed and over half of the experts (23 of 
39) said that communication, collaboration, and consensus among 
stakeholders such as airlines; rail operators; airport management; and 
local, state, and federal government officials could greatly 
facilitate air-rail connectivity. 

Resource Availability: 

Resource availability, including funding, right-of-way, and access to 
existing infrastructure can greatly affect the development of air-rail 
connectivity. As previously noted, the costs of linking existing 
intercity passenger rail infrastructure and airports can be 
significant, depending in part on the complexity and scope of the 
project. Slightly over half of the experts (21 of 40) rated the 
financial cost of a project as greatly hindering project development, 
while nearly three-fourths (29 of 40) rated availability of funding as 
greatly facilitating project development. In addition, about two-
fifths of the experts (16 of 39) rated the level of funding for 
intercity passenger rail as a very important factor contributing to 
differences in air-rail connectivity development and use between the 
United States and Europe. 

We found a number of barriers exist to securing funding for air-rail 
connectivity projects. For example, transportation officials and 
stakeholders we interviewed told us that the limitations on use of 
funds from federal grants and airport revenue collected from passenger 
facility charges are significant barriers. Furthermore, as noted 
previously in this report, the federal government does not provide 
funding dedicated to the development or operation of air-rail 
connections. If the trend of decreasing federal transportation funding 
over the past three decades continues, air-rail project sponsors may 
need to increasingly rely on state funds for air-rail connection 
projects.[Footnote 56] In addition, our prior work also identified 
challenges of funding intercity passenger rail projects.[Footnote 57] 
The federal government has recently begun to pursue investment in high-
speed passenger rail through the FRA's HSIPR grant program, and to 
date has obligated about $9.9 billion for 150 high-speed and intercity 
passenger rail projects from funds appropriated in fiscal years 2009 
and 2010--with more than one-third of the amount obligated designated 
for the high-speed rail project in California. While this funding will 
allow many projects to begin construction, it is not sufficient to 
complete them. Furthermore, Congress has not appropriated any funding 
for the HSIPR program since fiscal year 2010. 

The availability of other resources can also greatly affect the 
development of air-rail connectivity projects. Three-fifths of the 
experts (24 of 40) rated the lack of availability of land or physical 
space for direct air-rail projects, including the lack of existing 
intercity passenger rail infrastructure (e.g., tracks and stations) 
and rights of way, as factors that greatly influence the development 
of air-rail connections. 

Passenger Demand: 

Passenger demand for air-rail connectivity has a significant role in 
developing and using such connections. Approximately half of the 
experts rated passenger volume and demand as a factor that can either 
greatly facilitate (if sufficient) (21 of 39) or hinder (if lacking) 
(20 of 40) air-rail connectivity projects. However, as mentioned 
previously in this report, there is limited data on the demand for 
intercity passenger rail. Furthermore, it is often difficult to 
estimate ridership demand. As we have previously reported, limited 
data and information, especially early in a project before specific 
service characteristics are known, make developing reliable ridership 
demand forecasts difficult.[Footnote 58] Research on ridership 
forecasts for rail infrastructure projects around the world have shown 
that ridership forecasts are often overestimated.[Footnote 59] 
Furthermore, there are no industry standard or established criteria 
for developing or evaluating intercity passenger and high-speed rail 
ridership forecasts.[Footnote 60] 

Ease of Connection: 

Over three-quarters of the experts (31 of 40) rated close proximity 
between the airport terminals and rail stations as greatly 
facilitating air-rail connectivity.[Footnote 61] Connections that are 
easy to use and provide direct connection between the airport terminal 
and the rail station can greatly affect the development of air-rail 
connectivity. Officials we interviewed noted that air-rail connections 
should be designed to meet the needs of airport and intercity 
passenger users. Accordingly, they underscored that connections should 
be designed to make the experience as easy and seamless as possible 
for the traveler. Similarly, over half of the experts (21 of 39) rated 
the availability of information, including signage, about a connection 
as greatly facilitating air-rail connectivity. We found 20 of the 60 
major airports in the contiguous United States included information 
about Amtrak on their respective websites, and 14 of the 20 airports 
provided specific instructions on how passengers could connect to or 
from Amtrak.[Footnote 62] 

Rail Service Operating Characteristics: 

Nearly two-thirds of the experts (26 of 40) and many of the 
stakeholders at our site visits cited frequency and reliability of 
rail service as factors that greatly influence air-rail connectivity. 
Stakeholders we interviewed noted that for the air-rail connection to 
be viable, the passenger rail operator needs to provide frequent 
service to multiple locations beyond the airport. The frequency of 
Amtrak service is highly variable across the nation. Similarly, a 
number of stakeholders we spoke with noted that the reliability of 
Amtrak service, specifically its on-time performance, affects the use 
of intercity passenger rail for travel, both between cities and to and 
from the airport. In addition, over half of the experts (25 of 40) 
rated the availability of high-speed intercity passenger rail service 
to connect to an airport as greatly facilitating an air-rail 
connectivity project. However, representatives from three of the four 
airlines we interviewed viewed high-speed rail as a potential 
competitor in diverting passengers away from, as opposed to feeding 
into, the airport. 

Strategies to Improve Air-Rail Connectivity May Require Substantial 
Coordination and Funding: 

Experts participating in our survey suggested five key areas where 
implementing strategies could help improve air-rail connectivity: 
vision, coordinated planning, funding, infrastructure, and awareness 
and marketing of connections. We asked these experts to identify 
potential strategies, and then rate these strategies in terms of both 
their importance and their feasibility. Some of the strategies that 
experts rated as more important were also seen as less 
feasible.[Footnote 63] (See table 4.) In discussing these strategies 
with other stakeholders and reviewing academic studies, we found that 
a number of strategies were inter-related. For example, some of the 
strategies that experts suggested to improve connectivity, such as 
increasing connections with other transportation modes, could be 
related to the implementation of other strategies, such as providing 
additional funding for air-rail connections. 

Table 4: Experts' Rating of Importance and Feasibility of Selected 
Strategies to Improve Air-Rail Connectivity: 

More important: 
More feasible: 
* Conduct additional study of air-rail policies in other countries as 
well as potential air-rail locations and ridership preferences in the 
United States; 
* Ease restrictions on using funds collected through passenger 
facility charges; 
* Include air-rail connections to the airport when intercity passenger 
rail service is first established in a corridor; 
* Emphasize intermodal connectivity as a criterion for federal 
transportation funding; 
Less feasible: 
* Connect intercity passenger rail to other modes of transportation, 
including mass transit; 
* Connect intercity passenger rail to city centers and urban 
attractions; 
* Permit greater flexibility in using federal transportation grant 
funding; 
* Provide dedicated funding for air-rail connections; 
* Integrate existing rail service with airports, locating terminal as 
close to rail station as possible; 
* Provide additional funding for intercity passenger rail; 
* Alignment of long-term transportation plans across modes. 

Less important: 
More feasible: 
* Provide additional federal guidance on air-rail projects; 
* Develop business cases to support air-rail connections; 
* Establish national goals for air-rail connectivity; 
* Emphasize intermodal connectivity as a core federal planning 
requirement; 
* Establish a national framework for intermodal collaboration; 
Less feasible: 
* Align intercity passenger rail schedules with airline schedules; 
* Establish a federal entity to work across modal administrations to 
champion intermodal and air-rail projects; 
* Incentivize public-private partnerships to help fund and construct 
air-rail projects. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Note: We identified a strategy as "more important" if that strategy 
was within the top 10 strategies most frequently rated by experts as 
"very important," including ties. Similarly, we identified a strategy 
as "more feasible" if the strategy was within the top 10 strategies 
most frequently rated by experts as "very feasible," including ties. 
Strategies outside the top ten most frequently cited as very important 
and very feasible were classified as "less important" and "less 
feasible," respectively. This table does not list all of the 
strategies that were both "less important" and "less feasible." For 
full details on the results of our survey, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-692SP]. 

[End of table] 

Study of Preferences and Demand for National Priorities: 

Experts stated additional study of the demand for air-rail 
connectivity, as well as lessons learned in other countries, could 
help Amtrak and DOT clarify needs and develop priorities within their 
existing goals related to enhancing connectivity. Connectivity across 
modes has been emphasized broadly by DOT and Amtrak, though there has 
been limited emphasis placed by either for connectivity between 
airports and intercity passenger rail. For example, in its 2012-2016 
strategic plan, DOT's goal of encouraging livable communities 
emphasizes connectivity across modes, and identifies connectivity 
between intercity passenger rail and transit and continued investment 
in the intercity passenger rail network as means to achieve that goal. 
DOT's strategic plan also notes that DOT will continue to work with 
Amtrak, states, freight railroads, airports, and other key 
stakeholders to ensure intercity passenger rail is effectively 
integrated into the national transportation system, though the 
department has not established any specific goals for air-rail 
connectivity. Similarly, DOT's most recent update to its national rail 
plan, published in September 2010, encourages the integration of 
policies and investments across modes, including air transportation, 
to provide convenient options for accessing the passenger rail 
network, but does not establish specific goals or timelines for 
increasing air-rail connectivity. Amtrak's strategic plan has set a 
goal of connecting to three additional airports in the Northeast 
Corridor by 2015 as part of its efforts to increase intercity 
passenger rail connectivity with other travel modes in key markets, 
but Amtrak officials we spoke with stated that they do not believe 
Amtrak will achieve this goal because of limited available funding for 
intercity passenger rail. 

Should DOT, Amtrak, or Congress choose to develop a more comprehensive 
approach to air-rail connectivity, experts we surveyed identified 
further study of passenger preferences and demand as one of the most 
important and most feasible steps policymakers could take to improve 
air-rail connections. For example, half of the experts (20 of 40) 
rated additional study of ridership preferences across all modes as 
very important to informing the federal government's air-rail 
strategy. As previously noted, limited data on passenger preferences 
and demand for air-rail connectivity exists. For example, one expert 
emphasized that because passenger demand for air-rail connectivity 
varies across the country, additional study of passenger preferences 
at the local level could help identify approaches tailored to the 
specific needs of the area, noting that there is no "one size fits 
all" approach to air-rail connectivity. Furthermore, 24 of 40 experts 
rated studying lessons learned and policy responses from other 
countries as "very important" toward improving understanding of air-
rail connectivity issues, though as previously discussed, air-rail 
connectivity approaches vary widely outside the United States. 

Collaborative Planning: 

Experts in our survey and stakeholders at seven of our eight site 
visits highlighted the importance of coordinated transportation 
planning between airports and intercity passenger rail, which could 
help stakeholders develop multimodal solutions and facilitate problem 
solving. Amtrak officials noted that if airports, Amtrak, and other 
transportation stakeholders begin to plan for integration early, the 
costs of connecting air and rail transportation become part of a 
larger intermodal strategy and can provide benefits. Accordingly, both 
Amtrak officials and experts highlighted the importance of planning an 
intercity passenger rail connection as part of an overall ground 
access strategy. For example, 17 of 40 experts rated planning air-rail 
connections to the airport during the initial establishment of 
intercity passenger rail service as very important. Amtrak officials 
noted that planning for intercity rail connections at airports during 
the initial development of the airport can help minimize the 
incremental cost of making a connection while providing substantial 
benefits from air-rail connectivity. However, in many locations, 
particularly in the Northeast Corridor, the rail network was developed 
decades before the airport. In addition, such an approach may not be 
feasible, as federal funding and oversight is segmented by mode, a 
segmentation that can lead to competition, rather than collaboration 
for funding. Furthermore, collaboration across stakeholder groups can 
be a time-intensive process and may not necessarily change the 
willingness of stakeholders to collaborate. 

Funding and Flexibility: 

Experts we surveyed and stakeholders at six of our eight site visits 
we interviewed highlighted the importance of securing funding for air-
rail connectivity projects. Because of the often substantial cost of 
the physical infrastructure to support air-rail connections, 
stakeholders at four of our eight site visits noted that the federal 
government may have to provide most of the funding to make development 
possible. Over half of the experts in our survey (22 of 41) as well as 
other stakeholders at five of our eight site visits suggested that 
dedicated funding for air-rail connections could help increase the 
number of connections between airports and intercity passenger rail. 
Alternatively, nearly half (17 of 41) of the experts in our survey 
suggested that increased funding for intercity passenger rail is a 
very important strategy related to increasing Amtrak's ability to 
connect to airports. However, the current fiscal environment presents 
challenges to increasing federal funding for discretionary programs 
though some existing grant and loan programs--such as the HSIPR, 
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), and 
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 
(TIFIA) programs--have some flexibility to fund air-rail connections 
if such a connection is a state or local priority.[Footnote 64] As 
previously noted, additional funding for air-rail connections could 
require tradeoffs with other transportation projects. With limited 
existing funds available for air-rail projects, two stakeholders we 
interviewed suggested that the federal government should focus on a 
few air-rail projects of national significance, rather than a number 
of smaller projects throughout the entire nation. Similarly, one 
stakeholder suggested that the federal government provide money for a 
few projects to demonstrate the potential benefits of air-rail 
connectivity, before moving forward on a nationwide program. 

Stakeholders at four of our eight site visits also suggested that 
providing additional flexibility in permitted expenditures among 
existing federal programs could help improve airport connectivity via 
rail. In particular, they suggested changes to the airport passenger 
facility charge authority as well as to the AIP grant program. Among 
the funding strategies evaluated in our expert survey, experts 
generally rated the strategy of relaxing the restrictions on passenger 
facility charges among the most feasible strategies. Airport operators 
may currently use funds collected from air passengers through 
passenger facility charges to fund rail access at airports, if the 
project is owned by the airport, located on airport property, and used 
exclusively by airport passengers and employees. However, easing these 
restrictions on use of passenger facility charges faces obstacles. 
Specifically, use of passenger facility charge revenues is limited by 
law to airport-related projects. Such a change would require 
legislative action by the Congress, and changes to the passenger 
facility charges program have been opposed by the airline industry. 
For example, representatives from one airline we spoke with stated 
that the airline was fundamentally opposed to using funds collected 
through passenger facility charges to pay for airport and intercity 
passenger rail connections because, in their view, the federal 
government should not tax airline passengers to fund other 
transportation modes. Stakeholders at three of the eight airports we 
spoke with suggested that Congress could allow additional flexibility 
in the use of funds from transportation grant programs, including the 
AIP program, which is funded through a variety of aviation excise 
taxes. While AIP grants may currently be used to fund projects 
promoting air-rail connectivity on the airport property, like the 
passenger facility charges, program funds may only be used to fund 
airport-related projects. Again, however, airlines we spoke with 
opposed easing existing limitations on the use of AIP grants for 
airport projects that may benefit non-aviation passengers, and any 
change to the AIP program to broaden the use of these grants would 
require congressional action. Furthermore, as previously noted, the 
commitment of financial resources for air-rail projects may also 
impose opportunity costs as a result of canceling or delaying other 
projects or initiatives that could be funded by these federal programs. 

Infrastructure Connectivity: 

Experts in our survey suggested that increasing the size and operation 
of the existing intercity passenger rail network could help encourage 
the development and use of intercity passenger rail to access 
airports. Specifically, 23 of 39 experts cited the size and the extent 
of the intercity passenger rail network as a very important factor 
resulting in differences between air-rail connections in the United 
States and Europe. Accordingly, over two-thirds of the experts in our 
survey (27 of 40) suggested that developing rail connections to 
transit and other forms of public transportation could help encourage 
the use of rail to the airport, and over half of the experts (22 of 
40) stated that additional connections to city centers and urban 
attractions are very important strategies to consider. DOT has taken 
some steps to increase the intercity passenger rail network, most 
notably through the HSIPR grant program, which, FRA officials noted, 
placed emphasis on using funds available for intercity passenger rail 
infrastructure to establish and enhance connections between major 
metropolitan areas. Additionally, stakeholders we interviewed at six 
of our eight sites noted that increasing the frequency of intercity 
passenger service in existing corridors could encourage greater use of 
rail to connect to the airport. For example, one stakeholder noted 
that passengers are much less likely to use rail if departure times 
are hours apart, as opposed to minutes. However, even in corridors 
that have existing intercity passenger rail service, increasing the 
frequency of service can be challenging due to both the cost and, as 
previously discussed, the shared usage of the infrastructure with the 
freight railroads. Furthermore, as discussed previously, stakeholders 
we spoke with stated that there is limited demand for public 
transportation options to connect to the airport, and thus it is 
unclear whether increasing the frequency of service will increase 
passenger use of intercity rail service to connect to airports. 

Awareness of Air-Rail Connections: 

While building the infrastructure to support new air-rail connections 
can be expensive and time-intensive, our work identified a few low 
cost options that could help increase passenger awareness, and thus 
usage, of existing air-rail connections. For example, Amtrak station 
operators and airport officials could take steps to increase awareness 
of existing connections between the two modes, using additional or 
more prominently placed signage and information kiosks. For example, 
at the BWI Airport Amtrak Station, signs and information direct 
customers exiting the station platform to the bus shuttle service 
connecting the two modes. (See fig. 3.) Similarly, in Burbank, 
officials stated that the use of signage highlighting the walking path 
between the Burbank rail station and the airport has helped, in part, 
to make the connection between the two modes easier for passengers to 
use. These officials also noted that even with signage, an air-rail 
connection often required frequent and reliable service from an 
intercity passenger rail operator. As another option, Amtrak could 
highlight the connections to the airport from each station on its 
website, thus providing an additional source of information to 
travelers beyond what is available at the airport or rail station. 

Figure 3: Signage and Information at the BWI Airport Amtrak Station: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this product to DOT and Amtrak for comment. DOT 
and Amtrak provided technical comments on the draft, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. DOT and Amtrak did not have any comments 
on the e-supplement. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of 
Transportation, the President of Amtrak, and the appropriate 
congressional committees. In addition, this report will be available 
at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at 
(202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D 
Director Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report addressed the following objectives: (1) the nature and 
scope of existing air-rail connectivity in the United States; (2) the 
benefits and costs of developing air-rail connectivity; (3) the 
factors that facilitate and hinder the development and use of air-rail 
connectivity; and (4) potential strategies, including lessons learned 
from other countries, that may help inform deliberations regarding air-
rail connectivity policy. This report focused on air-rail connections 
between an airport terminal and an intercity passenger rail station. 
In other contexts, an air-rail connection may refer to a connection 
between an airport terminal and an intracity rail station that serves 
other forms of local rail, such as commuter rail or a subway system. 

To address our objectives, we obtained and analyzed information from a 
variety of sources. We reviewed and synthesized information from our 
body of work and relevant academic literature on intermodal 
transportation, air-rail connectivity, and air-rail code share 
agreements in the United States and internationally. We reviewed 
citations identified through a search of databases containing peer-
reviewed articles, government reports, and "gray literature," 
including Transport Research International Documentation, Social 
SciSearch, and WorldCat.[Footnote 65] Publications were limited to the 
years 2004 through 2012. After an initial review of citations, 48 
articles were selected for further review. To collect information on 
the articles, we developed a data collection instrument to gather 
information on the articles' scope and purpose, methods, findings, and 
their limitations, and additional areas for follow-up, including a 
review of the bibliography to determine the completeness of our 
literature search. To apply this data collection instrument, one 
analyst reviewed each article and recorded information in the data 
collection instrument. A second analyst then reviewed each completed 
data collection instrument to verify the accuracy of the information 
recorded. We summarized the findings and limitations of the articles 
based on the completed data collection instruments, as well as areas 
for additional research identified in the articles. In addition, we 
also reviewed federal laws related to air and intercity passenger 
transportation and strategic plans from Amtrak and the Department of 
Transportation (DOT). 

We interviewed officials from DOT and Amtrak, transportation experts, 
and representatives from U.S. airlines and industry associations to 
obtain their perspectives on air-rail connectivity issues. We reviewed 
completed, ongoing, and future air-rail connectivity efforts at eight 
airports in the United States, and interviewed a variety of 
stakeholders at each site, including airport authorities, state and 
local transportation agencies, local transportation planning 
organizations, and air and rail industry associations. (See table 5.) 
These airports were selected to include airports that have recently 
planned, constructed, or completed an air-rail project and are 
dispersed in various regions of the country. Our findings at these 
sites were selected as part of a judgmental, non-probability sample of 
air-rail connectivity efforts at airports, and cannot be generalized 
to all airports. 

Table 5: Airports and Stakeholders Selected for GAO Review: 

Airport: Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall; 
Geographic location: Glen Burnie, MD; 
Stakeholders: 
* Maryland Aviation Administration; 
* Maryland Department of Transportation; 
* Maryland Transit Administration. 

Airport: Bob Hope; 
Geographic location: Burbank, CA; 
Stakeholders: 
* Bob Hope Burbank Airport Authority; 
* California Department of Transportation; 
* Southern California Association of Governments. 

Airport: Chicago O'Hare International; 
Geographic location: Chicago, IL; 
Stakeholders: 
* Chicago Department of Aviation; 
* Illinois Department of Transportation; 
* Chicago Department of Transportation; 
* Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning; 
* Midwest High Speed Rail Association. 

Airport: Dallas/Fort Worth International; 
Geographic location: Fort Worth, TX; 
Stakeholders: 
* Dallas/Fort Worth Airport; 
* Texas Department of Transportation; 
* North Central Texas Council of Governments; 
* Dallas Area Rapid Transit. 

Airport: Miami International; 
Geographic location: Miami, FL; 
Stakeholders: 
* Miami-Dade Aviation Department; 
* Florida Department of Transportation; 
* Miami-Dade County Municipal Planning Organization; 
* Miami-Dade Transit. 

Airport: General Mitchell International; 
Geographic location: Milwaukee, WI; 
Stakeholders: 
* Milwaukee General Mitchell International Airport; 
* Wisconsin Department of Transportation; 
* Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission; 
* Airport Gateway Business Association/Gateway to Milwaukee. 

Airport: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International; 
Geographic location: San Jose, CA; 
Stakeholders: 
* San Jose International Airport; 
* City of San Jose Department of Transportation; 
* Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 

Airport: Newark Liberty International; 
Geographic location: Newark, NJ; 
Stakeholders: 
* The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; 
* Regional Plan Association; 
* New Jersey Transit. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

We also analyzed Amtrak's distance and connectivity to the 28 large 
and 32 medium hub airports located in the contiguous United States 
based on the 2011 Federal Aviation Administration's Air Carrier 
Activity Information System database.[Footnote 66] We limited our 
analysis to these 60 airports because they accounted for approximately 
86 percent of U.S. passenger enplanements for calendar year 2011. We 
determined the linear distance for each of the 60 airports and the 
nearest Amtrak station based on information from the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics and the National Transportation Atlas 
Database for 2012. Based on the use of both as widely accepted federal 
statistical data sources, we determined these data to be generally 
reliable for our purpose, which was to provide context on existing air-
rail connectivity. Linear distance is the distance measured between 
two points using their latitude and longitude. This may understate the 
distance a passenger may have to travel because it does not account 
for actual travel routes (e.g., a route that crosses a bridge or 
avoids buildings or other obstacles along the passenger's route). The 
actual distance that a passenger may travel also depends on the 
selected transportation mode, local roads, or route selected. We used 
the linear distance calculations to determine the number of airports 
with an Amtrak station within 5, 10, 20, and over 20 miles. (See app. 
IV.) To determine the modal connectivity between airport and Amtrak 
stations, we systematically reviewed the airport websites' ground 
transportation page and Amtrak System Timetable for Winter/Spring 2013 
for information on how passengers can access Amtrak to and from the 
airports. 

To obtain additional insight on issues related to air-rail 
connectivity, we collaborated with the National Academy of Sciences to 
identify 25 experts from the aviation and rail industries, Amtrak, 
state and local governments, academia, and the private sector. These 
experts were selected based on their knowledge of one or more of the 
following topic areas: intermodalism, airlines and the air travel 
industry, airport operations, the rail industry, and passenger travel. 
We identified 17 additional experts in these fields through a review 
of academic literature, our previous work, and interviews with 
stakeholders. (See app. II for a list of these experts.) We conducted 
a web-based survey in which we asked these 42 experts for their views 
on the benefits of air-rail connectivity, factors that facilitate and 
hinder the development and use of air-rail connectivity, differences 
between air-rail connectivity in the United States and Europe, and 
strategies that could improve air-rail connectivity. We employed a 
modified version of the Delphi method to organize and gather these 
experts' opinions.[Footnote 67] Experts were sent an email invitation 
to complete the survey on a GAO web server using a unique username and 
password. The survey was conducted in two stages. The first stage of 
the survey--which ran from January 16, 2013, to February 19, 2013--
asked the experts to respond to five open-ended questions about 
various aspects of air-rail connectivity based on our study 
objectives. To encourage participation by our experts, we stated that 
responses would not be individually identifiable and that results 
would generally be provided in summary form. We received a 95 percent 
(40 of 42) response rate for the first stage of the survey. After the 
experts completed the open-ended questions, we performed a content 
analysis of the responses to identify the most important issues raised 
by our experts. Two members of our team independently categorized 
experts' responses to each of the questions. Any disagreements were 
discussed until consensus was reached. We analyzed the responses 
provided by the experts and developed close-ended questions for the 
second stage of the survey where we asked each expert to evaluate the 
ideas and other information that came from the first part of the 
survey. Because this was not a sample survey, it had no sampling 
errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey 
can introduce non-sampling errors, such as difficulties interpreting a 
particular question, which can introduce unwanted variability into the 
survey results. We took steps to minimize non-sampling errors by pre-
testing the questionnaire with 5 experts. We conducted pretests to 
help ensure that the questions were clear and unbiased, and that the 
questionnaire did not place an undue burden on respondents. An 
independent reviewer within GAO also reviewed a draft of the 
questionnaire prior to its administration. We made appropriate 
revisions to the content and format of the second survey questionnaire 
based on the pretests and independent review. The second stage of the 
survey was administered on the Internet from March 25, 2013, to May 
15, 2013. To increase the response rate, we followed up with emails 
and personal phone calls to the experts to encourage participation in 
our survey. We received responses from 41 of 42 experts, resulting in 
a 98 percent response rate. The information and perspectives that we 
obtained from the expert survey may not be generalized to all experts 
that have an interest or knowledge of air-rail connectivity issues. 
The full survey and responses are available at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-692SP]. 

We provided a draft of this report to Matthew A. Coogan, director of 
the New England Transportation Institute for review and comment, based 
on his expertise on air-rail connectivity issues similar to those in 
our report. Mr. Coogan was selected based on his extensive past and on-
going research on similar topics related to air-rail connectivity 
issues in the United States. He provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. We conducted this performance audit from 
August 2012 to August 2013 in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 
and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Experts Participating in GAO's Survey on Air-Rail 
Connectivity: 

Name: Thomas Adler; 
Title: President; 
Affiliation: Resource Systems Group, Inc. 

Name: Ruth Bagley; 
Title: Project Lead; 
Affiliation: Chief Executive of Slough Borough Council. 

Name: John Bennett; 
Title: Former Assistant Vice President, Policy, Standards and Business 
Integration; 
Affiliation: Amtrak. 

Name: Mohamed Bhanji; 
Title: Director, Marketing Technologies; 
Affiliation: VIA Rail Canada. 

Name: David Classey; 
Title: Director, Planning and Programmes; 
Affiliation: Travelport. 

Name: Patty Clark; 
Title: Senior Advisor for Aviation Policy; 
Affiliation: The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. 

Name: John Conlow; 
Title: Senior Director of Corridor Planning; 
Affiliation: Amtrak. 

Name: Matthew A. Coogan; 
Title: Director; 
Affiliation: New England Transportation Institute. 

Name: Linda Culp; 
Title: Principal Planner - Rail; 
Affiliation: San Diego Association of Governments. 

Name: Crystal DuPont; 
Title: Project Manager for Passenger Rail Planning Management; 
Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 

Name: Dan Feger; 
Title: Executive Director; 
Affiliation: Bob Hope Airport. 

Name: Geoff Gosling; 
Title: Principal; 
Affiliation: Aviation System Consulting. 

Name: Mark Hansen; 
Title: Professor; 
Affiliation: University of California, Berkeley. 

Name: John Hansman; 
Title: Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics; 
Affiliation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Name: Tim Hoeffner; 
Title: Director; 
Affiliation: Michigan Department of Transportation Office of Rail. 

Name: Roger Hooson; 
Title: Senior Planner, Landside Operations; 
Affiliation: San Francisco International Airport. 

Name: Hanan Kivett; 
Title: Vice President and Senior Project Manager, Transportation; 
Affiliation: AECOM. 

Name: Joerg Last; 
Title: Managing Partner; 
Affiliation: STRATA GmbH. 

Name: Paul LeBlond; 
Title: President; 
Affiliation: International Air Rail Organisation. 

Name: Bob Longworth; 
Title: Owner; 
Affiliation: Bob Longworth Consulting. 

Name: William Mallett; 
Title: Specialist in Transportation Policy; 
Affiliation: Congressional Research Service. 

Name: Michael Mallonee[A]; 
Title: Principal Transportation Planner; 
Affiliation: North Central Texas Council of Governments. 

Name: Philip Martin; 
Title: Head of Marketing; 
Affiliation: Amadeus Rail. 

Name: Jennifer Moczygemba; 
Title: Rail System Section Head; 
Affiliation: Texas Department of Transportation. 

Name: Gary Molyneaux; 
Title: Airport Planning Manager; 
Affiliation: King County International Airport/Boeing Field. 

Name: Curtis Morgan; 
Title: Program Manager; 
Affiliation: Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 

Name: Mike Muller; 
Title: Head Interline and Intermodal Policy; 
Affiliation: International Air Transport Association. 

Name: Christopher Nash; 
Title: Research Professor; 
Affiliation: Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds. 

Name: Paul Neal; 
Title: Principal; 
Affiliation: Parsons Brinckerhoff. 

Name: Peter Pfragner; 
Title: Commissioner for Intermodality; 
Affiliation: Frankfurt Airport. 

Name: Richard Roberts; 
Title: Chief Planner; 
Affiliation: New Jersey Transit Corporation. 

Name: Megan Smirti Ryerson; 
Title: Assistant Professor; 
Affiliation: University of Pennsylvania. 

Name: John Schalliol; 
Title: Executive Director, Retired; 
Affiliation: St. Joseph County Airport Authority. 

Name: Joshua Schank; 
Title: President and CEO; 
Affiliation: ENO Center for Transportation. 

Name: George Schoener; 
Title: Executive Director; 
Affiliation: I-95 Corridor Coalition. 

Name: Andrew Sharp; 
Title: Policy Adviser; 
Affiliation: International Air Rail Organisation. 

Name: Stephen Van Beek; 
Title: Executive Director, Policy and Strategy; 
Affiliation: LeighFisher, Inc. 

Name: Mark Walbrun; 
Title: Market Leader, Transit and Rail, East Region; 
Affiliation: CH2M Hill. 

Name: Mike Welch; 
Title: Corporate Director of JFK Operations; 
Affiliation: Delta Air Lines. 

Name: Joan Zatopek; 
Title: Senior Aviation Project Manager; 
Affiliation: Port of Oakland. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: In addition to the 40 experts listed above, one official from a 
U.S. airline participated on the panel. An additional expert was 
selected to participate in the survey but did not provide a response 
in either round of the survey. 

[A] Chad Edwards and Kevin Feldt, program managers with the North 
Central Texas Council of Governments, provided input as part of this 
response. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Examples of Potential Federal Financing and Funding 
Sources for Air-Rail Projects: 

Source: Airport Improvement Program; 
Description: Provides grants to airports for planning and developing 
projects through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The 
program is funded, in part, by aviation user excise taxes, which are 
deposited into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In terms of 
promoting air-rail connections, these funds may be used for projects 
that are on airport property or right-of-way owned or controlled by 
the airport, airport owned, and exclusively serves airport traffic. In 
fiscal year 2013, this program was funded at $3.1 billion.[A]; 
Example of use for air-rail projects: GAO found no example of its use 
for air-rail projects. 

Source: High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grants; 
Description: Provides competitively awarded grants to states, 
interstate compacts, and other public agencies, for high-speed and 
intercity passenger rail projects through the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA). Eligible projects include acquiring, 
constructing, improving, or inspecting equipment, track, and track 
structures, or a facility for use in or for the primary benefit of 
high-speed and intercity passenger rail service. Congress appropriated 
$8 billion for high-speed rail and intercity passenger rail in the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and $2.5 billion in the 
fiscal year 2010 Department of Transportation (DOT) Appropriations 
Act.[B] For fiscal year 2011, $400 million in unobligated funds were 
rescinded[C]; 
Example of use for air-rail projects: Baltimore/Washington 
International Thurgood Marshall Airport Amtrak station improvements, 
including planning for track and rail station upgrades. 

Source: Passenger Facility Charge program; 
Description: Authorizes commercial service airports to charge airline 
passengers a boarding charge of up to $4.50 to be collected by the 
airlines, after obtaining FAA approval. The fees are used by the 
airports to fund FAA approved projects that are on airport property, 
airport-owned, and exclusively serve airport traffic. These projects 
must enhance the safety, security, or capacity of air travel; 
reduce the impact of aviation noise; or increase air carrier 
competition. In calendar year 2012, $2.8 billion in fees were 
collected under this program; 
Example of use for air-rail projects: AirTrain automated people mover 
at Newark's Liberty International Airport. 

Source: Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program; 
Description: Provides direct loans and loan guarantees to railroads, 
state and local governments and Amtrak, among other entities, to 
finance the development of railroad infrastructure, including the 
development of new intermodal or railroad facilities. The program, 
administered by FRA, is authorized to provide up to $35 billion in 
loans or loan guarantees for eligible projects; 
Example of use for air-rail projects: GAO found no example of its use 
for air-rail projects. 

Source: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grants; 
Description: Provides discretionary grants through DOT, awarded on a 
competitive basis, to fund merit-based transportation projects 
expected to have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan 
area, or a region. Each project is multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional, 
or otherwise challenging to fund through existing programs. Eligible 
projects include capital investments in roads, highways, bridges, or 
transit; passenger and freight rail; and port infrastructure; as well 
as bicycle and pedestrian-related improvements. In fiscal year 2013, 
this program was funded at $474 million; 
Example of use for air-rail projects: GAO found no example of its use 
for air-rail projects. 

Source: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 
1998, as amended[D]; 
Description: Provides federal credit assistance for surface 
transportation projects jointly through the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and FRA. Project 
sponsors may include public, private, state, or local entities. 
Projects eligible for credit assistance include intercity passenger 
rail facilities and vehicles, such as those owned by Amtrak, as well 
as projects otherwise eligible for federal assistance through existing 
surface transportation programs. In fiscal year 2013, this program was 
funded at $750 million; 
Example of use for air-rail projects: Miami Intermodal Center at Miami 
International Airport[E]. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] In fiscal year 2013, approximately $3.4 billion was made available 
for obligation for the AIP program. On May 1, 2013, the Reducing 
Flight Delays Act of 2013 was enacted. It authorized the Secretary of 
Transportation to transfer an amount, not to exceed $253 million, from 
the AIP program to the FAA operations account that the Secretary of 
Transportation determines to be necessary to prevent reduced 
operations and staffing of the FAA during fiscal year 2013. Pub. L. 
No. 113-9, 127 Stat. 443. 

[B] Pub. L. No. 111-5, div. A., title XII, 123 Stat. 115, 208 (Feb. 
17, 2009); Pub. L. No. 111-117, div. A, title I, 123 Stat. 3034, 3056 
(Dec. 16, 2009). 

[C] Pub. L. No. 112-10, div. B, title II, § 2222, 125 Stat. 28, 193 
(Apr. 15, 2011). 

[D] 23 U.S.C. §§ 601-609. 

[E] In addition to these funds, the Miami Intermodal Center will also 
use state and local funding, as well as funds generated from rental 
car facility charges and toll road revenue to complete the project. 
The amount of private funding for this project has yet to be 
determined. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Distances between Large and Medium Hub Airport Terminals 
and Amtrak Stations in the Contiguous United States: 

Distance between airport and nearest Amtrak station[A]: 0 to 5 miles 
(21 airports): 

Airport name: Albuquerque International Sunport; 
Airport location: Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Airport name: Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall; 
Airport location: Glen Burnie, Maryland. 

Airport name: Bob Hope; 
Airport location: Burbank, California. 

Airport name: Bradley International; 
Airport location: Windsor Locks, Connecticut. 

Airport name: Buffalo Niagara International; 
Airport location: Buffalo, New York. 

Airport name: Chicago Midway International; 
Airport location: Chicago, Illinois. 

Airport name: Eppley Airfield; 
Airport location: Omaha, Nebraska. 

Airport name: Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International; 
Airport location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Airport name: General Edward Lawrence Logan International; 
Airport location: Boston, Massachusetts. 

Airport name: General Mitchell International; 
Airport location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

Airport name: Metropolitan Oakland International; 
Airport location: Oakland, California. 

Airport name: Miami International; 
Airport location: Miami, Florida. 

Airport name: Newark Liberty International; 
Airport location: Newark, New Jersey. 

Airport name: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International; 
Airport location: San Jose, California. 

Airport name: Ontario International; 
Airport location: Ontario, California. 

Airport name: Palm Beach International; 
Airport location: West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Airport name: Reno/Tahoe International; 
Airport location: Reno, Nevada. 

Airport name: Ronald Reagan Washington National; 
Airport location: Arlington, Virginia. 

Airport name: Salt Lake City International; 
Airport location: Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Airport name: San Diego International; 
Airport location: San Diego, California. 

Airport name: Seattle-Tacoma International; 
Airport location: Seattle, Washington. 

More than 5 miles to 10 miles (21 airports): 

Airport name: Austin-Bergstrom International; 
Airport location: Austin, Texas. 

Airport name: Charlotte/Douglas International; 
Airport location: Charlotte, North Carolina. 

Airport name: Chicago O'Hare International; 
Airport location: Chicago, Illinois. 

Airport name: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International; 
Airport location: Greater Cincinnati, Kentucky. 

Airport name: Dallas Love Field; 
Airport location: Dallas, Texas. 

Airport name: Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County; 
Airport location: Detroit, Michigan. 

Airport name: Indianapolis International; 
Airport location: Indianapolis, Indiana. 

Airport name: Jacksonville International; 
Airport location: Jacksonville, Florida. 

Airport name: John Wayne Airport-Orange County; 
Airport location: Santa Ana, California. 

Airport name: La Guardia; 
Airport location: New York, New York. 

Airport name: Memphis International; 
Airport location: Memphis, Tennessee. 

Airport name: Minneapolis-St. Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain; 
Airport location: Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Airport name: Orlando International; 
Airport location: Orlando, Florida. 

Airport name: Philadelphia International; 
Airport location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Airport name: Portland International; 
Airport location: Portland, Oregon. 

Airport name: Raleigh-Durham International; 
Airport location: Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Airport name: Sacramento International; 
Airport location: Sacramento, California. 

Airport name: San Antonio International; 
Airport location: San Antonio, Texas. 

Airport name: Tampa International; 
Airport location: Tampa, Florida. 

Airport name: Theodore Francis Green State; 
Airport location: Providence, Rhode Island. 

Airport name: William P. Hobby; 
Airport location: Houston, Texas. 

More than 10 miles to 20 miles (13 airports): 

Airport name: Cleveland-Hopkins International; 
Airport location: Cleveland, Ohio. 

Airport name: Dallas/Fort Worth International; 
Airport location: Fort Worth, Texas. 

Airport name: Denver International; 
Airport location: Denver, Colorado. 

Airport name: George Bush Intercontinental/Houston; 
Airport location: Houston, Texas. 

Airport name: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International; 
Airport location: Atlanta, Georgia. 

Airport name: John F. Kennedy International; 
Airport location: New York, New York. 

Airport name: Kansas City International; 
Airport location: Kansas City, Missouri. 

Airport name: Lambert-St. Louis International; 
Airport location: St. Louis, Missouri. 

Airport name: Los Angeles International; 
Airport location: Los Angeles, California. 

Airport name: Louis Armstrong New Orleans International; 
Airport location: New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Airport name: Pittsburgh International; 
Airport location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Airport name: San Francisco International; 
Airport location: San Francisco, California. 

Airport name: Washington Dulles International; 
Airport location: Dulles, Virginia. 

More than 20 miles (5 airports): 

Airport name: McCarran International; 
Airport location: Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Airport name: Nashville International; 
Airport location: Nashville, Tennessee. 

Airport name: Phoenix Sky Harbor International; 
Airport location: Phoenix, Arizona. 

Airport name: Port Columbus International; 
Airport location: Columbus, Ohio. 

Airport name: Southwest Florida International; 
Airport location: Fort Myers, Florida. 

Source: GAO analysis of National Transportation Atlas Database. 

Note: This analysis does not include large and medium hub airports 
located outside of the contiguous United States. Specifically, this 
analysis does not include Honolulu International Airport in Honolulu, 
Hawaii; Kahului Airport in Kahului, Hawaii; Luis Munoz Marin 
International Airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Ted Stevens 
Anchorage International Airport in Anchorage, Alaska. 

[A] The distance between each airport and the nearest Amtrak station 
was calculated using linear distance between the longitude and 
latitude coordinate of each airport and Amtrak stations, as identified 
in the National Transportation Atlas Database for 2012. The distance 
between each airport and the nearest Amtrak station reflects the 
linear distance between the two locations, and may be affected by 
existing buildings, roads, bridges, or other obstacles in the path of 
a traveler connecting between an airport and an Amtrak station. Amtrak 
officials noted that, in some locations, it provides service that may 
operate in close proximity to an airport, but may not have an Amtrak 
station near that airport. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834, or dillinghamg@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact listed above, Teresa Spisak (Assistant 
Director), Matt Voit, Rosa Leung, Paul Aussendorf, Leia Dickerson, 
Patrick Dudley, Lorraine Ettaro, Jessica Evans, Kathleen Gilhooly, 
Delwen Jones, Richard Jorgenson, Jill Lacey, John Mingus, and Josh 
Ormond made major contributions to this product. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Intermodal Transportation: Potential Strategies Would 
Redefine Federal Role in Developing Airport Intermodal Capabilities, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-727] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 26, 2005). 

[2] Pub. L. No.112-95, § 810, 126 Stat. 11,123 (Feb. 14, 2012). 

[3] We received a 95 percent (40 out of 42) response rate for the 
first stage of the survey. 

[4] We received a 98 percent (41 out of 42) response rate for the 
second stage of the survey. 

[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-692SP]. 

[6] FAA has established airport hub size categories based on the 
number of passengers boarding an aircraft (enplaned) for all 
operations of U.S. carriers in the United States. A large hub 
commercial service airport has 1 percent or more of total annual 
passenger boarding. A medium hub commercial service airport has at 
least 0.25 percent but less than 1 percent of total annual passenger 
boarding. 

[7] We reviewed air-rail connectivity efforts at Baltimore/Washington 
International Thurgood Marshall (BWI) Airport, Bob Hope Airport, 
Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International 
Airport, Miami International Airport, General Mitchell International 
Airport, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, and Newark 
Liberty International Airport. 

[8] GAO, High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on 
Addressing Financial and Other Challengers and Establishing a Clear 
Federal Role, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-317] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2009). 

[9] For example, a code-sharing agreement between an airline and 
Amtrak would allow passengers to make reservations and purchase a 
ticket with the airline for both air and rail travel. 

[10] For more information, see GAO, California High-Speed Passenger 
Rail: Project Estimates Could Be Improved to Better Inform Future 
Decisions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-304] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2013). 

[11] An automated people mover is a guided transit mode with fully 
automated operation, featuring vehicles that operate on "guideways" 
with exclusive right-of-way, such as an automated monorail system. 

[12] 49 U.S.C. § 47101(a)(5). 

[13] Pub. L. No.112-95, §131, 126 Stat. 11, 21 codified at 49 U.S.C. § 
47101(g)(2)C). 

[14] Pub. L. No. 110-432, div. B, title V, § 501,122 Stat. 4848, 4907, 
4959 (Oct. 16, 2008); Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 208 (Feb 17, 
2009). 

[15] Pub. L. No. 110-432, div. B, title V, § 501, 122 Stat. 4848, 
4907, 4962. 

[16] Pub. L. No. 112-141. 126 Stat. 405 (July 6, 2012). 

[17] AIP grants are one of five major sources of funding for airport 
improvements. Airports also typically make use of four other major 
sources to fund capital projects: tax-exempt bonds, state and local 
grants, airport revenue, and passenger facility charges. 

[18] 49 U.S.C. §§ 47107(b)(1), 47133(a). 

[19] Light rail refers to trains that may operate on exclusive tracks 
or on tracks in the street on the same level with pedestrians and car 
traffic. 

[20] RITA is responsible for coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing 
DOT's programs and activities to identify research duplication and 
opportunities for joint efforts and to ensure that research, 
development, and technology activities are meeting intended goals. 

[21] European Commission, Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area -
-Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System, COM 
(2011) 144 final (Brussels, BD: Mar. 28, 2011). 

[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-727]. 

[23] As of May 30, 2013, retail gas prices in European Commission 
countries averaged $7.11 per gallon, while in the United States, gas 
prices averaged $3.66 nationwide. 

[24] Reinhard Clever and Mark M. Hansen, "Interaction of Air and High-
Speed Rail in Japan," Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 
Transportation Research Board, no. 2043 (2008). 

[25] To determine the extent that air-rail connectivity has been 
developed in the contiguous United States, we selected 60 airports, 
consisting of the 28 large hubs, and the 32 medium hub airports 
located in the contiguous United States based on the 2011 FAA's Air 
Carrier Activity Information System database for analysis. We limited 
our analysis to the 60 major airports in the contiguous United States 
because they accounted for approximately 86 percent of U.S. passenger 
enplanements for calendar year 2011. 

[26] We based our analysis on linear distance using latitude and 
longitude information for each of the 60 airports and the nearest 
Amtrak station; the linear distance may not reflect the actual 
distance that passengers experience depending on the transportation 
mode, local roads, or paths used. For a complete list of linear 
distances between large and medium hub airports and the nearest Amtrak 
station, see appendix IV. 

[27] Bob Hope Airport also provides free shuttle services to the 
Amtrak station at the airport and downtown Burbank. 

[28] For example, at Theodore Francis Green State Airport in Warwick, 
Rhode Island, Amtrak's service passes through but does not stop at a 
local commuter rail station located near the airport terminal. 

[29] Amtrak, Amtrak Strategic Plan, FY 2011-FY 2015. 

[30] The Chicago Department of Transportation's Union Station Master 
Plan (2012) recommends reconfiguring the station's tracks and 
platforms in a manner that could allow some Amtrak trains to serve 
Chicago O'Hare International Airport in addition to Union Station. 
According to the Chicago Department of Transportation, it is currently 
conducting a second stage of the Master Plan to estimate the amount of 
train and passenger capacity that the proposed improvements could add, 
building the case for the future federal, state, and local funding 
support needed to make the improvements. 

[31] Benjamin R. Sperry, Shawn Larson, David Leucinger, Scott 
Janowiak, and Curtis A. Morgan, "Intercity Passenger Rail Access to 
Airports: Case Study in Milwaukee, Wisconsin," Transportation Research 
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no. 2300 (2012). 

[32] Matthew A. Coogan, "Quantifying the Scale of Air/Rail 
Complementarity and Air/Rail Competition in Europe and the United 
States," (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Transportation 
Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 2012). 

[33] For example, at BWI, Icelandair and Amtrak had put in place a 
code share agreement prior to Icelandair's discontinued service at BWI 
in 2008. Additionally, Amtrak was approached by Midwest Airlines at 
General Mitchell International, but both Amtrak and Midwest Airlines 
agreed that there was no benefit to a formal code share program. 
Airline officials cited operational and logistical challenges such as 
incompatible reservation systems, lack of reliable and frequent rail 
service, as well as lack of control and liability from rail delays as 
reasons for not pursuing code-share agreements. 

[34] Amtrak and Continental Airlines began the code share agreement in 
2001. With Continental's merger with United Airlines, this 
relationship has transitioned to one with United. The agreement also 
allows Amtrak to transport airline passengers between Newark Liberty 
International, BWI, and Philadelphia International during inclement 
weather or when there are disruptions to flight services. 

[35] We contacted United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, U.S. Airways, and 
American Airlines. 

[36] Experts rated each of the potential benefits identified in the 
first stage as "very important," "important," "somewhat important," 
"not important," "not a benefit," or that they had "no opinion." For 
more information on our survey and results, see appendix I and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-692SP] respectively. 

[37] Specifically, 23 of 41 experts that responded to the survey rated 
increased passenger convenience as a "very important" benefit while 21 
of 40 responding experts rated increased travel options as a "very 
important" benefit. The total number of experts who responded to each 
survey question slightly varied. 

[38] Benjamin R. Sperry and Curtis A. Morgan, Texas Transportation 
Institute, "Intercity Passenger Rail: Implications for Urban, 
Regional, and National Mobility," University Transportation Center for 
Mobility Report 11-10-75 (College Station, TX: December 2011). 

[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-317]. 

[40] GAO, Intercity Passenger Rail: Issues for Consideration in 
Developing an Intercity Passenger Rail Policy, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-712T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 
2003). 

[41] Transportation Research Board, Innovative Approaches to 
Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-Regions, Airport 
Cooperative Research Program Report 31 (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 

[42] GAO, National Airspace System: Regional Airport Planning Could 
Help Address Congestion If Plans Were Integrated with FAA Airport 
Decision Making, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-120] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 23, 2009). 

[43] European Commission, Roadmap to a Single European Transport 
Area - Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System, 
COM (2011) 144 final (Brussels, BD: Mar. 28, 2011). 

[44] Massimiliano Zanin, Ricardo Herranz, and Sophie Ladousse, 
"Environmental benefits of air-rail intermodality: The example of 
Madrid Barajas," Transportation Research Part E 48 (2012). Paul 
Chiambaretto, Christopher Decker, "Air-rail Intermodal Agreements: 
Balancing the Competition and Environmental Effects," Journal of Air 
Transport Management 23 (2012). 

[45] Anthony Perl and John Calimente, "Integrating High-Speed Rail 
into North America's Next Mobility Transition," Environmental 
Practice, Vol 13 (2011). 

[46] See for example, Wolfgang G. Grimme, "Air/Rail Passenger 
Intermodality Concepts in Germany," World Review of Intermodal 
Transportation Research, vol. 1, no. 3 (2007). 

[47] Pub. L. No. 110-432, div. B, title II, § 209, 122 Stat. 4848, 
4907, 4917-4918. The routes include high-speed rail corridors 
designated by the Secretary of Transportation (other than the 
Northeast Corridor railroad line, which extends from Boston, 
Massachusetts, to Washington, D.C.); short-distance corridors and 
routes currently part of the national rail passenger transportation 
system that do not exceed 750 miles between their endpoints; and 
intercity rail routes not included in the national rail passenger 
transportation system that Amtrak operates on behalf of state or local 
entities. 

[48] GAO, State and Local Governments' Fiscal Outlook April 2013 
Update, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-546SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2013). 

[49] The Association of American Railroads is a trade association 
whose membership includes freight railroads that operate 82 percent of 
the line-haul mileage, employ 95 percent of the workers, and account 
for 97 percent of the freight revenue of all railroads in the United 
States, and passenger railroads that operate intercity passenger 
trains and provide commuter rail service. 

[50] NextGen is FAA's initiative to transform the nation's existing 
ground-based air-traffic control system to an air-traffic management 
system using satellite-based navigation and other advanced technology. 
FAA estimates that NextGen improvements through 2030 may cost 
approximately $37 billion. 

[51] In our survey, experts rated factors that were identified by 
other experts as either facilitating or hindering air-rail 
connectivity. For factors identified as facilitating air-rail 
connectivity, experts rated each factor as "greatly facilitates," 
"facilitates," "somewhat facilitates," "does not facilitate," "not a 
factor," or that they had "no opinion." Similarly, for factors that 
were identified by experts to hinder air-rail connectivity, experts 
rated each factor as "greatly hinders," "hinders," "somewhat hinders," 
"does not hinder," "not a factor," or that they had "no opinion." For 
more information on our survey and results, see appendix I and 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-692SP], respectively. 

[52] Anthony Perl and John Calimente, "Integrating High-Speed Rail 
into North America's Next Mobility Transition," Environmental 
Practice, Vol. 13 (2011). 

[53] Department of Transportation, Vision for High-Speed Rail in 
America (Washington, D.C.: April 2009). 

[54] Department of Transportation, Transportation for a New 
Generation: Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2012-16. 

[55] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-727]. 

[56] GAO, Grants to State and Local Governments: An Overview of 
Federal Funding Levels and Selected Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1016] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 25, 
2012). 

[57] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2013). 

[58] GAO, High-Speed Passenger Rail: Preliminary Assessment of 
California's Cost Estimates and Other Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-163T] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 
2012). 

[59] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-304]. 

[60] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-304]. 

[61] Approximately the same number of experts rated the lack of close 
proximity as a factor that greatly hindered air-rail project 
development. 

[62] Based on a review of 60 major airports' ground transportation 
pages on their websites in April 2013. 

[63] Experts in our survey identified and rated 34 strategies. When 
rating the importance of a potential strategy, experts were asked to 
rate the strategy as either "very important," "important," "somewhat 
important," "not important," or that they had "no opinion." Similarly, 
experts were asked to rate the feasibility of a strategy as "very 
feasible," "feasible," "somewhat feasible," "not feasible," or that 
they had "no opinion." For a full accounting of our results, please 
see [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-692SP]. 

[64] For more information on these and other selected programs that 
may be used to fund and finance air-rail connectivity, see appendix 
III. 

[65] "Gray literature" publications may include, but are not limited 
to, the following types of materials: reports (pre-prints, preliminary 
progress and advanced reports, technical reports, statistical reports, 
memorandums, state-of-the art reports, market research reports, etc.), 
theses, conference proceedings, technical specifications and 
standards, non-commercial translations, bibliographies, technical and 
commercial documentation, and official documents not published 
commercially (primarily government reports and documents). 

[66] Airport hub size categories are based on the number of passengers 
boarding an aircraft (enplaned) for all operations of U.S. carriers in 
the United States. A large hub commercial service airport has 1 
percent or more of total annual passenger boarding. A medium hub 
commercial service airport has at least 0.25 percent but less than 1 
percent of total annual passenger boarding. 

[67] The Delphi method, developed by the RAND Corporation in the 
1950s, is most commonly applied in a group-discussion forum. We 
modified the approach to have the group discussion take place in the 
form of a web-based forum. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]