Each Level of Government and the Private Sector Play a Role in Developing Intermodal Capabilities at U.S. The federal government  has not established specific goals or funding programs to develop  intermodal capabilities at airports, but it does provide oversight and  funding when projects fit the criteria for funding programs focused on one  or more individual modes. State and Local Governments Have the Primary Responsibility for Developing Intermodal Capabilities

In line with federal transportation legislation’s focus on state and local  government decisionmaking, intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports are  typically initiated and developed by state and local transportation agencies,  including some combination of state departments of transportation, local  transportation planning bodies (i.e., metropolitan planning organizations),  airports, and local transit agencies. The second theme we found is that local transit agencies are heavily  involved in intermodal connections that are part of a new or existing transit  system. Most Major U.S. Airports Have Direct Connections to Local Transportation Services, but Very Few Have Direct Connections to Nationwide Rail or Bus Systems

Based on our survey of all large and medium and certain small hub U.S.  airports, most airports have direct connections to rail or bus systems,  with some airports having direct connections to more than one type of  ground transportation. 4.) Nationwide Ground Transportation Options from Airports are Limited

While most major U.S. airports are located in metropolitan areas that have  stations for nationwide transportation systems such as Greyhound or  Amtrak, only 19 airports reported having direct connections to these  stations. The potential reduction of short-haul flights could allow airlines to  reallocate airport capacity to long-distance flights, which generally have  lower costs per mile. Barriers Impede the Development and Use of Intermodal Capabilities

A significant barrier to the development of intermodal capabilities is the  lack of specific national goals or funding programs to develop intermodal  capabilities at airports, as mentioned earlier in this report. A number of  other barriers also impede the development of intermodal capabilities at  airports, including the difficulty of securing funding, disincentives for  airport support, and geographical and physical land constraints at airports. Two Key Strategies Could Help Address Intermodal Transportation Planning and Financing Limitations

Using our past work and our analysis of information obtained from  government and transportation officials in the United States and Europe,  we identified two strategies that could help public decision makers  improve intermodal options at airports, particularly direct connections to  local and nationwide rail systems. It would most likely lead to a  continued focus on the development of local intermodal connections rather  than a fully integrated nationwide system. The second strategy would  involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation policy’s long-time  focus on state and local decisionmaking by increasing the role of the  federal government in planning and funding intermodal projects in order to  develop more integrated air and rail networks, either nationwide or along  particularly congested corridors. These  alternatives include:  Increasing the flexibility of current programs. Benefits Likely to Be Focused on Local, Not Nationwide Travel

While this strategy of encouraging a more systemwide approach to  transportation planning and development could address a number of  barriers to developing intermodal services at airports, it would likely  support the development of connections to local transit networks instead  of to a nationwide rail network. Such a  strategy would involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation  policy’s focus on state and local decisionmaking for transportation projects  and would be closer to the intermodal development strategy followed by  the European Union (and several European countries) with the goal of  promoting rail as a complement to air transportation. However, only where both the private  and the public benefits are large would the appropriate subsidy be  sufficient to cover the difference between what users would be willing to  pay and the substantial cost of the facility. Agency Comments

We provided drafts of this report to DOT and Amtrak for their review and  comment. Overall, DOT generally concurred with this report. Amtrak had no comments on this report. (3) What  benefits, costs, and barriers exist for developing additional intermodal  capabilities at U.S. airports? To address these questions, we used a variety of methods and sources of  information. Local rail: Passengers can access the local rail transit system at both of  the airport’s terminals.
Why GAO Did This Study

With the number of airplane passengers using U.S. airports expected to grow to almost 1 billion by the year 2015, ground access to U.S. airports has become an important factor in the development of our nation's transportation networks. Increases in the number of passengers traveling to and from airports will place greater strains on our nation's airport access roads and airport capacity, which can have a number of negative economic and social effects. U.S. transportation policy has generally addressed these negative economic and social effects from the standpoint of individual transportation modes and local government involvement. However, European transportation policy is increasingly focusing on intermodal transportation as a possible means to address congestion without sacrificing economic growth. This report addresses the development of intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports, including (1) the roles of different levels of government and the private sector; (2) the extent such facilities have been developed; (3) benefits, costs, and barriers to such development; and (4) strategies to improve these capabilities. GAO provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Amtrak. DOT generally concurred with the report, and Amtrak had no comments.

What GAO Found

State and local government agencies have primary responsibility for developing intermodal capabilities at U.S. airports. Generally airports and local transit agencies are heavily involved, especially if these projects are part of a local transit system. The federal government has not established specific goals or funding programs to develop intermodal capabilities at airports. However, it provides funding for projects fitting the criteria of other programs. The private sector may undertake a variety of roles. Most major U.S. airports have direct connections to local transit systems rather than to nationwide rail or bus systems. For example, 64 out of 72 airports have connections to local bus systems, and 27 airports have connections to local rail systems. At the same time, only 19 airports have connections to nationwide rail or bus systems. A number of airports have plans to enhance their connections to local rail and bus systems. U.S. and European transportation officials and experts cited the benefits for intermodal capabilities at airports to include increased transportation options, reduced road congestion, and reduced short-haul flights. The costs of intermodal projects using rail are typically significant. Barriers cited include the difficulty of securing needed funding, disincentives for airport support such as potential reductions in airport parking revenue, geographical and physical land constraints, limitations of the existing nationwide rail network, and inconveniences in comparison to using cars that limit consumer demand. Two differing strategies developed from our prior work would help public decision makers improve intermodal capabilities at airports. The first strategy would increase flexibility within current federal transportation programs to encourage a more systemwide approach to transportation planning and development. The second strategy would involve a fundamental shift in federal transportation policy's focus on local decision making by increasing the role of the federal government in order to develop more integrated air and rail networks and would be closer to the strategy followed in Europe. While the first strategy would most likely lead to a continued focus on the development of intermodal connections to local transit systems, the second strategy could develop more integrated air and rail networks, either nationwide or along particularly congested corridors. The second strategy would be costly, and high benefits, which would be difficult to achieve, would be needed to justify this investment.