Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd

Assessing some social and environmental effects of transforming

an airport into a real multimodal transport node
Milan Janic
OTB Research Institute, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This paper deals with assessing some social and environmental effects of transforming a
Airport large airport into a real multimodal transport node. Such transformation implies connect-
Real multimodal transport node ing this given airport to the High-Speed Rail (HSR) transport network, which enables the
Social and environmental impacts substitution of certain Air Passenger Transport (APT) mainly short-haul ights with equiv-
Mitigation
alent HSR services. This substitution can occur through competition and/or because of
Substitution
Short-haul ights
complementarity of the two modes. The effects include potential savings in the quantities
High-Speed Rail and related costs of social and environmental impacts such as airport airside delays, noise,
and local and global emissions of greenhouse gases. A methodology for quantifying these
savings is developed and applied to a large European airport according to the what-if sce-
nario approach.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Growing air transport demand and the inability to meet such demand efciently and effectively have caused many air-
ports particularly large airports to become increasingly congested. In the airport airside area, congestion causes increased
aircraft/airline and air passenger delays, noise, and air pollution, as well as related costs. One of the long-term alternatives for
mitigating these impacts is transforming some of these airports into real multimodal transport nodes. Usually, this implies
linking such airports to regional, national and international conventional and/or High-Speed Rail (HSR) surface transport net-
works. In case of the latter, the airport in question needs to be conveniently located near a HSR line which usually connects
large cities and/or urban agglomerations, thus making such connections an opportunity, rather than an exclusivity. Devel-
opments so far indicate that partial substitution of some Air Passenger Transport (APT) short-haul ights with HSR services,
either through modal competition or complementarity, has already taken place at four European hubs Frankfurt Main,
Paris CDG (Charles de Gaulle), Madrid Barajas, and Amsterdam Schiphol airport which are all connected to the Trans-
European High-Speed-Rail Network (UIC, 2002).
This paper deals with an assessment of the potential savings in the quantities and related costs of the social and environ-
mental impacts such as airport airside congestion and delays, noise, and emissions of greenhouse gases, which could be
achieved by substituting some APT short-haul ights with equivalent HSR services at a large congested European airport.
Other impacts, such as land use (take), incidents/accidents, devastation of landscape, ora and fauna, are not considered.
In addition to this introductory section, the paper consists of four other sections. Section 2 explains the characteristics
and possible interactions between HSR and APT in Europe, and the potential effects and conditions for implementing
APT/HSR substitution at airports. Section 3 develops a methodology for quantifying the potential savings in the quantities
and related costs of particular impacts airline and air passenger congestion and delays, noise, and emissions of greenhouse

Tel.: +31 (0) 15 278 78 99; fax: +31 (0) 15 278 34 50.
E-mail address: M.Janic@tudelft.nl

1361-9209/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.trd.2010.10.002
138 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149

gases which could be eventually achieved by the above-mentioned APT/HSR substitution. Section 4 presents an application
of the proposed methodology based on the what-if scenario approach. The nal section summarizes the main conclusions.

2. Some characteristics of HSR and APT in Europe

2.1. Development and possible interactions

HSR and APT services have experienced rather intensive growth in the European Union (EU) during the past decades. Spe-
cically, during the period 19902006, APT demand in the EU grew at an average annual rate of 5% (AEA, 2008; UIC, 2008).
During the same period, HSR trafc grew at an average annual rate of 16%, which is about three times faster than that of APT.
In addition to other demand driving forces, growth of HSR trafc has been crucially inuenced by progress in building the
HSR infrastructure network. Consequently, the most recent forecasts not taking into account the impact of the current global
economic crisis indicate that similar growth rates may be expected in the future, resulting in doubling the volumes of trafc
by the year 2015. In addition, after the end of the current crisis, APT trafc volumes are expected to continue to grow at rates
similar to those in the past (UIC, 2008).
HSR and APT may interact with each other through competition and complementarity, which usually results in substitu-
tion of services between the two modes (EC, 1998).
Competition between HSR and APT in Europe has already taken place in transport markets/corridors with substantive
volumes of origindestination (OD) passenger demand such as: MadridSeville, MadridBarcelona, LondonParis,
LondonBrussels, FrankfurtCologne, ParisMarseille, LondonManchester, and LondonEdinburgh (Janic, 2003; SDG,
2006). Fig. 1 shows that in the above mentioned markets/corridors with a travel time of between 1 and 3 h, HSR has taken
between a 30% and 90% market share from APT (SDG, 2006).
Complementarity between HSR and APT implies providing an integrated transport service by combining two modes
(Janic, forthcoming). In general, two types of complementary services may exist (UIC, 2008): (i) HSR services partially or
completely replace the APT feeder ights in collecting and distributing passengers between a given hub airport included
in the HSR network and particular spoke airports/cities as the passenger origins and/or destinations. These feeder HSR ser-
vices are connected to long-haul ights according to a balanced timetable. An example in Germany is substitution of some
APT short-haul feeder ights at Frankfurt Main airport with equivalent HSR services operated by German railways in
cooperation with the major airline Lufthansa; and (ii) APT connects the associated spokes to a given hub airport while
HSR exclusively provides the surface connection between the hubs connected by the HSR lines. An example is the HSR
exclusively connecting Paris CDG and Lyon-Satolas airport in France (ECMT, 2003).

2.2. The potential effects of APT/HSR substitution at an airport

The potential effects of substituting some APT short-haul ights with HSR services at a given airport can be expressed as
savings in the quantities of particular impacts such as airline and air passenger congestion and delays, noise and air pollu-
tion, and their costs for the parties involved. For example, the cost of congestion and delays of particular substituted APT
short-haul ights and the cost of eliminated congestion and delays, which these ights would otherwise impose on the other
ights while queuing together at a given airport, can be considered as savings in the interest of both airlines and air passen-
gers. The equivalent HSR services taking over air passengers from the substituted APT ights are considered free of conges-
tion and related delays in the above-mentioned sense. However, these air passengers are faced with schedule delays while
waiting for a HSR service at the given airport and possibly also to extra en-route time inuencing the total door-to-door
travel time (Janic, 2003). The potential savings of two other impacts and related costs noise as well as local and global

100
90
Rail market share - %

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rail journey time - hours

Fig. 1. Market share of HSR services competing with APT services, depending on journey time in selected European markets/corridors (SDG, 2006; EC,
2002).
 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149 139

greenhouse gas emissions are of particular relevance for the airports local community and society as a whole. Noise from
APT aircraft/ights and equivalent HSR services at a given airport has a different character. Noise of APT ights is measured
at the so-called noise reference locations within and around the airport area, usually during their arrival and departure.
The noise reference locations relevant in this case are those within or close to populated areas around the airport (ICAO,
1993a; Janic, 2007). The noise of HSR services generally increases with their operating speed and decreases with distance.
The sound progresses along and spreads around the HSR lines also passing through the area of the given airport. When
the HSR lines within the airport area are constructed underground (tunnel), the relatively lower intensity sound due to lower
HS train speed is completely absorbed inside and is thus irrelevant in the given context. However, on a wider scale, noise
from the substituting HSR services at the given airport may be a nuisance for the population living along and close to the
HSR lines. The proved remedy for mitigating such impacts has shown to be positioning the HSR lines sufciently far from
these areas and/or setting up convenient noise barriers (walls) (HMMH, 1996).
Local and global emissions of greenhouse gases from APT aircraft/ights and equivalent HSR services also have a different
character. The APT aircraft/ights are powered by jet engines which consume jet A fuel-kerosene, producing a range of
greenhouse gasses at different rates during the ight(s). The quantity of emissions of these gases air pollutants can be
expressed as CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents) including components such as CO, CO2 (carbon monoxide/dioxide), H2O
(water vapor), NOx (nitrogen oxides), SO2 (sulfur dioxide), and PM others. They are deposited directly in the high-altitude
atmosphere during the cruising phase of ights (global impact) and around airports during the LTO (landing and take-off)
cycles (ICAO, 1993b; Janic, 2007). HSR services in Europe usually consume electricity at a constant rate, in quantities propor-
tional to the length of the trip, depending on the HSR technology. In this case, the local emissions of CO2e from sources used
for producing electricity powering HSR services (trains) are considered. In addition, the rates of emitted CO2e per unit of elec-
tricity produced are country specic (Lukaszewicz and Anderson, 2009).

2.3. Conditions for implementing APT/HSR substitution at an airport

In order to implement APT/HSR substitution at a given airport, the following important pre-conditions which relate to
removing or substantially mitigating existing barriers need to be fullled:

(i) The given airport needs to be connected to the HSR network in order to enable APT/HSR substitution.
(ii) HSR services need to provide sufcient capacity to accommodate air passengers transferred from the substituted APT
ights. In cases of substitution through competition, the HSR operators provide this capacity exclusively. In cases of
substitution through complementarity, this capacity is provided through different air/rail code-sharing agreements
and alliance partnerships. Some examples in Europe are the partnerships between the French national airline Air
France and the national and international rail operators SNCF and Thalys, respectively, as well as between Lufthansa
and DB (German National Railways) at Frankfurt Main airport (ECMT, 2003; SDG, 2006).
(iii) APT/HSR substitution through complementarity is viable only if the generalized travel cost of air passengers switched
from APT to HSR remain very similar.
(iv) HSR stations at airports needs to be designed and constructed as to enable efcient and effective transfer of air pas-
sengers and their baggage between the two systems/modes. This primarily applies to the necessary information, walk-
ing distances and time, and handling and transfer of baggage.

3. Methodology for assessing effects of substituting APT with HSR at an airport

3.1. Background

Research on the relationship between HSR and APT in Europe has mainly focused on proving the operational, economic,
and particularly the environmental advantages of HSR compared to APT, especially while competing with each other in
short-haul markets/corridors. The ndings from such research have been conrmed in practice as HSR has gained a substan-
tial market share in many of these markets/routes (see Fig. 1). However, no exclusive research on the potential contribution
of HSR to mitigating airport airside congestion and delays, noise, and local and global emission of greenhouse gases by
substituting particular APT services/ights through either competition or complementarity has been carried out. In Europe,
an exception is the research carried out by EUROCONTROL, which dealt with airport intermodality in a rather qualitative way
(EEC, 2005). In the US, research in quite a different context by Zhang and Hansen (2007) addressed the optimization of the
total costs of substituting ights expected to experience long delays at a given hub airport operating under capacity con-
straints with coach services. In addition, transferring these affected ights to a reliever hub was considered. Therefore,
the main objectives in dealing with these research and practical issues are:

 Developing a methodology for assessing the potential savings of airside congestion and delays, noise, local and global
emissions of greenhouse gases, and their costs, which could be achieved by substituting some APT short-haul ights with
equivalent HSR services at a given airport.
 Carrying out a sensitivity analysis of particular savings with respect to changes of the most inuencing factors such as the
number of APT ights to be substituted.
140 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149

The potential savings in the other social and environmental impacts such as trafc accidents/incidents, waste, land take
(use), ora/fauna, landscape, and water sources are not considered.

The methodology is based on the following assumptions:

 The substitutive capacity of HSR services at a given airport is sufcient to accommodate air passengers from the substi-
tuted APT ights.
 The APT aircraft/ight demand including ights to be substituted can be lower, equal, or greater than the airport runway
service rate, i.e. capacity.
 The APT ights to be substituted with HSR services during a given period of time are similar as regards the costs of delay,
noise, and local and global air pollution rates; the remaining ights also possess rather homogenous characteristics, but
different from those substituted.
 Congestion and delays, noise, and emissions of greenhouse gases by the ground access systems of airports and HSR sta-
tions at the beginning and end of the corresponding incoming and outgoing APT/HSR routes to/from a given airport,
respectively, are not considered.
 The noise and air pollution by serving the potentially substituted APT aircraft/ights at the apron/gate complex of a given
airport as well as those at their origin/destination airports are also not considered.

3.2. Structure of the methodology

The proposed methodology consists of three models: (i) a model for estimating savings of airline and air passenger delays
and related costs; (ii) a model for estimating savings of the noise burden and related costs; and (iii) a model for assessing
savings of greenhouse gas emissions and related costs.

3.2.1. The model for estimating savings of congestion and delays

The model for estimating savings in congestion and delays consists of six sub-models: (i) sub-model of APT aircraft/ight
delays at a given airport; (ii) sub-model of the cost of delays of substituted ights; (iii) sub-model of the cost of eliminated
delays of ights remaining in the queue; (iv) sub-model of the total eliminated cost of delays due to APT/HSR substitution;
(v) sub-model of the cost of time of air passengers switching to HSR services; and (vi) sub-model of the total cost savings of
airline and air passenger delays.

3.2.1.1. The APT aircraft/ight delays at a given airport. The prospective savings of cost of airline and air passenger delays are
estimated by the stochastic and deterministic queuing model. The former is applied when APT ight demand is lower or
nearly equal to the airport runway service rate, i.e., capacity. The latter is applied when APT demand exceeds the service rate.
(a) The APT aircraft/ight demand is lower than or nearly equal to capacity: In this case, the average delay per APT ight
while waiting for arrival at a given airport during the time period Dti (i = 1, 2, . . . , M) can be estimated by using the stochastic
queuing model as follows (Janic, 2009):
ki r2i 1=l2i
wi ki 1a
21  ki =li
where ki is the average arrival rate of APT ights during the time interval Dti (aircraft per unit of time); li is the average APT
aircraft/ight service rate during the time interval Dti as the reciprocal of the mean service time for arrivals li 1=t i where
ti is the minimum average service time per arrival (time units)); and ri is the standard deviation of APT ights inter arrival
time (time units).
(b) The APT aircraft/ight demand exceeds capacity: The average delay of an APT aircraft/ight requesting service during the
time interval Dti can be estimated with the deterministic queuing model applied to the situation shown in Fig. 2 (Janic,
2009): there, the APT aircraft/ight demand exceeds the airport runway capacity for a relatively long period of time (s)
(i.e. for several hours during the day). The cumulative counts of arriving and serviced demand are represented by curves
A(t) and D(t), respectively.
In the particular time interval Dti, the derivative of curve A(t) with respect to time gives the intensity of demand ki =
dA[(Dti)]/dt. Similarly, the derivative of curve D(t) gives the corresponding service rate: li = dD[(Dti)]/dt, which in the given
case is lower than the arrival rate ki. From Fig. 2, the average delay of an APT aircraft/ight requesting service during the time
period (s) can be estimated as follows (Janic, 2009):
Z s
 s 1=As 
w At  Dtdt 1b
0

Analogously, the average delay of an APT aircraft/ight during the time interval Dti can be estimated as (Janic, 2009):
ni1 1=2ki  li Dti
wi ki 1c
ki
where ni is the number of APT aircraft/ights not served in the time interval Dti.
 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149 141

900
Demand
Capacity
800 The Independence Day 2001

Cumulative demand/capacity
700

600
A(t)
500 D(t)

400 Delay of the last aircraft

in the queue: 48 min
300

200 Q(t) = A(t) D(t); Q(t) at 13h: 40 aircraft

100
t1
t2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time - hours

Fig. 2. Cumulative count of the demand, capacity and resulting congestion and delays at NY LGA airport (compiled from: FAA, 2007).

The other symbols are analogous to those in Expression (1).Expressions (1a)(1c) can be applied to estimate the delays of
either arriving or departing APT ights to be substituted by incoming and outgoing equivalent HSR services, respectively.

3.2.1.2. The cost of delays of substituted ights. The total delays of Ni APT aircraft/ights to be substituted by equivalent HSR
services during the time interval Dti can be estimated by applying either Expression (1a), (1c) as follows:
wi Ni wi ki Ni 2a
The cost of airline and air passenger delays of the substituted APT aircraft/ights Ni in the time interval Dti can be esti-
mated based on Expression (2a) as follows:
C 1=1i Ni wi Ni c1i Si a1i hi Si  c2i Si a2i hi Si ci wi ki  2b
where c1i(Si), c2i(Si) is the average cost of direct (experienced) and propagated delays, respectively, of an APT aircraft/ight
with an average seating capacity Si (/min); a1i, a2i is the average value of time of a passenger onboard an APT ight from
group Ni experiencing direct and propagated delays, respectively (/min-pass); and ci wi ki  is the delay multiplier of an
APT ight from group Ni.
Other symbols are analogous to those in the previous expressions.
The delay multiplier ci[wi(ki)] in Expression (2b) reects propagation of delays downstream of the daily itinerary of the
affected aircraft and air passengers onboard. In general, this multiplier depends on the duration of the initial delay. The unit
cost of airline delays c1i(Si) generally depends on the location of these delays on the ground before take-off from the origin
airport, usually with the engines switched-off, or airborne within the vicinity of a given (destination) airport (EEC, 2004).

3.2.1.3. The cost of eliminated delays of remaining ights. The savings of delays of ights remaining in the airport queue in the
time interval Dti are estimated using Expression (1a), (1c) as follows:

Dwi Ni wi ki  wi ki  Ni =Dt i ki Dt i  N i  3a

where all symbols are analogous to those in the previous expressions.
Consequently, the savings in costs of airline and air passenger delays of ights (kiDti  Ni) remaining in the queue can be
estimated as:

C 1=2i Ni fwi ki c3i Si a3i xi Si  c4i Si a4i xi Si ci wi ki   wi ki  N=Dti c3i Si a3i xi Si 
c4i Si a4i xi Si ci wi k  Ni =Dt i gki Dti  Ni 3b

where Si is the average seating capacity of a ight remaining in the queue in time interval Dti (seats); x is the average load
factor of a ight remaining in the queue in time interval Dti; c3i(Si), c4i(Si) is the average airline cost of direct (experienced)
and propagated delay, respectively, of an APT aircraft/ight with an average seating capacity Si, remaining in the queue in the
time interval Dt (/min); and a3i, a4i is the average value of time of a passenger onboard a ight experiencing direct and
propagated delays, respectively, in the time interval Dti (/min-pass).
The other symbols are analogous to those in the previous expressions.

3.2.1.4. The total cost of eliminated delays due to APT/HSR substitution. Using Expressions (2b) and (3b), the total costs of elim-
inated airline and air passenger delays due to substituting Ni APT ights with equivalent HSR services can be estimated as:
142 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149

C 1i N i C 1=1i Ni C 1=2i Ni 3c

3.2.1.5. The cost of time of air passengers after switching to HSR services. The cost of time of air passengers from Ni ights substi-
tuted with equivalent HSR services in the time interval Dti, can be estimated as (Janic, 2000):
XNi  
1
C 2i N i Dt i vik dik pi ai hi Si 4
k1
2F ik

where vik is the difference in the average travel time of a HSR service and an APT ight from the group Ni on route (k) in the
time interval Dti (time units); and, dik is difference in the average travel time of the ground access systems of APT and HSR
used by air passengers from (k)th APT ight from the group Ni in time interval Dti (time units).
Other symbols are analogous to those in the previous expressions.
Specically, in Expression (5), the rst term in parenthesis represents the air passenger schedule delay due to waiting for
HSR services at the given airport.

3.2.1.6. The total savings of costs of airline and air passenger delays. The total savings of airline and air passenger costs of delays
during the specied time period (s) include the savings of costs of direct delays of the substituted APT ights and the costs of
eliminated delays of ights remaining in the airport queue, as well as the costs of air passenger time due to time differences
in the APT and HSR services. Based on Expressions (3c) and (4), the total savings of costs of delays from all APT ights substi-
tuted during the time period (s) can be estimated as follows (Janic, forthcoming):
X
M
C 1T s C 1i N i  C 2i Ni  5
i1

where all symbols are as in the previous expressions.

3.2.2. A model for estimating noise exposure savings

The model for estimating noise exposure savings due to substituting particular APT ights with HSR services at a given
airport consists of: (i) the sub-model for estimating the level of noise exposure to both APT and HSR services; and (ii) the
sub-model for estimating costs of noise exposure, which could eventually be eliminated by the above-mentioned APT/
HSR substitution.

3.2.2.1. The level of APT and HSR noise. The noise in terms of CSEL (cumulative sound exposure level) by the prospectively
substituted APT ights at a given airport during time interval Dti can be estimated as (Ruijgrok, 2000):
"N #
X i
LAPT k=10
CSELAPT Dt 10log10 10 6a
k1

where LAPT(k) is the sound exposure level to an aircraft/ight (k) from the group Ni (dB(A)).
In Expression (6a), the variable LAPT(k) is estimated either for an arriving or departing ight at the airport where the APT/
HSR substitution takes place as well as for the origin and destination airports of the substituted ights. In all cases it depends
on the maximum noise at source and its distance to the observer. Consequently, if some APT ights are substituted with
HSR services, their noise at the corresponding locations will disappear, i.e. will be eliminated.
In cases when only the local impact at the given airport is considered, the HSR noise is irrelevant as mentioned above.
However, on a wider scale, the substituting HSR services create noise along the lines outside the airport area, which are pre-
dominantly overland constructions. If each HSR service passes several observers along its route, the total CSEL along all
routes Ni can be estimated as follows (Ruijgrok, 2000):
"N F fk
#
Xi Xik X

CSELHSR Dt 10log10 10LHAR k;l;m=10 6b

k1 l1 m1

where LHSR(k, l, m) is the sound exposure level to the (l)th HSR service passing near the (m)th observer located somewhere
near the route/line (k) (dB(A)); and, fk is the number of the prospective observers annoyed by HSR noise on the route (k).
Consequently, savings in the total average maximum noise can be estimated as the difference in the values of CSELAPt(Dt)
and CSELHSR(Dti) of both modes calculated by Expressions (6a) and (6b). The question, however, remains if the two noise
gures are comparable and if so, to what extent. At the local scale of the given airport where APT/HSR substitution takes
place, it certainly makes sense to make such comparison. On a wider scale, this comparison needs to be made with caution
if at all. However, in the most cases, this noise may seem practically irrelevant on both the local and wider scale. Namely,
most observers exposed to the noise from both modes are usually properly insolated. In particular, those potentially
exposed along HSR lines are protected by noise barriers (walls), which are usually considered as a part of the infrastructure
and the related investment and maintenance costs.
 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149 143

3.2.2.2. Savings in noise costs. The above-mentioned generic diversity of the nature of noise created by APT aircraft/ights and
their substitutes (HSR services) does not enable the use of Expressions (6a) and (6b) for calculating the potential cost savings
under the specied conditions. Therefore, the prospective noise exposure savings by the above-mentioned APT/HSR substi-
tution at a given airport can be estimated more generally as:
" Ni
#
X
M X
C 2T s max 0; Ni c3i=APT  F ik lik c3i=HSR 7
i1 k1

where c3i/APT is the average cost of noise of an APT event aircraft/ight landing or taking-off (/event); and c3i/HSR is the
average cost of noise of a HS train substituting an APT aircraft/ight (ct/train-km).
The other symbols are analogous to those in the previous expressions.

3.2.3. A model for estimating greenhouse gas emission savings

The model for estimating prospective savings in the quantities and related costs of local and global emissions of green-
house gases, which could be achieved by substituting some APT ights with the equivalent HSR services at a given airport
consists of two sub-models: (i) the sub-model for estimating quantities of emitted greenhouse gases, and (ii) the sub-model
for calculating cost savings of these emissions.

3.2.3.1. The quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. The quantities of greenhouse gas emissions for both APT and HSR can be
expressed in terms of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents CO2, H2O, SO4, NOx, PM, etc.) (Janic, 2007). Thus, the total emitted
greenhouse gases by the APT ights substituted by their HSR equivalents at a given airport during the period of time (s) can
be estimated as:
X
M
Q APT s e Ni EC i Si t i wi ki  8a
i1

where e is the rate of emission of greenhouse gases per unit of consumed energy (tons of CO2e/ton of jet A fuel consumed);
ECi(Si) is the average rate of energy consumption of an APT aircraft/ight with a seating capacity Si from the group Ni to be
substituted by equivalent HSR services in the time interval Dti (tons of jet A fuel/h); and ti is the average duration of an APT
ight from the group Ni (h).
The other symbols are analogous to those in the previous expressions.
Similarly, the total emissions of greenhouse gases by the HSR services substituting the above APT ights can be estimated
as:
X Ni
M X
Q HSR s F ik EC ik lik eik 8b
i1 k1

where ECik is the energy consumption rate of a HS train substituting an APT ight on route (k) in the time interval Dti (kW h/
km-train); lik is the length of route (k) (km), and eik is the greenhouse gas emission rate by HS trains on route (k) in the time
interval Dti (CO2e/kW h).
As mentioned above, HSR services are free of congestion and delays. The variable eik in Expression (8b) is estimated using
emission rates from sources for producing electric energy, which are the country specic.

3.2.3.2. Savings in the costs of greenhouse gas emissions. Savings in costs of emissions of CO2e through the above-mentioned
substitution of APT with HSR services at a given airport during the specied time period (s) can be estimated using Expres-
sions (8a) and (8b) as follows:
C 3T s max0; Q APT sc4=APT  Q HSR sc4=HSR  9

where c4/APT, c4/HSR is the average cost of emissions of CO2e by the APT aircraft/ight and the substituting HSR service, respec-
tively (/ton of CO2e).
Other symbols are analogous to those in the previous expressions.
Finally, the total savings in above-mentioned impacts and their costs can be calculated as the sum of individual savings
calculated from Expressions (5), (7), and (9).

4. Application of the proposed methodology

4.1. Input

4.1.1. The scene

The proposed methodology is applied to calculating the potential savings in the quantities and related costs of airline and
air passenger delays, noise, and local and global air pollution by substituting some APT short-haul ights with HSR services at
London Heathrow airport. The airport is still not connected to the European HSR network although London City airport,
144 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149

located nearby, is (Chammel Tunnel). Therefore, the results from applying the methodology need to be considered as based
on the what-if scenario approach. In order to enable exible APT/HSR substitution through both competition and
complementarity, the airport needs to be directly connected to the HSR network implying location of the HSR station just
there similarly as at other (large) airports Charles de Gaulle (Paris, France), Amsterdam Schiphol (Amsterdam, The
Netherlands), and Frankfurt (Frankfurt Main, Germany) (BAA, 2010). Such development has also been considered to mitigate
the current airport airside (runway) congestion, and is seemingly preferred as an alternative by the current UK Coalition
Government (which came to power in 2010). The other alternative supported by the former UK Labour Government
(in power until the 2010 general election) implied building a new third parallel runway for APT short-haul ights. Other
discussions have pointed out that both alternatives need to be in place by the year 2020 to enable further effective and
efcient airport growth (DfT, 2009). Fig. 3 depicts the possible simplied layout of such development.
As can be seen, the HSR line is planned to pass through the airport area while connecting London on the East, Cardiff on
the West, and Birmingham, Liverpool, and Glasgow on the north-west of the UK. Such layout implies underground construc-
tion of the line with a central and stop stations located just bellow the passenger terminals to enable efcient and effective
passage of air passengers between the two modes.
Fig. 4 shows the demandcapacity relationship for arrivals at London Heathrow airport before schedule coordination
(ACL, 2009).
As can be seen, arrival ight demand exceeds the airport capacity during almost the whole day (17 h), thus indicating
conditions of severe congestion and delays. The ight demand is currently accommodated at one of the two parallel runways
operating in the segregated mode (i.e. one exclusively serving arrivals and the other exclusively departures). The service
rate, i.e. capacity, for arrivals (and departures) under good weather conditions is: li(.) = 40 ops/h.
The aircraft eet consists of 2.6% small, 56.7% medium, and 40.7% large aircraft (ACL, 2009). In general, all short-haul APT
ights carried out by small and some of those carried out by medium-sized aircraft could be reasonable candidates for sub-
stitution with HSR services. These are mainly UK domestic ights and those between the UK and the north of France and

Tunnel
Tunnel

New runway

New T(6)

T3 T1

T5 T2

T4

- Existing rail lines - New raillines

- High Speed Rail line (Underground construction)
T1-T5-T6 - Air passenger terminals

Fig. 3. Simplied layout of connecting London Heathrow airport to the GHSE network and developments by the year 2020 (compiled from: BAA, 2010).

800
Demand
Capacity: 40 ops/h
Cumulative count

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time during the day - hours

Fig. 4. Typical congestion of arriving aircraft/ights at London Heathrow airport (UK) before schedule coordination (a peak summer day in 2008) (ACL,
2009).
 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149 145

Benelux (The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg). The daily number of these arriving and departing ghts, each lasting
about 1.6 h, is around 110/110. This is about 15% of the total number of daily ights scheduled at the airport. Regarding the
comparative door-to-door time of 13 h, which could be achieved by comparable HSR services along the particular routes, it
is reasonable to expect that up to 5060% of the above-mentioned short-haul ights could be substituted with HSR services
through competition (see Fig. 1). The rest could eventually be substituted through complementarity, but very likely only
after the HSR network spreads from the airport to the other parts of the UK (BAA, 2010; RMT, 2009).

4.1.2. Characteristics of APT ights and HSR services

Consequently, in the application of the methodology, the average route of all APT ights and equivalent HSR services is
adopted to be: li/APT  li/HSR = 750 km, which with an average block speed of vi/APT = 475 km/h gives a ight duration of ti/
APT = 1.6 h. The APT short-haul ights are carried out by aircraft with an average seating capacity of Si/APT = 130 seats and load
factor hi/APT = 0.673. The remaining ights in the queue have an average seating capacity of Si/APT = 220 seats and load factor
xi/APT = 0.60.
The equivalent HSR services are carried out along routes of: li/HSR = 750 km at an average speed of vi/HSR = 270 km/h, which
gives an average travel time of: ti/HSR = 2.8 h. The seating capacity of a HS train is adopted to be: Ci/HSR = 485 seats and load
factor gi/HSR = 0.60 (EC, 2002; SDG, 2006). The number of passengers already on board each HSR service taking over also air
passenger from the substituted APT ights at the airport is adopted to be: Dik/HSR = 300 m which seems reasonable if the time
in which the APT/HSR substitution takes place is adopted to be s = Dti = 1 h.
The difference in the travel time of the two modes equals: vi/APT/HSR = 1.2 h. This is, however, compensated by the differ-
ence in the ground access time d, which is usually positive in the case of HSR services. Since APT/HSR substitution is assumed
to take place exclusively through complementarity, the proportion of air passengers switching to the HSR is adopted to be:
pi = 1.0 (I = 1, 2, . . . , M).

4.1.3. Congestion and delays

The average cost of direct airline delay of substituted APT ights is adopted to be: c1i(Si) = 47/min and of their propagated
delay: c2i(Si) = 62/min. The corresponding cost of ights remaining in the queue and beneting from such substitution is
adopted to be: c3i(Si) = 78/min and c4i(Si) = 101/min, respectively. The average cost of air passenger direct and propagated
delay of substituted APT ights is adopted to be: a1i//APT = a2i//APT a2i//APT = a4i//APT = 69/h (EEC, 2004).
The delay multiplier is synthesized for three different periods of the day when substitution is assumed to take place, i.e. in
the early morning, early afternoon, and in the late afternoon, as follows (Janic, forthcoming):

c1 w1 k1  1:391e0:0073w1 k1 ; R21 0:967; Morning 08 : 00

c2 w2 k2  1:1851e0:0058w2 k2 ; R22 0:982; Early afternoon 13 : 00; and

c3 w3 k3  1:0509e0:0037w3 k3 ; R23 0:994; Late afternoon 18 : 00:

This delay multiplier indicates that a stronger network impact can be expected from longer morning initial delays due to
their tendency to spread to a greater number of ights of the aircraft daily itineraries. The impact is lower later during the
day with reducing prospectively affected ights in the aircraft daily itinerary. Since HSR services are assumed to be free of
congestion and delays, the corresponding costs are assumed to be zero.

4.1.4. Noise
The noise effects are considered at the local (airport) scale. Thus, the noise of an APT aircraft/ight in terms of SEL (sound
exposure level) measured at the airport noise measurement location for arrivals (2 km from the landing threshold) is
adopted as relevant. For aircraft types B737-300/400, A319/313/320 this noise level amounts: LAPT(k, l, m) = 92 dB(A) and
is attenuated with increasing distance to the observer (ECAC, 2004). The corresponding cost of noise is adopted to be:
c3i/APT = 61/event (i.e. arrival or departure) (EEC, 2007).
The noise from the HSR services operating within the airport area is estimated from the causal relationship (Mellet et al.,
2006):
LHSR d; v 53:938  2:760d 0:192v dBA; 8:4181:5853:220
where R2 = 0.936; N = 20; 0 6 d 6 9 km; 0 6 v 6 320 km/h, where d is the right angle distance from the track adopted to be:
dHSR = 0.025 km (width of the tunnel), and v is the train speed adopted to be: vHSR = 90 km/h (in the tunnel through the air-
port area). The unit cost of noise is: c3/HSR = 2.57 ct/train-km (CE Delft, 2008).

4.1.5. Emissions of greenhouse gases

The fuel consumption of APT short-haul ights to be substituted by the HSR services is adopted to be: ECi/APT = 3.33 tons/
ight. The rates of emissions of greenhouse gases are: e1/APT = 3.18 kg CO2, e2/APT = 1.21 kg H2O, and e3/APT = 0.84 g SO2/kg of
jet A fuel, which gives a total emission rate of CO2e of: e = 4.39 kg CO2e/kg of Jet A fuel (Janic, 2007). The average cost of air
pollution including both local and global impact is: c4/APT = 43.6 /ton of CO2e (EEC, 2007).
146 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149

The HSR services are assumed to be carried out by TGV-type trains consuming electricity at an average rate of:
ECik = 21.825 kW h/train-km (Lukaszewicz and Anderson, 2009). The average rate of emissions of CO2e from electricity pro-
duction in the UK, France, Belgium, and The Netherlands is estimated to be: eik = 0.452 kg CO2e/kW h (EC, 2009). The average
cost of emissions of greenhouse gases by a HSR service including both the local and global impact is adopted to be: c4/
HSR = 26.7 ct/train-km (CE Delft, 2008).

4.2. Analysis of results

4.2.1. Congestion and delays

Fig. 5ad shows savings of the particular categories of ight delays and related costs depending of the number of substi-
tuted APT ights and the time of day when substitution takes place.
Fig. 5a shows that the savings of direct airline delays increase almost linearly with the number of substituted APT ights.
These delays increase with the initial queue and related delays with which the ights to be substituted are confronted with.
Consequently, in the given example, the longest airline delays are eliminated on substituted ights which would have
taken place in the late afternoon (faced with an initial queue of 52 ights/aircraft) while the smallest delays are eliminated
on ights substituted in the morning (faced with an initial queue of 18 aircraft/ights).
Fig. 5b shows that the savings of delays of ights remaining in the queue also increase with the number of substituted
ights. In this case, these savings are highest when substitution takes place in the morning and the lowest when substitution
takes place in the late afternoon, for any number of substituted ights. This occurs due to the fact that in the given example,
the number of potentially delay-relieved ights scheduled to arrive after the substituted ights is the highest in the morning
and the lowest in the late afternoon.
Fig. 5c shows that the savings of total delays of both substituted and remaining ights also increase with the number of
substituted ights, regardless of the time of day. Since the delays of the remaining ights dominate, the highest savings of
the total delays could be achieved by substituting ights in the morning and the lowest by substitution in the late afternoon.
At the same time the total schedule delays of all air passengers due to waiting for the HSR services and due to the differences
in the service time by both modes increase with the number of substituted ights independently of the time of day. In the
given example, in an absolute sense, they appear to be much higher than that of the substituted ights.

1400 50
Delay - aircraft-min - 000

Morning 08:00 - Initial queue - 18 ac Morning 08:00 - Initial queue - 18 ac

Early afternoon 13:00 - Initial queue - 37 ac 45 Early afternoon 13:00 - Initial queue - 37 ac
Delay - aircraft-min

1200 Late afternoon 18:00 - Initial queue - 52 ac Late afternoon 18:00 - Initial queue - 52 ac
40 Total schedule delays of air passengers - pass-min
1000 35
800 30
25
600
20
400 15
10
200
5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
N - Number of substituted flights N - Number of substituted flights
(a) Direct airline delays (c) Total airline delays and air passenger
schedule delays

2500
Delay - aurcraft-min - 000

16
The total cost of delays -

Morning 08:00 - Initial queue - 18 ac Morning 08:00 - Initial queue - 18 ac

14 Early afternoon 13:00 - Initial queue - 37 ac Early afternoon 13:00 - Initial queue - 37 ac
Late afternoon 18:00 - Initial queue - 52 ac 2000 Late afternoon 18:00 - Initial queue - 52 ac
12
000 Euros

10 1500
8
6 1000

4
500
2
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
N - Number of substituted flights N - Number of substituted flights
(b) Delays imposed on the remaining flight (d) Total airline and air passenger cost of delays
in the queue
Fig. 5. Savings in airline and air passenger delays and related costs depending on the number of substituted APT ights and the time of day in the given
example (compiled from Janic, forthcoming).
 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149 147

Fig. 5d shows the total cost of airline and air passenger delays as savings from the APT/HSR substitution in the given
example. As can be seen, these savings are substantial and increase with the number of substituted ights. They are also
the highest for substitution in the morning and the lowest for substitution in the late afternoon. The additional calculations
show that congestion and delays in Fig. 4 would disappear if the APT short-haul ights uniformly scheduled during the day
were substituted at a rate of 5 ights/h. This gives 85 substituted ights over the congestion period of 17 h, which is around
70% of the present number of daily short-haul ights.

4.2.2. Noise
Fig. 6a and b shows the savings in the cumulative sound exposure level and related costs in the given example.
Fig. 6a shows the cumulative sound exposure level (CSEL) for both APT and HSR. As can be seen, CSEL by APT increases
with the number of ights (at a decreasing rate) and decreases with their distance d from the observer. The similar can be
noted with CSEL by HSR, which, absorbed within the tunnel through the airport area, is given only for illustrative (compar-
ative) purposes.
This noise is lower than that of the APT aircraft/ights because of the lower noise of the slower moving HS trains and their
lower service frequency.
Fig. 6b shows that under the above-mentioned conditions, the savings in the cost of noise burden originate and increase
linearly exclusively with the number of substituted APT ights. In absolute terms, these savings are much smaller compared
to those of the airline and air passenger delays.

4.2.3. Emissions of greenhouse gases

Fig. 7a and b shows the quantities of emissions of CO2e and related costs as savings by the APT/HSR substitution in the
given example.
Fig. 7a shows that the emissions of greenhouse gases of APT ights are much higher that those of the HSR services. Thus,
the savings are positive and linearly increase with the number of substituted APT ights ranging from ten to three hundred
tons of CO2e.
Fig. 7b shows that the costs of the above-mentioned emissions of both modes and their differences considered as savings
also increase with the number of substituted APT ights. The savings range between one and fourteen thousand s, and thus
are much greater than those from noise but again substantially lower than those from the airline and air passenger delays.
By summing up the savings in the particular impacts, the total savings of the externalities considered in the given exam-
ple can be estimated.

120

100
CSEL - dB (A)

80

60

40

20 APT = d = 0,1 km

APT - d = 4,6 km
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
N - Number of substituted flights
(a) Cumulative Sound Exposure Level (CSEL)
The total cost of noise (CSEL)

1400
C3 = 60N
1200 R2 = 1

1000
- Euros

800
600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
N - Number of substituted flights
(b) Cost of eliminated CSEL
Fig. 6. Savings in sound exposure and related costs depending on the number of substituted APT ights in the given example.
148 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149

400
APT flights

Quantity of CO2e - tons

HSR services
Difference APT - HSR
300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
N - Number of substituted flights
Cost of CO2e emissions - 000 Euro (a) Quantity of CO2e emissions

15
APT flights
HSR services
Difference APT - HSR

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
N - Number of substituted flights
(b) Cost of CO2e emissions
Fig. 7. Savings in the emissions of CO2e and related costs depending on the number of substituted APT ights in the given example.

5. Conclusions

This paper deals with assessing the potential savings of some social and environmental impacts, which could be achieved
by developing an airport into a real multimodal transport node. Such development implies including such an airport into a
High-Speed Rail (HSR) network, thus enabling substitution of some Air Passenger Transport (APT) short-haul ights with
equivalent HSR services either through competition or complementarity of the two modes. In addition to the HSR substitu-
tive capacity as an important element, the impacts considered and their costs have included airport airside congestion and
airline and air passenger delays, noise, and emissions of greenhouse gases. For estimating the potential savings arising from
APT/HSR substitution, a methodology has been developed and applied using the data from a large congested European air-
port (London Heathrow, UK) according to the what-if scenario approach. The results have indicated that the HSR substi-
tutive capacity does not act as a barrier to developing APT/HSR substitution at the airport. In addition, in the given example,
even very modest substitution of up to 2% APT short-haul ights with the equivalent HSR services may produce substantive
savings, up to about 20% in airline and air passenger delays and up to 17% in related costs. Savings in the costs of noise expo-
sure are lower than those of emissions of greenhouse gases, while both are much lower than those of airline and air passen-
ger congestion and delays. The savings in the impacts considered increase with the number of substituted APT ights.
The methodology and results could be used by local and national policy makers, airlines, airport, and HSR planners and
designers as inputs in evaluating the socio-economic feasibility of developing an airport into a real multimodal transport
node by connecting it to the HSR network under the specied conditions.

References

ACL, 2009. Heathrow Summer 2008: Initial Coordination Report, Airport Coordination Limited, London, UK.
AEA, 2008. Yearbook 20002006, Association of European Airlines, Paris, France, 2007.
BAA, 2010. High Speed Rail Access to Heathrow: BAA Submission to the Lord Mawhinney Report, British airport Authority, London, UK.
CE Delft, 2008. Handbook on Estimation of External Costs in the Transport Sector, Produced within the Study Internalization Measures and Policies foe All
External Cost of Transport (IMPACT), CE Delft-Solutions for Environment Economy and Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
DfT, 2009. Britains Transport Infrastructure Adding Capacity at Heathrow: Decisions Following Consultation, DfT Publications, Department for Transport,
London, UK.
EC, 1998. Interaction between High-Speed Rail and Air Passenger Transport, Final Report, Action COST 318, European Commission, DG VII, Luxembourg.
EC, 2002. Developing EU (International) Rail Passenger Transport, OGM-Final Report European Commission, Directorate General Energy and Transport,
Brussels, Belgium.
EC, 2009. EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocket Book, Directorate General for Energy and Transport, Brussels, Belgium.
 M. Janic / Transportation Research Part D 16 (2011) 137149 149

ECAC, 2004. Methodology for Computing Noise Contours around Civil Airports, AIRMOD Group, ECAC CEAC Doc29R, Draft Version 6.0, European Civil
Aviation Conference, Brussels, Belgium.
ECMT, 2003. Airports as Multimodal Interchange Nodes, Conclusion of Round Table 126, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris Cedex 16,
France, p. 4.
EEC, 2004. Evaluation of True Cost to Airlines of One Minute of Airborne or Ground Delays, Westminster University, UK, Performance Review Unit,
EUROCONTROL, Brussels, Belgium.
EEC, 2005. Potential Airport Intermodality Development, WP 2.1.1 DOC, EUROCONTROL, Brussels, Belgium.
EEC, 2007. Standard Inputs for EUROCONTROL Cost Benet Analysis, EUROCONTROL, Brussels, Belgium.
FAA, 2007. FAA Operations and Performance Data, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, USA. <http://
www.apo.data.faa.gov/>.
HMMH, 1996. Summary of European High Speed Rail Noise and Vibration Measurements, HMMH Report No. 293630-2, Harris Miller Miller and Harris Inc.,
Burlington, Massachusetts, USA.
ICAO, 1993a. Aircraft Engine Emissions, Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Vol. 2, International Civil Aviation Organisation, Montreal, Canada.
ICAO, 1993b. Aircraft Noise, Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Vol. 1, International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada.
Janic, M., 2000. Analysis and Modeling of Air Transport System; Capacity, Quality of Services and Economics. Gordon and Breach Science Publisher,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Janic, M., 2003. Multiple criteria evaluation of high speed rail, Transrapid Maglev and Air Passenger Transport systems in Europe. Transportation Planning
and Technology 26 (6), 491512.
Janic, M., 2007. The Sustainability of Air Transportation: A Quantitative Analysis and Assessment. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, Hepsire, UK.
Janic, M., 2009. The Airport Analysis, Planning, and Design: Demand, Capacity, and Congestion. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, USA.
Janic, M., forthcoming. True multimodalism for mitigating the airport congestion: substitution of air passenger transport by high-speed rail, Transportation
Research Record (TRR).
Lukaszewicz, P., Anderson, E., 2009. Green Train Energy Consumption: Estimation of High Speed Rail Operations, GRONATAGET, KTH Railway Group,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Mellet, C., Letoueneaux, F., Poisson, F., Talotte, C., 2006. High speed train noise emission: latest investigation of the aerodynamic noise contribution. Journal
of Sound and Vibration 253, 535546.
RMT, 2009. Who Says There Is no Alternative? An Assessment of the Potential of Rail to Cut Air Travel, Rail and Maritime Transport, Union of Workers,
London, UK.
Ruijgrok, C.J.J., 2000. Elements of Aviation Acoustics. Het Spinhuis Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
SDG, 2006. Air and Rail Competition and Complementarity. Steer Davies Gleave. Study prepared for European Commission DG Energy and Transport,
London, UK.
Zhang, Y., Hansen, M., 2007. Real time inter-modal substitution (RTIMS) as an airport congestion management strategy. In: 87th Transportation Research
Board (TRB) Conference, Washington, DC, USA.
UIC, 2002. Shaping the Railway of the 21st Century: AIR/HSR from Competition to Complementarity, Presentation, International Union of Railways, Paris,
France. <http://www.uic.asso.fr/d>.
UIC, 2008. Fast track and sustainable mobility. In: 5th World Congress on High Speed Rail, International Union of Railways, 1719 March, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, p. 10.