Clean Aerospace REgions (CARE) Project

Transcription

1 CENTRE FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY HELLAS (CERTH) HELLENIC INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT (H.I.T.) Clean Aerospace REgions (CARE) Project Presentation title: Recommendations and policies to enhance Airport Environmental Co-modality for passenger and freight transport through research clusters and SMEs participation Anestis Papanikolaou, Maria Boile, Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH) Hellenic Institute of Transport (HIT) THE ISSUE Webinar 10, 3/6/2014

2 Study objectives Methodological Approach Theoretical Foundation Contents Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for passenger and freight transport Actor mapping and analysis in relation to airport comodality Airport types and co-modality for passengers and freight Assessing airport environmental co-modality Policy recommendations

3 Study Objectives Provide the state-of-the-art on the main issues about airport comodality for passenger and goods transport Identify relevant actors for promoting airport co-modality Propose a new definition for co-modality in airports based on the Airport Environmental Co-modality AEC Suggest a specific indicators for assessing Airport Environmental Comodality AEC of European and International airports Conduct a qualitative actor analysis of the air transport environment Propose policy measures and suggestions for improving airport comodality

4 Three methodological pillars Three methodological pillars are considered, to examine the different perspectives of Co-modality: How is Co-modality implemented? Who is involved in Co-modality implementation? Where should Co-modality be implemented?

5 Methodological Approach Methodological Pillars of the proposed conceptual framework

6 Methodological Approach Unified conceptual framework of the study

7 Theoretical Foundation Transport Co-modality and intermodality (EU policy) Intermodality is a characteristic of a transport system that allows at least two different modes to be used in an integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain (EC, 1997) Co-modality is the efficient use of different modes on their own and in combination. the optimisation of the organisation of the chain will result in an optimal and sustainable utilisation of resources (EC, 2006)

8 Co-modality dimensions Physical dimension of airport co-modality: Concerns the cooperation of the different modes in respect of time (transfer time needed) and space (terminals design for easy access, modal connectivity) Technological ( Information ) dimension of airport co-modality: Concerns information systems and technologies that improve the connection between the long and short distance travel providing all information the customer needs Economical ( Fares ) dimension of airport co-modality: Concerns technologies and policies that allow the common fare between all the stages of a co-modal trip (integrated ticket systems / integrated fares) Institutional ( Regulators and Organizing agencies ) dimension of airport comodality: Concerns structural aspects of every entity involved in the passenger intermodal chain, concerning mainly organizational and area of responsibility issues to achieve co-modality Legal dimension of airport co-modality: Concerns co-modality issues such as the integration of national laws with the European regulations and policies concerning market access regulation, service requirements and standardization issues Political dimension of airport co-modality: Referring to all key political initiatives that need to be taken in order to promote and develop a culture regarding co-modality

9 Pillar 1: Barriers and solutions Unified conceptual framework of the study

10 Co-modality barriers (passenger) No. Barrier Solution Dimension PB1 PB2 PB3 PB4 PB5 PB6 No sufficient strategic clarity or political support at EU level, to build a door-to-door intermodal information system for the European traveler Lack of pan European service providing end to end support for long distance cross border intermodal journey planning and travel information due to fragmented systems using different standards and data sharing concepts No dedicated funding programme for passenger intermodality to act as incentive for setting up pilot projects for intermodality Lack of passenger intermodal rights Lack of minimum cooperation and integration in the field of information and ticketing for long distance passenger ticketing Lack of ticketing solutions as they are described in the TAP TSI (Telematics Applications for Passenger services Technical Specifications for Interoperability) standard (designed by EU in 2011 for rail transport) European vision/white paper for door-to-door intermodal information passenger travel service Develop a road map for technical cooperation in achieving an EU intermodal journey planner Institutional, political Institutional Source (relevant project or initiative) Link Link Introduce funding programme Political Link Improve passenger rights and their implementation as well as the information and knowledge concerning passenger rights. Establish obligatory delivery of data and information in the field of ticketing and information. Establish obligations to standardize tariffs and timetable information. Develop long distance electronic ticketing in TAP TSI to allow compatibility with local fare management in rail transport Legal Economical Economical PB7 Lack of common quality standards for interchanges Create common quality standards for interchanges Legal Link, HERMES PB8 Lack of integrated airport accessibility plans Define integrated intermodal plans for all airports to encourage smoother intermodal links between air travel and surface access. Institutional Link PB9 PB10 PB11 PB12 PB13 PB14 Lack of information to travelers about airport links and accessibility Cost considerations from passenger perspective Travel time transfer times between modes and waiting time Quality of service Lack of time synchronisation between services Queuing for tickets Provide early information to travelers about airport links and accessibility Create incentives for lowering cost for intermodal modes of transport Shorten travel times to enable passengers to use different modes Improve reliability, baggage handling, integrated ticketing, onboard comfort, operator responsibility agreements More directions from governments to oversee planning and coordination between public transport and interchanges and development of integrated planning policy Implementation of unified tickets, which facilitates the use of all transport modes and reduces cost of travelers as well as time spent queuing for tickets Technological Economical Physical Legal/ Institutional Technological/ Institutional Technological/ Physical Link Link Link Link Costa Costa Costa Mimic Mimic

11 Co-modality barriers (passenger) No. Barrier Solution Dimension Source (relevant project or initiative) PB15 Steps and staircases Level changes should be avoided, use of escalators and spacious lifts Physical Mimic PB16 Lack of services for people working at the interchange Reserved areas for drivers and staff for layovers Physical Mimic PB17 Access to vehicles for disabled persons Ramps, lifts, special access routes for wheelchairs and blind people that make access to station easy to all travelers Physical Mimic PB18 PB19 PB20 PB21 PB22 PB23 PB24 PB25 PB26 PB27 PB28 Lack of real time information or available only for some transport modes Lack of signing or signs of poor quality Information material i.e. pocket maps and timetables should be available along with real time information Direction signing and information should be provided in simple symbolic, pictorial and colour coded manner Lack of acoustic signals and Braille maps for blind people Site maps in Braille and acoustic information for blind persons Staff not on hand to help passengers Poor integration in planning and building interchanges Competition of passenger services Lacking evidence of economic impacts (benefits) of intermodal measures Lack of intermodal and intersectional strategies - widely acknowledged and politically agreed Efficiency often claimed to be resulting from intermodality, but particularly in terms of environmental savings not yet proved Political differences and economic, social and cultural issues between countries are often the cause of bottlenecks, especially in Interoperability Many systems are far from providing efficient, user tailored and interoperable services. Helpful and well trained staff, tourist information bureau and help points. Integrate staff policy and designate one person as head (the interchange manager) Coordination between transport operators and sychronisation of transport services Develop a methodology to collect the data and calculate the specific economic impacts (benefits) of intermodal measures Development of intermodal and intersectional strategies that will be widely acknowledged and politically agreed Methodological research & dissemination actions in order to promote the impacts of intermodality on the environment and on all the other sectors (economy, transport etc) Legal Physical Physical/ Technological Physical Physical Legal Economical Political Political Political/ Institutional Physical Mimic Mimic Mimic Mimic Mimic Mimic HERMES HERMES HERMES EUROSIL EUROSIL

12 Co-modality barriers (passenger) No. Barrier Solution Dimension PB29 PB30 PB31 PB32 PB33 PB34 PB35 PB36 PB37 PB38 PB39 PB40 PB41 PB42 Lack of successful overall business models for intermodal solutions Lack of coordination between air and rail inventories, affecting the coordination of respective schedules Fares setting and revenue sharing Data-sharing between operators in competitive environment Lack of proper legal framework for integrated PPP solutions Problematic issues concerning financing initiatives (who pays what) Lack of specific institutional guidelines to coordinate intermodal operations No sufficient experience of providing intermodal services leads to market uncertainty Operators reluctance due to potential commercial loss to competitors either through loss of market or abuse of provided data Lack of intermodal way of thinking that leads to lack of attempting and promoting intermodal practices Lack of accepted standards for data sharing and data quality assurance Existence of different transport documents across modes Existence of different liability regimes in relation to each mode Large differences in the extent to which infrastructure and external costs are covered Harmonization and integration of existing standards on law and regulation issues concerning real-time information services Establish regulatory and legal frameworks to give incentives for cooperation or to force it where necessary, mainly by providing a safe legal net concerning the protection of sensitive data and non-disclosure issues Establish regulatory and legal frameworks to give incentives for cooperation or to force it where necessary, mainly by providing a safe legal net concerning the protection of sensitive data and non-disclosure issues Include quantified strategic and political benefits in business plans (as obligations). Establish long-term multi-party risk and benefit share arrangements ( win-win ), maintaining certain flexibility to renegotiate as investment develops Develop and agree on methodologies for quantification and monetary assessment of impacts (incl. strategic and political effects). Cost-benefit studies and willingness of users to pay for certain intermodal products and services and other ways of ongoing financing have to be better evaluated (e.g. in the field of information systems) Institutional Institutional/ Legal Technological/ economical Legal Legal Economical Institutional, political Economical Economical Source (relevant project or initiative) European Parliament (2012) European Parliament (2012) HERMES HERMES HERMES HERMES HERMES HERMES HERMES General campaigns for raising public awareness (marketing tools) Institutional, political HERMES Promotion of passenger rights (as a lever for pushing integrated and interoperable solutions). Integrate content of different documents into a Single Transport Document Legal Technological, Institutional HERMES HERMES, E- FREIGHT Harmonize liability regimes of different modes Legal E-FREIGHT Harmonize infrastructural and external costs associated with each mode, to avoid modal choice distortion and rationalize the charges of the constituent parts (air, rail, road) of intermodal transport. Economical HERMES

13 Analysis of Co-modality Barriers Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for passenger transport

14 Main barriers for passenger transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for passenger transport Physical Lack of appropriate infrastructure planning for connectivity purposes and properly integrated interchange facilities (large walking distances, reduced comfort, interchange aesthetics) Accessibility issues at terminals and interchanges (stairs, lifts, considerations for disabled people) Appropriate signing of information with special considerations for disabled people Travel time and transfer time between modes and waiting time for service and ticket issuing. Technological Lack of minimum cooperation and integration in the field of information for long distance passengers Lack of information to travelers about airport links and accessibility Lack of time synchronization between services

15 Main barriers for passenger transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for passenger transport Economical Lack of evidence of economic benefits of intermodality. Efficiency often claimed to be resulting from intermodality, but particularly in terms of environmental savings not yet proved Fare setting and revenue sharing Lack of integrated ticketing services/common platform(s) Cost considerations from passenger perspective Operators reluctance due to potential commercial loss to competitors either through loss of market or abuse of provided data

16 Main barriers for passenger transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for passenger transport Institutional Lack of a door-to-door intermodal information system and of a long distance cross border intermodal journey planning due to fragmented systems using different standards and data sharing concepts Lack of integrated airport accessibility plans, cooperation between transport operators, and specific institutional guidelines to coordinate intermodal operations Lack of coordination between air and rail inventories, affecting the coordination of respective schedules Lack of successful overall business models for intermodal solutions

17 Main barriers for passenger transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for passenger transport Legal Lack of passenger intermodal rights Lack of common quality standards for interchanges Operators responsibility agreements for enhancing quality of service on reliability, baggage handling, integrated ticketing, onboard comfort Competition of passenger services Data-sharing regulatory and legal frameworks and commonly accepted standards Different liability regimes in relation to each mode

18 Main barriers for passenger transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for passenger transport Political No sufficient strategic clarity or political support at EU level, to build a door-to-door intermodal information system for the European traveler. No dedicated funding programme for passenger intermodality to act as incentive for setting up pilot projects for intermodality Lack of intermodal and intersectional strategies widely acknowledged and especially politically agreed

19 Co-modality barriers (freight) No Barrier Solution Dimension Source FB1 Rarity of rail terminals on existing airport sites. Rail terminals are often located in the wider airport area Physical CO-ACT FB2 Higher cost of transport by air compared to other modes Economical CO-ACT FB3 Cargo trains need to match the speed of passenger trains in order to run on the same tracks during daytime Technological CO-ACT FB4 Transloading is one of the major bottlenecks in multimodal cargo transport process (Loading units, methods of loading unit transfer and the administrative procedures governing the transport of the cargo) Physical/ Legal CO-ACT An analysis of the air freight flows in Europe revealed FB5 that in the near Enlarging the catchment area onto other time critical future the volumes of air cargo are not sufficient to fill freight can substantially change the picture Physical CO-ACT trains FB6 FB7 FB8 FB9 FB10 FB11 Airline and air cargo industry very much depend on overall consumption climate Shippers want to reduce the complexity of their transport chain. Intermodal connections create additional complexity Pricing in the air freight industry can be considered as market based and not cost based, since different commodities on the same route may be charged at widely different rates with no marked differences apparent in the costs of handling and transporting The market players in the air freight sector require: track and tracing systems, back up systems in case of calamities, safe transport of goods, options to transport temperature controlled and normal ULD s and/or other type of transport units Problematic physical interconnectivity in airports Lack of specific institutional guidelines to co-ordinate intermodal planning and operations The stabilising factors for the air cargo industry are mainly driven by the logistics system itself and the trends reshaping this system into highly integrated supply networks with reliable fast and frequent transport services. Standardization activities related to the design and layout of interchanges Establish long-term multi-party risk and benefit share arrangements ( win-win ), maintaining certain flexibility to renegotiate as investment develops Technological/ Institutional/Po litical Technological/ Physical Economical Technological Physical Institutional CO-ACT SPECTRUM SPECTRUM SPECTRUM CLOSER CLOSER

20 Co-modality barriers (freight) No Barrier Solution Dimension Source Pursue Private-Public Partnerships (PPPs) model to No sufficient experience of providing intermodal FB12 solve complex Economical CLOSER services leads to market uncertainty local and regional problems and financing issues Lack of intermodal way of thinking that leads to lack of General campaigns for raising public awareness FB13 Institutional CLOSER FB14 FB15 FB16 FB17 attempting to promote intermodal practices Existence of different transport documents across modes Existence of different liability regimes in relation to each mode Large differences in the extent to which infrastructure and external costs are covered Physical, legal and economical barriers in rail related intermodal services often impede air based comodality (marketing tools) Integrate content of different documents into a Single Transport Document. Harmonize liability regimes of different modes Harmonize infrastructural and external costs associated with each mode, to avoid modal choice distortion and rationalize the charges of the constituent parts (air, rail, road) of intermodal transport. Institutional Legal Economical Physical, legal, economical CLOSER, E- FREIGHT CLOSER, E- FREIGHT CLOSER IRIS FB18 FB19 FB20 FB21 FB22 Transport policies fail to identify the cost of implementation of a policy or intervention, nor the expenditure required from the policy recipients in responding or complying National thinking is sometimes one of the major barriers to further development and international extension of intermodal transport Accessibility of information. Many actors in the transport field hardly know which information is available. Implementation of new generation terminals with intermodal facilities does not occur due to uncertainty of their costs and benefits Rail freight does not receive sufficiently high visibility on the national or European Agendas Find political champions with understanding of economic significance of logistics processes and awareness of social attitudes towards green technologies and processes Economical Institutional Technological Economical political RECORDIT FV2000 TERMINET TERMINET REORIENT

21 Main barriers for freight transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for freight transport

22 Main barriers for freight transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for freight transport Physical Rarity of rail terminals on existing airport sites - Rail terminals are often located in the wider airport area Loading unit transfer presents a major bottleneck in the multimodal cargo transport process Air cargo volumes are not sufficient to fill trains, making the connection attractive Problematic physical interconnectivity in airports

23 Main barriers for freight transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for freight transport Technological Cargo trains need to match the speed of passenger trains in order to run on the same tracks during daytime Shippers want to reduce the complexity of their transport chain - Intermodal connections create additional complexity The market players require track and trace systems, back up systems in case of calamities, sage transport of goods, options to transport temperature controlled, normal ULDs and other type of transport units Accessibility of information. Many actors in the transport field hardly know which information is available.

24 Main barriers for freight transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for freight transport Economical Higher cost of transport by air compared to other modes. Particularity of air freight market- Pricing in the air freight industry can be considered as market based and not cost based, since different commodities on the same route may be charged at widely different rates with no marked differences apparent in the costs of handling and transporting No sufficient experience of providing intermodal services leads to market uncertainty - Large differences in the extent to which infrastructure and external costs are covered Transport policies fail to identify the cost of implementation of a policy or intervention, nor the expenditure required from the policy recipients in responding or complying

25 Main barriers for freight transport Barriers for promoting airport co-modality for freight transport Institutional Existence of different transport documents across modes. Existence of national thinking that impedes international extensions of intermodal transports. Legal Existence of different liability regimes in relation to each mode. Administrative procedures governing the transport of cargo through multimodal connections. Political Rail freight does not receive sufficiently high visibility on the national or European Agendas

26 Preliminary conclusions Main barriers for promoting airport co-modality for passenger and freight transport Reluctance of stakeholders in relation to the economic benefits and revenues of investments. Uncertainty and unwillingness of taking action from all involved players. Solutions for promoting airport co-modality for passenger and freight transport Development of methodologies capable of quantifying the monetary and other impacts from passenger and freight co-modality improvements. Development of methodologies capable of allocating the profits to the involved parties. Ways of financing have to be better evaluated to encourage initiatives from the public and from the private sector.

27 Pillar 2: Actor analysis Unified conceptual framework of the study

28 Actor analysis Steps of Actor Analysis Identification of Actors Understanding objectives and potential areas of conflict Mapping Actors interrelationships Assessment of Actors power and interests

29 Identification of Actors Public policy makers Airport (Regulatory) Authorities Airport Infrastructure Manager Transport operators (land side) Air-side Transport Operators (1): Airlines Air-side Transport Operators (2): Ground handlers Customers Funding Bodies Planners/Engineers Local businesses and industry Research institutions

30 Actor analysis Actors involved in airport co-modality Actor Short term objectives Long term objectives Potential Conflicts / Issues Public Policy Makers Airport Authority Airport Infrastructure Manager Maximization of social welfare. In general this implies guaranteeing economic efficiency and fair competition, safety, and minimization of negative external effects Meet customer needs for transport and provide for relevant services. Achieve high level of security & safety. High level of customer service (passengers & customers). Ensure environmental compliance. Maximise profit Optimal use of infrastructure Coordination between different modes of transport Maximization of social welfare Drive economic growth Address sustainability & congestion issues. Provide competitive business environment in the sector while maintaining sustainable objectives for protecting the physical environment and the local communities Improvement of market share. Improvement of catchment area. Increase competitiveness of air transport. With transport operators and terminal managers in case of enforcing costly services With Infrastructure Managers regarding meeting environmental targets With policy makers regarding possible delays and ability to provide appropriate facilities as well as regulations and rules With Transport Operators and Airlines

31 Actor analysis Actors involved in airport co-modality (con t.) Actor Short term objectives Long term objectives Potential Conflicts / Issues Transport Operators Cost minimization: the way in which is realized will depend upon a number of intermediate targets such as the generation of added value, the increase of market share, the improvement of safety and quality, etc. Whether quality issues would prevail and co-modality measures will be implemented depends on a number of factors such as market structure, mode and type of transport, capital and ownership structure, etc. Maximise passenger volumes Provide competitive services Provide connectivity to and from the airport Profit maximization (in case of private entity) or maximization of social welfare with economic and financial restrictions (in case of public entity) Improve quality of services Increase market share With the governmental authorities as well as the government in case of law enforcements (especially in case of private entities). With passengers (general public) due to the level of provided services With Funding Bodies for the improvement of network infrastructure With Airlines due to possible delays in services

32 Actor analysis Actors involved in airport co-modality (con t.) Actor Short term objectives Long term objectives Potential Conflicts / Issues Airlines Ground handlers Passengers Cost minimization (while meeting operational and regulatory restrictions) Profit maximisation and generation of added value Ensure on-time performance Ensure low cost operations Ensure safety of operations Maximise profit Efficient cooperation with the airline companies Affordable travel, punctuality and reliability, good connections, and cross modality in case of extreme events. Reach destination quickly and conveniently Free up feeder flights to substitute by rail. Maintain & improve quality of service Profit maximization & access to high yields. Provide multimodal options of travel where feasible in conjunction with ground transport Maximise profit Provide high quality services Increase of market share Utility maximization in terms of cost, time and quality (comfort, accessibility, luggage transport, integrated ticketing, security, integrated door-to-door service) With other transport operators and airport managers in case of inefficient management procedures and operations With airport managers and Airlines With Transport operators and terminal managers in case of delays

33 Actor analysis Actors involved in airport co-modality (con t.) Actor Short term objectives Long term objectives Potential Conflicts / Issues Shippers Reliability of service Cost of door-to-door delivery Service availability Safety and security Short transit times Information availability (The ability to access/interface with the international freight forwarders information system) Inventory and warehousing levels according to customer demand. Small risk Good relationship with carriers Being flexible and able to respond to Just in Time Manufacturing techniques. Ability to create Just In Time transport systems. With Transport operators and terminal managers in case of delays and possible damages to the products Funding Bodies Attractiveness of project to business users Ensure Return on Investment Time lag between capital expenditure and first income to be short Assurance for Return on Investment Profitability of the project Public welfare and good image With Transport Operators and Airlines and Airport infrastructure managers With other Public Funding Bodies Financial support from the State in case of private bodies

34 Actor analysis Actors involved in airport co-modality (con t.) Actor Short term objectives Long term objectives Potential Conflicts / Issues Planners/ Engineers Local businesses and industry Identify potential business opportunities and research projects Ensure profitability of projects Guarantee for exclusive rights Lower business risks Maximise profit Identify potential business opportunities and/or research and innovation projects Ensure profitability of projects Guarantee for exclusive rights Lower business risks Assurance for Return on Investment Increase Profitability Increase of market share (vertical and horizontal integration) Lower business risks Invest in new technologies/knowledge Assurance for Return on Investment Increase Profitability Increase of market share (vertical and horizontal integration) Lower business risks and operational costs Invest in new technologies/knowledge With Transport Operators and Airlines and Airport infrastructure managers With Public Policy Bodies With Transport Operators and Airlines and Airport infrastructure managers Research institutes Ensure financial viability Promote Social welfare through research Assist policy and decision makers on strategic planning and policy issues Assist private actors in finding solutions to achieve their objectives Produce high quality research Improve the image of the organization Resolve practical problems through addressing innovative research challenges

35 Funding bodies Interactions between Actors Interactions between Actors affecting airport co-modality Public Policy Makers 1 st Tier Local business & Consultancy Groups Research Institutes Planners/ Engineers 2 nd Tier Airport Authority Transport operators Airport Infrastructure Manager Airlines 3 rd Tier Passengers/ Shippers 4 th Tier

36 Actors power and interest grid Mapping of actors power and interest in promoting airport comodality

37 Pillar 3: Airport types, passengers and freight Unified conceptual framework of the study

38 Airport types One classification provided by the EU (2005,3) is based on the type and range of flights and the volume of passengers accommodated: Large Community airports with more than 10 million passengers a year National airports with an annual passenger volume of between 5 and 10 million Large regional airports with an annual passenger volume of between 1 and 5 million Small regional airports with an annual passenger volume of less than 1 million

39 Airport types Many airport classifications in respect to criteria examined and problem perspective Criteria for airport classification Region/location Annual enplane/deplane passenger volumes Total passenger volumes Number of scheduled flights (seats/day) Number of daily flights (flights/day) Number of destinations served Volume of seats offered by low-cost airlines Number of times per day the airport works as intermediate connection Co-modality??

40 Airport types Challenges faced by airports Infrastructure and airspace capacity Environmental (noise, emissions and water quality) Airport connectivity Security (terrorist attacks, wars, volcano eruptions, natural disasters and extreme water effects, virus related) New business models for airport terminals Ground handling (technical maintenance and fuel/oil services, freight and baggage handling, safety related, passenger check-in, catering)

41 Criteria for passengers related to co-modality Costs consideration (sensitivity of customers to prices) Travel time (rail travel time, transfer travel time, compatibility of schedules) rail travel times transfer time between the train and the aircraft (frequencies of high speed liaisons) compatibility of air-rail schedules

42 Criteria for passengers related to co-modality Quality of service (timing predictability, airport access intermodal network coverage, luggage transport, ticketing, on-board services) timing predictability (estimated timing to reach the airport and reliability of the estimation); airport access intermodal network coverage (number of airport interconnected destinations through a ground access to the airport, number of changes / connections passengers have to make between their home and the terminal station at the airport while they are travelling on the airport access mode of transport); luggage transport; (integrated) ticketing (a single ticket for the whole journey); comfort, on-board services (e.g. catering service, business facilities ); concerns about the use of two different operators (railway operator and airline): security, reliability factors.

43 Criteria for shippers related to co-modality Criteria for shippers related to co-modality Type of product (high value, product sensitivity, special handling requirements) Speed (air transport is the most effective compared to other modes) Quality of carriage (frequency of service, low occurrence of damage, regularity of operations) Safety (air transport offers increased safety) Cost (weight and size of shipment) Reduction of stock (just-in-time manufacturing) Packaging and insurance Reliability (lowest travel time and delays) Information flow (traceability of cargo)

44 Airport Co-modality assessment Unified conceptual framework of the study

45 Airport environmental Co-modality Passenger airport co-modality indicators for evaluation Category Infrastructure Operators Service Demand Indicator Existence of rail infrastructure in the airport area Access time between the intermodal infrastructure and the terminal Number of intermodal operators Market share Existence of intermodal agreements Intermodal air supply Number of intermodal passengers transported Airport co-modality freight indicators for evaluation Category Demand Indicator Tons of cargo or number of units transported using intermodal services relative to the number of units transported by air on flights where intermodal agreements exist Number of cargo units using successively rail and air (whether they benefit from an intermodal agreement of not) relative to the number of units flying to or from the airport on flights where intermodal agreements exist

46 Airport environmental Co-modality Airport co-modality freight indicators for evaluation (con t.) Category Indicator Infrastructure Number of rail infrastructures connected to the airport Connectivity of services Yearly capacity of the rail terminal located in the airport area Number of destinations that are served by train from the airport Number of intermodal air operators Operators Number of intermodal rail operators Number of non-european airlines proposing intermodal service Number of intermodal agreements Characteristics of each agreement Number of intermodal destinations by air relative to the total number of destinations Services Number of daily air frequencies summed up over all intermodal destinations Number of intermodal rail destinations Number of daily rail frequencies summed up over all intermodal rail destinations Number of destinations offered by rail in the scope of an intermodal agreement where there is also a service by air Number of daily frequencies by air on all competing routes, divided by the total number of daily frequencies (air+rail)

47 Airport environmental Co-modality The environmental objectives through airport co-modality can be addressed in the following ways: Through modal shift of passenger and freight traffic to more environmentally friendly modes of transport (e.g. from cars to buses or/and trains for passengers and from trucks to train for freight) Through infrastructure and operational improvements, and more efficient use of existing airport capacity (for all transport modes)

48 Airport environmental Co-modality Before-and-after analysis Air pollution Noise pollution Land use impacts Energy Travel activity Nuisance

49 Airport environmental Co-modality Proposed Airport co-modality environmental indicators for passengers Category Objective Indicator Environmental Air Pollution Noise pollution Land use impacts Energy Travel activity Nuisance Potential change in air emissions at the airport due to comodal/intermodal shift normalised by the amount of flights and traffic Potential noise emissions change at the airport due to comodal/ intermodal shift Population exposed to noise levels around the airport and area exposed to noise levels. Land Consumption/rational use Energy usage at the airport before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift normalised by visitors/ passengers arrived Number of vehicles arriving at the airport before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift Modal split before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift Congestion before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift Amount of complains received from local residents due to nuisance before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift

50 Airport environmental Co-modality Proposed Airport co-modality environmental indicators for freight services Category Objective Indicator Environmental Air Pollution Noise pollution Land use impacts Energy Transport activity Nuisance Potential change in air emissions at the airport due to comodal/intermodal modal shift normalised by the number of flights, traffic (vehicles and rai), and cargo units Potential noise emissions change at the airport due to freight co-modal/ intermodal shift Population exposed to noise levels around the airport and area exposed to noise levels. Land Consumption/rational use Energy usage at the airport before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift normalised by number of cargo units Number of heavy vehicles arriving at the airport before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift Modal split before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift Percentage of cargo shifted from one mode of transport to another Congestion before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift Amount of complaints received from local residents due to nuisance before and after co-modal/ intermodal shift

51 Policy Recommendations Local/Regional Governments Set up community platforms (both for passenger and freight transport) to understand the current needs and potential of their region, facilitate open communication and constructive dialogue, and produce a common vision for the environmental co-modality for airports Platforms for passengers should include: passenger associations, airport managers, air and land transport operators, employees unions, expert research institutions Platforms for freight should include: industry (shippers and receivers), SMEs, local business community, air and land transport operators, Logistics Service Providers (LSP), expert research institutions. Assess and discuss potential investment options and interventions

52 Policy Recommendations Local/Regional Governments Develop a strategic regional plan for transport, specifying the role of the airport(s) in the regional/national transport system Record the current transport system and its parameters (role and function of each mode of transport, strong elements and bottlenecks) Create a vision (through stakeholder consultation). Set aims & objectives (what needs to be interconnected). Explore the various choices and actions that will help achieve the goals and the overall vision. Monitor progress and adjust according to scheduled actions.

53 Policy Recommendations Local/Regional Governments Link airport policy and strategic planning with regional policy and Smart Specialization (RIS3 EU regional policy initiative) Identify the competitive advantages of the region in order to promote the key measures and establish collaborations for delivering better transport services to the community and increase its competitive advantage Identify and provide funding to ICT companies capable of delivering airport co-modality solutions by investing in ITS solutions. Ensure minimum data availability and facilitate exchange of information Identify potential transport corridors and connections with other regions in order to identify common interests and cooperate to obtain EU funding

54 Policy Recommendations Local/Regional Governments Incorporate the consolidated strategy vision on co-modality/intermodality for both passenger and freight transport in a Policy Paper concerning the development of infrastructure and operations. Adopt a roadmap for the implementation of the policy paper for the period Incorporate financial data for the implementation i.e. cost for the investments and possible sources of funding. Ensure acceptance of the strategy and its phased implementation by involved parties with public consultations

55 Policy Recommendations Local/Regional Governments Define specific environmental targets in respect to (land) airport operations in cooperation with airport manager Encourage measures to promote modal shift to more environmentally friendly modes of transport Ensure seamless movement between modes of transport relating to airport land access Set up monitoring mechanisms for environmental impacts of the airports Define objectives (in terms of emissions reductions) in cooperation with airport manager

56 Policy Recommendations Airports Provide incentives to employees for using more environmentally friendly modes of transport. Airport land-side activities, and especially car parks, must be integrated in a broader regional strategy, to the extent possible Set modal split targets with the aim of promoting the use of environmentally friendly modes Regional planning for competitive public transport services

57 Policy Recommendations Airports Understand the profile of the airport demand and the sources of their revenues (for passengers, freight and non aeronautical activities), in order to be able to evaluate potential customer services and thus enhance co-modality. Provide specialized services to target market segments. Conduct Revealed Preference (RP) and Stated Preference (SP) Surveys to understand the needs of the passengers / local industry Clearly understand the customer segments and profiles and identify additional market opportunities (expanding the catchment area) Evaluate potential investments and co-modality services, addressing specific (or anticipated) customer needs Cooperation with other airports and modal terminals, for both passenger (eg. Passenger/cruise ports for coordinating schedules and promoting cruise homeporting) and freight transport

58 Policy Recommendations Airports Set up communication channels and networks with the local community (passengers and freight), and the policy makers (at regional, national and European level) It is important for airports to communicate their views with policy makers, also through joining and participating in relevant international associations Participate (or set up) community platforms for understanding the problems and needs of the local/regional community (both for passengers and freight), in collaboration with the local government (e.g. airport users forums for freight services)

59 Policy Recommendations Airports Set up an environmental policy agenda coupled with a detailed Action Plan for the period Explore potential co-modality measures for improving the Public Transport connections of the Airport Cooperate with (land) transport operators for addressing the public transport needs of the passengers (as a result of the airport market analysis) Establish a standard environmental toolbox for keeping statistical figures and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Evaluate the environmental impacts of airport operations (air and land side, airport building) Cooperate with SMEs and research centres for establishing methodologies and obtaining the appropriate equipment and tools for the set up of the environmental observatory Establish a Green Award System Promote and take advantage of a Green Airport image

60 Policy Recommendations Airports Explore the opportunities and the potential to enhance airport access in order to take advantage of non-aeronautical revenues (airport city) Identify the potential role of the airport in respect to non aeronautical activities Position the airport in the regional or/and urban planning Evaluate the benefits (anticipated additional revenues) derived from increased access through co-modality measures and enhanced public transport services

61 The role of SMEs Develop and test new concepts and technologies to support comodality implementation Assist local and regional authorities and decision makers by tackling environmental objectives Develop and use proper ICT to provide new innovative services to customers Support to air transport authorities and organizations may be provided through recommendations for the deployment of standards Assist airport managers by providing technological solutions for the implementation of airport co-modality services

62 The role of Research Centers Communicate and cooperate with all the other actors in this business environment Provide advice to decision makers and assist them in policy making Provide support to air transport authorities and organizations through the development of standards Develop innovative analytical tools and methodologies for optimizing current and future operations to assist airport and other transport operators Conduct surveys to identify the preferences of passengers in relation to potential co-modality investments under certain economic and social criteria Cooperate with airport managers to conduct passenger and market analysis of the airports, and broader RP (Revealed Preference) and SP (Stated Preference) experiments in relation to co-modality measures, in order to understand the airport s market segmentation

63 Opportunities for innovation Emerging issues Evaluation tools and methodologies Need for big data Data sharing and security issues Standards Legal and institutional reform Interoperability of systems Coordinated scheduling, ticketing Resilience

64 CENTRE FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY HELLAS (CERTH) HELLENIC INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT (H.I.T.) Clean Aerospace REgions (CARE) Project Presentation title: Recommendations and policies to enhance Airport Environmental Co-modality for passenger and freight transport through research clusters and SMEs participation Anestis Papanikolaou, Maria Boile, Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH) Hellenic Institute of Transport (HIT) THE ISSUE Webinar 10, 3/6/2014