The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 - Go Local StudyGO LOCAL STUDY: Evaluation of Transit Connections to John Wayne Airport Joint City Council Meeting Newport Beach and Costa Mesa September 30, 2008 Cities' Goals Go Local Scope: Evaluate a transit link into JWA. • Evaluate planned OCTA transit services ■ Metrolink Expansion • I Shuttle ■ Bus Rapid Transit • Review previous rail studies into JWA • Compare transit connections from Irvine or Tustin Metrolink stations into JWA Orange County Future Aviation Demand: Critically analyze a regional approach to airport service. Evaluation Process ■ Gather Market Data with Passenger Survey ■ Analyze & Understand Market Data ■ Evaluate Airport Transit Services ■ Market Airport Transit Services to Traveler Primary Trip Purpose ■ Dominant Passenger Segment - Leisure Travelers (55 %) • Over half are visiting friends and family ■ 45% are Business Travelers ■ High median household income of $100,000 - $125,000 JWA Trip Purpose: Convention/ Conference Vacation/ 8% Pleasure Trip 25% Business Visiting 37% Friends/ Relatives 27% Other 3% Resident - Visitor Mix 1 1 ■ 40% of JWA passengers are Orange County residents ■ 6% are from adjacent counties ■ 56% are visitors. i Passengers Primary Residence: Orange County 40% Out -of -State 42% Other SoCal 6% Rest of California 12% COUNTY City % Share LOS ANGELES 3.0'3, Lang Beach 1.0I7o Los Angeles 0.3% Lakewood 0.2% RIVERSIDE 1.8% Corona 0.5% Murrieta 0.3% Riverside 0.3% SAN BERNARDINO 0.7% SAN DIEGO 0.7% TOTAL 6.2% � � 0 OR ORANGE COUNTY 0 SA QW LN MetnoUnk Station on Orange County Line -Planned Bristol/State College Bus Rapid Transit Line -I-5hut1|e ~�~~� -Transit Corridor Boundary M79 s* Air Passenger Origin »yCity , 1111111110,. ` Ground Transportation Mode ` 1 • Private car (58 %) is the primary access mode: • 40% are dropped off, (2x the vehicle trips) • 18% "Drive & Park" at JWA • 85 percent of residents travel to JWA in private cars. • Visitor business travelers rely primarily on rental cars • Passengers visiting friends and family are mostly dropped off • "Drive & Park" tend to be higher income business travelers Ground Transportation Mode to ]WA: Private Car Rental Car Taxi /Limo Hotel Shuttle Public Bus I Shuttle Other 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% { -) =V1 _ ix rtv IR - Metrolink Station on Orange County Line - Planned Bristol /State College Bus Rapid Transit Line -I- Shuttle 10 O� SJ gpg>t O Sc I a+9r Airport Employees By Zip Code \ I 6]933 1r e•:.'D�70 , cS � \� J � P� xxe O AN kKet 93yg9 - l 0 cw ORAI { -) =V1 _ ix rtv IR - Metrolink Station on Orange County Line - Planned Bristol /State College Bus Rapid Transit Line -I- Shuttle 10 O� SJ gpg>t O Sc I a+9r Airport Employees By Zip Code Transit Evaluation Framework ■ Components: • Extension of Metrolink Orange County Line into JWA • I Shuttle Extension • Rail Extension • OCTA Bus Rapid Transit Services ( "BRAVO ") • Direct services to targeted high density clusters ■ Evaluation Criteria: • Geographic Eligibility • Demographic Segmentation • Revealed transit preference OCTA Bristol /State College Boulevard BRT 2hD City of Irvine I Shuttle A.~ Planning a( 1h L-dklg Edge ■ 4] Geographic Market for Transit ■ Metrolink serves 48% of passenger base and 43% of JWA employees ■ Provides potential to attract South County air passengers ■ Passenger coverage in BRT market is diminished (30 %) ■ 40% of employees still served with planned BRT route ■ BRT market contains higher share of visitor - business and visitor - leisure base Rail Transit — Time /Cost Evaluation ■ Estimated trip time incorporating rail transit is approximately 60% greater than driving. ■ Current Metrolink pricing structure provides limited cost savings to air passengers when combined with other trip costs ■ Closer in cities provide most reasonable extended transit times but more distant cities provide greatest potential cost saving Comparison of Drive Time to JWA Cost Differential: RailTransit versus Drive versus Estimated Rail Transit Time 80 $3 70 s2 51 s0 � 40 ($2) 30 ($5) 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ($6) 0 — _. _ — _ _ — — — _. _ — _ — — — ($7) _ fi• E= o rn c n` r3 a o °c t m u E o rn c m qi n c m a 2 c ¢ w o ,� rym c_ Y ryL a N !P a . c = $ A Z q N Z m �' LL T N Q u' E a S m J d CT A Z 6l LL N N u F N q C C i 0 C A O 7 LL d O. N N d L J 3 0 C a L J L 1i W 6 N p d W q 7 N N C C Y Q A U L 0 2 O 9 m U C 7 N N C UI C •i T D CI V U Of J J C 1A qQ• U J J T N V1 i5 4 ^ J q • V c U C N A Observed Drive Time Rail Transit Time • One -way Fam(Daily purchase) One -way Fare(Monthly Pass) BRT— Time /Cost Evaluation • Estimated trip time using bus transit is approximately 40% greater than driving. • Current OCTA pricing structure provides greater cost savings to air passengers over rail transit. • Employees have greater frequency of use and will derive greater financial benefits. Comparison of Drive Time to JWA Cost Differential: BRT versus Drive versus Estimated BRT Transit Time 60 50 40 30 f 20 10 0 m E v E m t9 > o+ c = d m N V O Ur r A LL j LL Q S y y O 0 M Q) Observed Drive Time Bus Transit Time $1 $0 ($1) ($2) ($3) ($4) ($5) ($6) m o a` t v E m 'y c W > e a+ c c c '> 4 = dl m m V O m LL U O C a Y y m N q 9 J c� • One -way Fare(Daily purchase) One -way Fare(Monthly Pass) Rail Ridership Potential ■ Passenger pool derived from geographic market area, demographic market, and stated preference for use of transit options. • Passenger ridership range estimated between 500 and 2,000 passengers per day • A range of 2 -5% growing to as much as 10% was used to generate low and high ridership levels for employees. Daily Ridership Low Case Base Case High Case of Total Base Low Case Base Case High Case 1.6% 10.0 MAP 0.8% 10.8 MAP PAX Employees Total PAX Employees Total 2.0% 4.1% 450 40 490 490 80 570 1,220 100 1,320 1,310 190 1,500 1,820 240 2,060 1,960 480 2,440 1.6% 0.8% 1.5% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 4.5% 2.0% 4.1% 4.8% 4.0% 4.7% 6.6% 5.0% 6.4% 7.2% 10.0% 11 7.6% i l 9600 � •lm.. "14xO2/O Jt O OR ORANGE COUNTY \\ Y r.u.� c. aat3 9,1n�. iC6SS5 O $A r_.JS@ 02818 N_4 ... TU �\ S A i' alsII O I 1 -0 0 awn � 6l1' 11j15 �tCdb target Clusters W.e< 14% 1 - Metrolink Station on Orange County Line O - Planned Bristol /State College Bus Rapid Transit Line -I-Shuttle b 7] CW" Air Passenger Origin by Zip Code Target Air Passengers ■ Target clusters account for 42% of JWA passengers ■ Anaheim- Garden Grove Resort • Visitors(95 %) - Vacation and Convention Travelers(74 %)' ■ John Wayne Airport - South Coast Metro • Visitors (67 %) - Vacation and Convention Travelers(24 %) - Business Travelers from Local Hotels(37 %) ■ South Orange County • Resident Travelers(48 %) - Metrolink Users JWA -South Coast Metro ■ 14% of JWA passenger traffic. ■ Large visitor component ■ Strong business base • Highly dependent on hotels for lodging • Majority travel in low occupancy vehicles Taxi, Limo, City Zip Visitors Shared Ride, Rental Car Private Cars Visitor Origin at Hotel Costa Mesa 9 92626 6 66% 3 31% 2 - Isel Patti EA w L a � Suntk.)wer AVP T l7 U South � y ss. Coast Plara O � O Az O 15 Hotels on this Route Each Runs a Separate Shuttle Route Mileage: 3 -5 miles l 7 o` T Santa Ana MO Or Cuuntfy Club i ef`1f 22 IN Mr)tR St I;r, M 41 %LCB Ana Planning of M leading Edge South Orange County ■ Mix of resident travelers and visiting vacationers ■ Heavy reliance on private cars ■ Focus on Resident Leisure Travelers ■ Initial Marketing Target - Metrolink Users Taxi, Limo, City Zip Visitors Shared Ride, Rental Car Private Cars Aliso Viejo 92656 24% 11% 4% 8S% Dana Point 92629 58% 18% 22% 60% Irvine 92618 66% 18% 38% 44% Laguna Beach 92651 79% 28% 33% 39% Laguna Niguel 92677 33% 8% 9% 83% San Juan Capistrano 92675 48% 14% 14% 72% Visitor Origin at Hotel 0% 62% 36% 74% 8% 17% Anaheim - Garden Grove Resort Area ■ Visitors (95 %) ■Disneyland ■Convention Center • Limited use of rental & private cars • High dependence on resort /hotel services Taxi, Limo, Visitor Origin City Zip Visitors Shared Ride, Rental Car Private Cars at Hotel Bus Anaheim 92802 97% 74% 2200 4% 94% Garden Grove 92840 90% 56% 23% 21% 86% Southern California Airports Considered ■ 31% of JWA passengers considered other airports. ■ LAX is primary alternative to JWA. ■ 50% of passengers took one or more trip from other So Cal airports in the past year. Alternate Airport Considered: i 80% -- -- Considered using an_o_th 70 /o o o.California Ai 67.3% 4J 60% NO YES 69% 31% 50% 40% 37.1 i 30% 20% 11.4% 10% 5.9% 1.3% ■- - 0 - 0 /o OTHER BUR N ONT LGB LAX Airport Choice Factors • Passengers primarily choose an airport based its proximity to'I the local trip origin. • Frequency of air service in desired travel market and schedule convenience are other major determinants in passengers choice of JWA. ■ Air service considerations are more important to JWA passengers choice than are air fares. Close Proximity of Airport Comenient Flight Schedules Availability of Non -Stop flights Ticket Prices Familiarity With the Airport Ground Transportation Choices Airline Selection Ease & Price of Airport Parking Terminal Facilities and Services Variety of Concessions 00% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50,0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% be 7dwq Potential Drivers of Regionalization • Assuming the air service variables of frequency, market, and price are equal; passengers will choose the closest airport (travel time). • Price will be primary determinant in modifying airport choice. • Express rail /bus transport has the potential to reduce access travel times to outlying airports to augment constrained capacity at JWA. What would influence your decision to fly from Ontario or San Bernardino? Lower Fares 47.8 More non -stop choices 34.4 Direct Train to Airport 24.2 Express Bus to Airport 20.4 I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Opportunities for Regionalization ■ Short Term Strategy • Target Changing Airport Preferences of Sub - Segments of Aviation Market ■ Disney Resort ■ North Orange County Cities ■ Long Term Strategy • Use Integrated Air -Rail To Alter Airport Access Times • Transfer Short -Haul Air Demand to Rail Metrolink Station on Orange County Line - - Planned Bristol /State College Bus Rapid Transit Line O sC -I- Shuttle - Transit Corridor Boundary 0 Air Passenger Origin by City _. dl 111111111/ dv. _ v\ �\ f PO FL n rr. 92POP COW O �\ .� 4?4, � OR ORANGE COUNTY w"5 3 W7(6 wes; O SA \ vc�. O 7U �_- \ X782. 9 ?P2 $ \\ ww9 �V :dry 98812 9a'w 17 17 mw — Me_ T'gl � l M7' ///92098. L \,S' O LN \\ r &6 P Metrolink Station on Orange County Line - - Planned Bristol /State College Bus Rapid Transit Line O sC -I- Shuttle - Transit Corridor Boundary 0 Air Passenger Origin by City _. dl 111111111/ dv. _ v\ EW La finance Rwv MN EWI�s f' �p/19 Bs7 ORANGE COUNTY -VISITING AIR PASSENGERS for ('Y 2007 Percentage of Originating Visiting LAX Air Passengers by 21P Code 0.09'.': to 0 5.033 to 15.728 025% to % 0.50% 50 15,791 to 31.456 0.51% to 1.0056 32.085 to 62,911 101% to 150% 63.540 to 94.367 1.51% to 3.50% 54.9% to 220,789 0 50.30% 3.164.432 100% = A11 VISITINGdtginabng Orange County LAX At Passengem Orange County. California LAX Visiting Passenger Origins (Percent = Percent of total visiting passengers in Orange County) Pn ec, by Loa Mpt4s Wwl4 Alryv Anpg� a Fac,,Mes Faemny 7M4 My M 2W9 DATA SMRM _200e Uy Ai Passeyes Survey Repert- 0epemoa 2007 31 K ails9�!i`i - re_wm_m iii Has Taal 2007 Originating LAX Air Passengers 40,851.41U Taal 2007 Originating LAX Visitors 17 974.620 Total 2007 Ongmaang Orange County Visitors 6,291,117 i f' AL VA WAs' � fP, . {aer`fn UbAJ Arr(iPrn AvnibW Planrvnq of Me Lbad FJge Y \ Pyy yl �Tuljre '�. Bakt/sfwW A �7tS.v+ Luis Ob.spo r�9antr Muir Sg Pot $area ClarA Los Angeles Basin Airports 5.3 Million Passengers 32 r Las Vegas Airport 5.2 Million Passengers /tare i Mw^t �J BulphvAd CAY r Nvvd Lake Havasu Cif_ Trrentynkw Pakn% - San Diego Airport 1.7 Million Passengers c N IIIILCH AHef Planning at th Le dJ y Fdy