Closing the Gap in Air – Rail Connectivity

Guest Blog by: Kaleb Neal

Digital and Physical Connections are Missing

Each day, 4 to 6 flights depart the South Bend, Indiana Airport for Chicago O’Hare International Airport. Likewise, 5 South Shore trains a day depart South Bend Airport for downtown Chicago.  What would it take to make the train a more convenient choice to reach O’Hare?

All flights out of South Bend ferry passengers to airline hubs like O’Hare. Any traveler wanting to go beyond the hub will need to connect, hence the need for a regional feeder service. This abundance of ultra-short-haul air service represents the state of train-to-airplane multi-modal connectivity in the United States because the South Shore Line provides rail service from South Bend to Chicago’s Millennium Station. In the case of South Bend, a mere 110 miles from O’Hare, why are people taking a short flight instead of using the train and then transferring to an airplane? The two reasons for this stem from the lack of infrastructure supporting train to airplane connections in the United States. The infrastructural deficit is both physical and digital, and compromises a traveler’s ability to confidently traverse long distances on multiple modes of transportation.

The primary issue with regional rail-to-air transfers is that the connection is rarely supported by the ticketing airline or a central ticketing authority. This lack of integrated booking infrastructure means that a passenger traveling from South Bend to San Francisco, for example, would need to acquire a ticket on the South Shore line to Chicago, and then book a separate ticket from O’Hare to San Francisco on an air carrier. This is called self-connecting, and places the burden and inherent risks of multi-modal connections onto the traveler. If your train is late getting to the airport, or your plane is late on the return leg, you would be responsible for paying any re-booking fees to get on the next airplane or train and would take a time penalty waiting for the next available connection — which could mean more than 24 hours of delay. Allowing travelers to book airline and rail tickets on the same platform and stay on one itinerary would streamline the journey and allow more travelers to take a regional train over a regional aircraft for short hops on a longer trip.

The Missing Digital Connection

The primary issue with regional rail-to-air transfers is that the connection is rarely supported by the ticketing airline or a central ticketing authority. This lack of integrated booking infrastructure means that a passenger traveling from South Bend to San Francisco, for example, would need to acquire a ticket on the South Shore line to Chicago, and then book a separate ticket from O’Hare to San Francisco on an air carrier. This is called self-connecting, and places the burden and inherent risks of multi-modal connections onto the traveler. If your train is late getting to the airport, or your plane is late on the return leg, you would be responsible for paying any re-booking fees to get on the next airplane or train and would take a time penalty waiting for the next available connection — which could mean more than 24 hours of delay. Allowing travelers to book airline and rail tickets on the same platform and stay on one itinerary would streamline the journey and allow more travelers to take a regional train over a regional aircraft for short hops on a longer trip.

These issues are connected in the sense that the lack of physical infrastructure supporting multi-modal connections increases the complexity of the traveler’s routing, which in turn increases the risk of missing connections. Airlines do not want to be associated with or liable for passengers missing a flight due to the failure of a railroad or because the travelers got lost in transit. Airlines do not care if passengers self-connect from rail-to-air though, because the traveler absorbs the risk if things go awry. This combination of circumstances produces demand for ultra-short-haul air service even when there is existing rail service, because it is the most convenient and least risky option for both passengers and airlines.

Making air-rail connections more commonplace requires having a serious discussion about risk allocation with transportation providers and should be further explored. Removing the full connection risk from the shoulders of the individual traveler is necessary if we want multi-modal connections to become more accessible. This of course does not remove the complexity sometimes associated with these connections, but with proper ticketing support and planning, travelers may be willing to take the train if it means they can save money or take a more scenic route on the ground, and airlines may be supportive of these connections if they can reduce unprofitable regional flying while maintaining passenger volume at larger hubs.

Integrating rail and air itineraries is the first step in promoting multi-modal passenger links and infrastructure improvements. Chicago O’Hare needs a better train station, but it also needs proper regional rail service. Achieving these goals will require a great deal of willpower, and having the ability to book integrated air-rail regional trips will bring greater advocacy for service improvements. If we improve the ticketing infrastructure and introduce travelers to the benefits of multi-modal travel, demand for better physical infrastructure will follow.