An IATA official has recently been quoted as saying that, 'A slot management system is indicative of a failure of governments or airports to invest in adequate infrastructure to keep pace with airline demand.'

Should governments and airports always invest to meet airline demand?

Consider the issue of de-peaking. Until recently, airlines worked on a hub-and-spoke basis, scheduling large numbers of flights in and out of hub airports in 3-4 waves each day - early morning, lunch time, late afternoon, and evening. They all connected with each other and then flew off again.

Surprise, surprise - this caused overloading of facilities at peak times and under-utilisation out of those peaks. What did airlines do? Why, they de-peaked at key airports.

Aircraft still came into hub airports in those waves, but their departure was sometimes re-scheduled so that the peak load on check-in and baggage staff was reduced.

So - by IATA's argument - airports should have invested in capacity for the peak caused by the historic hub-and-spoke operation when that became fashionable. They would, of course, then have been left high and dry by the subsequent de-peaking, having invested in long-life assets which the users no longer wanted!

Consider the fact that aircraft are mobile assets and airports are not. Some airlines will - rightly - try a route for a season or two to see if they can make money out of it. If they can't, they pull out. So what should the airport do? How much should they invest for an operation which might not last beyond tomorrow?

And consider the impact of frequent flights by small aircraft or less frequent ones by larger aircraft (an issue studied, incidentally, in ACRP Report 31, available on the TRB web-site).

If an airline schedules a 50-seat plane every half hour instead of a 100-seat plane every hour, it takes up twice as many slots for the same number of passengers. OK, on this one you could argue passenger convenience - all other things being equal, people prefer frequency. But is it really worth it - is it a good use of scarce runway and slot capacity?

Is it worth increasing capacity - as IATA suggests - for this kind of thing?

To me, the killer argument here is that of San Diego. This is the busiest single runway airport in the United States, handling 17 million passengers a year. It has spent much time, money and effort looking for ways to increase capacity because, it is said, it's full.

But look across the Atlantic, to Gatwick - the busiest single runway airport in the world, handling exactly twice as many passengers! The key difference is aircraft size.

The predict and provide policy - predicting demand then providing infrastructure to meet it - has been discarded in other areas. How much does IATA need to catch up with this? Because another leading IATA manager has been quoted as saying that airports should use their charging system to re-distribute traffic - a peak charge signals the cost of the additional infrastructure needed for the peak.

A colleague recently moved from the aviation industry to the rail industry. The key difference he noticed was that the former was always planning for growth, whereas the rail industry was planning for a steady state.

This led me to wonder what the aviation industry would look like if it wasn't always growing! I have as yet come to no conclusions, but there was an interesting presentation at the TRB Annual Meeting in January which showed that air passenger growth might be slowing significantly.

And, logically, it cannot continue. In my lifetime, fares have continued to drop in real terms, and this has led to the growth in air travel we have seen. Can this go on?

Your thoughts would be appreciated!

I was very interested to read 'The New York City pedestrian safety study & action plan', published by the Department of Transport this month - see the New York City web-site.

Headline facts are that pedestrians are 10 times more likely to die than a motor vehicle occupant in the event of a crash, pedestrians accounted for 50% of traffic fatalities in 2005-2009, 36% of crashes resulted from driver inattention, 27% of crashes where pedestrians were killed or seriously injured occured when a motorist failed to give way, 80% of crashes which kill or seriously injure pedestrians involve male drivers, and 79% involve private cars.

New York City is relatively safe as American cities go - there are 3.49 traffic fatalities for each 100,000 of population (compared with Atlanta at 10.97 and Detroit at 10.31). But London has 2.10 and Stockholm 1.23. Since national fatality rates are 12.2, it must be pretty deadly out in the sticks!

Since 2004, the number of traffic fatalities in New York City has been lower than in 1910 - which is impressive!

Pedestrian fatality rates were 1.8/100,000 of population in 2008 - again much lower than Atlanta (11) and Los Angeles (7.6).

Vulnerable road users - pedestrians, cyclists and motor-cyclists - accounted for 71% of the city's traffic fatalities.

A telling quote from the report is that, 'Drivers can usually be expected to behave in ways appropriate for their own safety but may not always have the same commitment to the safety of people outside vehicles'.

A disproportionate number of pedestrian crashes in Manhattan were on major 2-way streets.

Wide roads also accounted for more pedestrian crashes - this reflects much other research which shows that widening roads reduces safety.

74% of crashes involving pedestrians were at intersections (it's 24% in the rest of the USA). Nearly half were at signalled intersections: 57% of these occurred when the pedestrain was crossing with the signal.

Pedestrians are more likely to be killed or seriously injured when crossing with the signal than against it, although crossing against the signal is more likely to be fatal.

Driver inattention was a factor in 36% of crashes: these were more than twice as likely to be fatal than others. Driving while using a mobile phone is more dangerous than drunken driving.

Speed is also an issue. A pedestrian struck at 40 miles/h is 4 times more likely to die than one struck at 30: one struck at 30 is 6 times more likely to die than one struck at 20.

As a result of the study, an action plan has been drawn up. High-crash corridors are to be identified and targeted, and countdown signals are to be installed at more crossings. The State legislature is to be pressed to allow more red light cameras (only 150 are allowed at the moment) and speed cameras (currently illegal in New York City).

The city's target is to halve traffic fatalities between 2007 and 2030: they are currently a bit ahead of traget, with 256 fatailites in 2009.

The rail connection to Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport opened today - and it looks good, with a choice of an Airport Express or a commuter train as well as in-town check-in facilities at the Airport Express's downtown terminal.

I had a look at the airport's web-site to see how well the link was publicised - after all, it could bring both business and prestige to the airport.

I went to www.bangkokairportonline.com then clicked on Transportation then on Airport Express - and got details of the express bus service into the city!

You have to click on Rail Link to get any information about the railway - and that is badly out of date. Full service is expected in early 2010! There are no links to the airport railway (note to searchers - it's on www.bangkokairporttrain.com).

Sad - and a waste of a valuable resource for the airport.

There are debates about what an Airport Express really is - express laundry? express coffee?

In Bangkok, it's the four bus routes who got in first with the brand name. In Chicago, it's the minibus (or shared-ride van) service.

It's a pity - from the customer information point of view - that we can't standardise on this!

Probably the best name is the one in (Wien) Vienna. The stunning airport express there is called the City Airport Train - what could be clearer than that?

A colleague has made the interesting suggestion that it may be time to rethink how classes of service on trains are described or branded. He comments that the standard of accommodation on many first class train services is similar to premium economy on an aircraft.

He also speculated that occupancy might rise if the service was branded Premium or Business Class, since most companies have a travel policy which is aimed at finding the best business class service.

In addition, he raises the question of airlines which offer a rail service as a complimentary feeder service between airport and specific domestic destinations for certain fare types. Should this be a premium rail service for a premium air traveler? This is likely to depend on the traveler profile and the policy of the individual carrier.

Fascinating stuff!

As an economist, I approve of the concept of providing a number of classes and therefore a number of prices. It helps to maximise revenue, and it improves customer choice.

However, one needs to be culturally aware - in particular, of what to call the two classes.

In Japanese trains, there is Ordinary Class and Green Class. On some, you pay less if you have to stand: you can also have a compartment in Green Class which costs more than the ordinary Green Class, effectively making 4 classes.

On the Dubai Metro there is Gold and Silver Class.

I'm glad the UK rail network changed form Second Class to Standard Class: the argument was that you shouldn't be calling 80% of your passengers "second class"!

Heathrow Express had a big debate about what to call its classes: they decided on First and Express (and the term 'Express' was my idea!). First and Business was decided against, on the grounds that lots of people weren't travelling first class and were not travelling on business!

Amtrak provides coach and business class on the Acela Regional trains, and business and first on the Acela Express.

I was fascinated to learn recently about the Club Car on New Jersey Transit. A group of people pay to have a dedicated car attached to one peak train each way: the car has more comfortable seating and more leg-room than the average commuter car. Passengers pay their fare to NJT and a supplement for travel in the Club Car. You can pay by the day or for a month.

Moving on to the second point, I'm pretty sure that those airlines which offer complimentary rail travel in conjunction with a flight only offer first class. I also understand that the take-up of rail is good - at one stage, people like Virgin Atlantic and Emirates were offering their preferred passengers a choice of a limo or Gatwick Express to London, and most chose the train because of its reliability.

On both the Stuttgart and Cologne to Frankfurt and the Brussels Midi - Paris CDG air-rail code shares, all rail travel is in first class.

One reason for the unpopularity of the short-lived code-share between SN-Brussels and Thalys on the Paris Gare du Nord - Brussels Airport sector was that rail travel was in Confort-2 class and not Confort-1.

I'm not sure what happens on other rail-air code-shares.

It was also interesting to see that American Airlines now offer what they call Express Seats! Customers can buy seats in the first few rows of Coach, including bulkhead seats. In addition to sitting in the front of the main cabin, the Express Seats option also includes being in Group 1 of General Boarding, providing the benefit of being among the first Coach customers to board the plane. Express Seats can only be purchased at airport Self-Service Check-In machines between 24 hours and 50 minutes before flight departure, on flights within the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

This has been done by Ryanair for a while - passengers can pay a priority boarding fee to be among the first to board - and therefore to have the best choice of seat. I do not know whether there is any limit on the number sold - could everyone buy priority boarding?

So what do you think? Should first class rail be re-branded? To what?

As the new class 377 trains have been introduced onto the Thameslink route (connecting Luton and Gatwick Airports to London) I've been hearing but not really noticing the announcements on platforms as they approach.

One thing I did notice last night - and started to think about - is an element of laziness.

The 4-car units have a first class section at each end.

But regardless of whether the train has one or two 4 car units, the announcement is always to the effect that 'First class accommodation is at the front and rear of the train'.

So it is, of course, but if it's an 8-car train it's also in the middle! And there are plenty of stations where you might wish to alight and you might wish to be in the middle of the train rather than at the front or rear for speed of egress. Especially with ticket barriers making it more of a scrum to leave the station!

Is this someone taking the easy way out and ignoring the passengers? Especially the premium passengers?

The current management seem to have cracked this counting business: if a 4-car train is announced, it's likely to have four coaches. With the previous guys, you knew that there were two kinds of 4-car train - those which actually had four coaches and those which had 8. There were also two kinds of 8-car train, which was sometimes distressing because it necessitated a sprint!

Now that counting has been cracked - or so it seems - it ought to be possible to have separate announcements for 4 and 8 car trains. The next Great Leap Forward!

I have blogged before about the new trains being introduced to First Capital Connect's Thameslink route connecting Gatwick and Luton Airports to London.

They look nice, and they are air conditioned.

A downside I have noted before is the lack of seats - they have about 50 fewer in a 4-car unit than the class 319s they replace (although at some time in the future they will run as 12-car formations, when all the platforms on the route have been lengthened).

Another is that they ride very firmly - downright roughly in places, almost to the point of being alarming. I've only sampled them north of the Thames - I wonder what they are like to the south, where the railway is even more heavily used?

This station has recently become much more important to Heathrow Express users. This is because of the change in the operating pattern of the Circle Line, which now no longer serves the City directly from the Circle and District Line platforms. It's good to see that the platform environment has been much improved over the last few weeks.

The main visual impact is light. The station is much more light and airy. At the London end in particular, the area has been significantly enhanced with the demolition of some walls and overhead structures, so there is now much natural daylight.

At the other end, the out-of-use footbridge which only went to the adjacent platform has been removed. This too has created more light and more space.

Some of the clutter has also gone from the platforms.

In addition, the Next Train information system is much better.

As yet, there is no sign of a lift (elevator). This would be a major benefit to passengers with heavy luggage - and at a major London terminus handling a lot of holiday traffic as well as the Heathrow Express, this is a major issue. However, there is space, so we can hope!

Indeed, the facilities for changing level constitute the major remaining drawback. The stairs to the footbridge, the only exit from the platforms, get very congested in the peak (although the staff do their best). And there is also congestion by the ticket machines as you emerge onto the main station overbridge.

But overall, the station is significantly better than it was.

Apparently a carbon audit for Manchester Airport showed that 60% of carbon emissions came from cars and coaches, 20% from planes and 20% from buildings.

Currently 8% of passengers access Manchester Airport by rail (and, it is thought, longer-distance journeys predominate). If this percentage doubled by attracting more passengers from the private car, that would reduce carbon emissions by nearly 5% (8% of 60%).

What's that reduction worth - to the environment, to the neighbours?

And how could it be achieved? The train service is already pretty good - what more is needed? Ideas, please!

The late afternoon news on BBC yesterday carried the story about a possible strike involving BAA's airports.

The story was illustrated by a nice airport picture.

In fact, it was the stunning and iconic Pier 6 bridge at Gatwick Airport.

Yes, the Gatwick Airport which BAA was forced to sell some months ago and which isn't involved in the strike!

A form of words which seems to have come into use recently is the 'x times less than' type of statement - as in 'He earns 10 times less than I do', or 'Rail passengers are 1500 times less likely to have an accident than motor cyclists'.

Very true, no doubt - but what does it mean?

If I have 100, 10 times more than this is 1000 - that's easy. So is 10 times less than this actually a negative figure, -900? If not, why not?

And if you really mean 'one tenth of' then why not say so? That is clear and unambiguous - a tenth of 100 is 100 divided by 10.

Because I came across '1.6 times less than' recently: this is probably '60% of' but it seemed a bizarre way of putting it. I assume that 'two times less than' is a half, and you wouldn't (presumably!) say 'one times less than'!

I would like to see this terminology used several times less than I do!

One of the pandemics of our time is litter - trash.

It's growing for a number of reasons - free newspapers, fast food and drinks in cardboard cups being prime suspects.

My generation cannot drop litter, and neither can my childrens' - they were taught not to by their parents. But between the two appears to be a generation which can - and, of course, so can its children. And they do.

This post was stimulated by a particularly egregious example of littering seen on my train to London today.

The seats in First Capital Connect's class 319 units are in groups of 4: between each block of 4 seats is a space generally used for luggage, although two or three in each carriage have a litter bin there instead.

The man sitting in the aisle seat finished his free paper and - as you do - tossed it onto the floor in the luggage space behind and across the aisle from him. He didn't - of course - bother to look for a litter bin. There was actually one right behind him, closer to him than the floor on which he untidily dropped his trash!

No doubt he was keeping a carriage cleaner in employment - and no doubt he groused about dirty trains and high fares. And, sadly, no doubt there are thousands like him!

We were amused to read a publicity brochure from Keolis entitled 'Helping authorities make the right choice'.

In the brochure, Keolis claim that they won a key contract in Melbourne - the world's largest tramway - because they 'think like a passenger'.

But that's something IARO has always said too - that people designing systems need to think like a passenger!

It's nice to be flattered!

Airports Council International produce a series of best practice guides based on their regular Airport Service Quality benchmarking exercise. The one on Baggage Carts (trolleys), published in 2008, has some interesting statistics.

Airports where carts are free to use score higher on "Availability of baggage carts" than those which charge or ask for a deposit.

90% of airports have carts which can be used in lifts, 62% on moving walkways, and 12% on escalators.

44% have brakes, although the report doesn't say what sort.

The usual ones at airports have brakes which are only on - applied - when a passenger activates them, usually by holding two parts of the handle together.

By contrast, carts used on railway stations normally have the brakes on unless someone holds the two parts of the handle together: only then is the brake off and the cart can move. This, obviously, is a safety measure - no-one wants baggage carts on a railway line!

But it does pose a problem when the station is at an airport. What kind of cart do you use? If you use one where the brake isn't normally on, then it can't be safely used on the station - passengers can't take them to the train door.

An issue for airport railways!

I've written before about the fact that getting a driving licence is no longer the first ambition of a 17 year old - and consequently licence holding is dropping.

Latest figures from National Travel Statistics, for Great Britain 2009, confirm this.

In 1995/7, 43% of people aged between 17 and 20 had a licence: by 2009 that figure was 36%. The drop has affected the next age cohort too: for those between 21 and 29, in 1995/7 74% had a licence whereas in 2009 it was 65%.

If you just look at males, figures are even more dramatic.

In 1995/7, 50% of those between 17 and 20 had a licence: in 2009 it was 37%. For their elders (21-29) it was 80% in 1995/7 and 67% in 2009.

Next time someone says, "Everyone's got a car these days", tell them!

An interesting article in the May/June issue of ITS International discussed a Dutch experiment to test peoples' willingness to stop driving a single-occupancy vehicle in the peak.

Individual volunteers were able to decide how to change their trip pattern - car-pooling, public transport, cycling, flexible hours and home-working were all alternatives used.

Two different kinds of reward were offered for success. Some could have a smart phone with added services (travel and traffic information). Others were offered varying amounts of money - between 3 and 7 Euros for each peak trip avoided.

The 340 volunteers reduced their peak travel by 50%, and the greatest part of this was for a reward of 3 Euros a trip. Those who wanted to earn a smart phone did more peak avoiding than was necessary to earn it.

Those who cycled found the experience positive. They found it healthier and found themselves fitter as a result. They were also far less inclined to sit in rows of stationary traffic: they wanted to take positive action to avoid it. They found the travel information service very helpful in this respect.

The Railway Study Association was formed in 1909, and commissioned a book to commemorate its centenary. The book, 'A century of change', is one which I have just finished and found fascinating.

The underlying message - change is constant, and will continue - is hardly surprising.

The book illustrates this by reference to themes pervading presentations made at its regular meetings - presentations usually made by senior figures in the railway or transport industry. These are enlivened by the presence at these meetings of other figures in the transport industry, senior and junior, who are clearly interested in their profession.

It makes the point that the decade between 1960 and 1970 was the one where change really accelerated, where it was really apparent.

And this was my railway. I joined BR in 1963 (the family firm - my father worked on the railways for 45 years, as did one of his brothers), and reading this book really took me back across a long and fascinating career.

But it's not just nostalgia. There is serious stuff in this book: it is well worth reading.

And one thing which almost unintentionally emerges is the danger of the loss of corporate memory. In 1970 the name of the organisation was changed from Railway Students Association to Railway Study Association. The book is vague about why, merely commenting that the word student had negative connotations around that time. So it did: student riots, revolts, sit-ins and so on were certainly making the headlines. But the reason I remember is the confusion and embarrassment it sometimes caused to visiting speakers who hadn't been fully briefed. They sometimes came expecting teenage students (and with a presentation geared to their expected level of knowledge and experience), and were clearly taken aback by finding the room full of people with the same level of seniority and expertise as themselves!
The book is excellent, as is the Association (of which I have been a member for over 40 years).

You might like to look at their web-site, www.railwaystudyassociation.org

My recent visit to Belgium (see earlier blog post) led me to reflect on languages.

If you are a train operator in, for example, the Netherlands, Flanders or Norway where the local language is known by a relatively small population (4m - 8m) and by very few others, what do you do when communicating with passengers?

How much do you translate into, say, English?

This is even more complex in Flanders (where you could also use French or German) and Catalonia (where you could also use Spanish).

Pictograms are valuable, although you can't use them for everything.

Putting everything in the local language and another - English, for example - risks devaluing the local language. And the local language is of course fundamental to the culture of the country. Indeed, in some places it is actually a political statement.

The aviation industry uses local language plus English, although its presence in a country is obviously much less pervasive than the railway industry.

The alternative - of using the local language for virtually everything - is an easy option, but many visitors can be put off. Learning another language for a 2-week visit is one thing: doing so for a 2-night business trip is something else!

And I leave you with the thought of a friend in London Underground on a trip to Germany, when his knowledge of German was fairly basic. He knew that Ausgang meant exit - but what about Notausgang? It actually means Emergency Exit, but it carries entirely the wrong message to people like himself!