HAVALİMANLARINA ERİŞİM İÇİN TÜREL SEÇİM DAVRANIŞI: İSTANBUL ATATÜRK ULUSLARARASI HAVALİMANI (IST) VE SABİHA GÖKÇEN ULUSLARARASI HAVALİMANI (SAW) ÖRNEĞİ

Şehirlerde trafik sıkışıklığından dolayı havalimanlarına erişim bir sorun haline gelmiştir. Bu yüzden, yolcular havalimanlarına erişimdeki ulaşım türü seçimlerinde uçuşlarını kaçırmamak adına birçok faktörü değerlendirmektedir. Bu faktörlerin bazısı yolcunun yaşı, beraber seyahat ettiği kişi sayısı, bagaj sayısı, havalimanına yaptığı seyahatin maliyeti ve süresi ile ulaşım türünün güvenirliğidir. Bu faktörler havalimanları arasında farklılık gösterebilir. Dolayısıyla, bu çalışmada, sözü edilen faktörlerin farkı İstanbul Atatürk Uluslararası Havalimanı (IST) ve İstanbul Sabiha Gökçen Uluslararası Havalimanı (SAW) arasında incelenmiştir. Bu inceleme, Varyans Analizi (ANOVA) ve ona ait post-hoc testleri ile yapılmıştır. Sonuçlara göre, havalimanına erişimde kullanılan ulaşım türlerinin seçimini etkileyen faktörler hususunda bu iki havalimanı arasında farklılıklar mevcuttur. Ulaşım türlerinin güvenirliliğinin, seyahat süresinin, seyahat maliyetinin, yolcunun yaşının ve yolcuyla beraber seyahat eden kişi sayısının, IST’a erişim için ulaşım tür seçiminde etkili olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Ancak SAW’a erişim için sadece ulaşım türü güvenirliliği, seyahat süresi ve seyahat maliyeti tür seçiminde etkin olmuştur. Analizin sonuçlarına bağlı olarak, karar verici merciiler için bazı tavsiyelerde bulunulmuştur.

MODE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR GROUND ACCESS TO AIRPORTS: A CASE OF ISTANBUL ATATÜRK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (IST) AND SABIHA GOKCEN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SAW)

Accessing airports has been a problem for passengers due to traffic congestion in cities. Thus, in order to catch the flights on time, passengers consider many factors to choose the transportation mode for airport access. Some of the factors are covariates, and they can be listed as age of the passenger, number of luggage carried, travel cost and travel time to the airport, group size of the passengers, and reliability of access modes. These covariates, may differ for each airport; and hence, in this paper, we investigated the differences of these covariates between Istanbul Ataturk International Airport (IST) and Istanbul Sabiha Gokcen International Airport (SAW). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc tests were conducted to investigate the covariates that affect the mode choice to access IST and SAW. The results indicated that these two airports have differences in terms of the effect of these selected six covariates on airport access mode choice. Reliability of the modes, travel time, travel cost, age of the passenger and traveling group size affected the mode choice to access IST. On the other hand, only reliability of the modes, travel time and travel cost had effects on airport access mode choice for SAW. Based on the analysis, some recommendations for the decision makers were also provided.

___

  • [1] Harvey, G., “Study of Airport Access Mode Choice”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 112 (5), 525- 545, 1986.
  • [2] Akar, G., “Ground access to airports, case study: Port Columbus International Airport”, Journal of Air Transport Management, 30, 25-31, 2013.
  • [3] Tam, M. L., Lam, W. H., & Lo, H. P., “Modeling air passenger travel behavior on airport ground access mode choices”, Transportmetrica, 4 (2), 135-153, 2008.
  • [4] Choo, S., You, S., & Lee, H., “Exploring characteristics of airport access mode choice: a case study of Korea”, Transportation Planning and Technology, 36 (4), 335-351, 2013.
  • [5] Alhussein, S. N., “Analysis of ground access modes choice King Khaled International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia”, Journal of Transport Geography, 19 (6), 1361-1367, 2011.
  • [6] Yang, C. W., & Liao, P. H., “Modeling the joint choice of access modes and flight routes with parallel structure and random heterogeneity”, Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev., 95, 19–31, 2016.
  • [7] Jou, R-C., Hensher, D. A., & Hsu, T-L “Airport ground access mode choice behavior after the introduction of a new mode: A case study of Taoyuan International Airport in Taiwan”, Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., 47 (3), 371-381, 2011.
  • [8] Monteiro, A. B. F., & Hansen, M., “Improvements to airport ground access and behavior of multiple airport system: BART extension to San Francisco International Airport”, Transportation Research Record, 1562, 38–47, 1996.
  • [9] Hess, S., & Polak, J. W., “Airport, airline and access mode choice in the San Francisco Bay area”, Papers in Regional Science, 85 (4), 543–567, 2006.
  • [10] Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P., “Access to and competition between airports: A case study for the San Francisco Bay area”, Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 37 (1), 71-83, 2003.
  • [11] Koster, P., Kroes, E., & Verhoef, E., “Travel time variability and airport accessibility”, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 45 (10), 1545-1559, 2011.
  • [12] Gokasar, I., & Gunay, G. “Mode choice behavior modeling of ground access to airports: A case study in Istanbul, Turkey”, Journal of Air Transport Management, 57, 1-7, 2017.
  • [13] Gupta, S., Vovsha, P., & Donnelly, R. M., “Air Passenger Preferences for Choice of Airport and Ground Access Mode in the New York City Metropolitan Region”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2042 (1), 3-11, 2008.
  • [14] Budd, T., Ryley, T., & Ison, S., “Airport ground access and private car use: a segmentation analysis”, Journal of Transport Geography, 36, 106- 115, 2014.
  • [15] Tsamboulas, D. A., & Nikoleris, A., “Passengers’ willingness to pay for airport ground access time savings”, Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., 42 (10), 2008.
  • [16] Budd, T., Ison, S., & Ryley, T., “Airport surface access in the UK: A management perspective”, Research in Transportation Business and Management, 1 (1), 109–117, 2011.
  • [17] Walpole, R. E., Myers, R. H., Myers, S. L., & Ye, K., Probability & Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, Pearsons Education International, Upple Saddle River, 2007.