Airport Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions -- Special Report 272 (2003)

The concept of a cooperative research program for airports is not new. The complexity of the issues that confront airports and the decentralized nature of the airport industry and its research activities have led to repeated calls for greater cooperation in the funding, programming, and conduct of airport-related research. In 1982, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airports Council International, whose membership includes the nation’s largest airports, jointly sponsored a task force to develop a long-range plan for airport system research (ACI and FAA 1985). The task force concluded that “airport management has been given little or no opportunity to contribute to the development or defense of airport research programs.” It therefore urged FAA to support “a strong, comprehensive, and continuing airport research program” and to develop “a mechanism which will ensure the continuing effective input of the industry in the development of an airport research program.”

A decade later, the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), which represents state aviation departments, assessed the state of airport research for FAA (NASAO 1992). It observed that “aviation has no standardized process or mechanism to conduct significant research” and that “the failure of the industry as a whole to sponsor and participate in research has let many airport management and operational needs go unattended.” It pointed to two research programs in the highway and transit industries as possible models for an airport cooperative research program. Both programs, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), are directed by governing boards that are exclusively or predominantly composed of highway or transit operators. NASAO urged the creation of a research program guided similarly by airport managers and operators. On the basis of a survey of state aviation departments and airport organizations, NASAO identified dozens of problem areas (as discussed in more detail in the next chapter) that would benefit from cooperative research—from better airport pavement specifications to more responsive and efficient means of addressing the Clean Air Act.

In light of these long-standing calls for an airport cooperative research program, Congress charged FAA, in consultation with airport operators and the National Academies, with studying the applicability of the techniques used to fund and administer research under NCHRP and TCRP to meeting the research needs of airports.¹ FAA, in turn, tasked the National Academies with convening a special committee, made up in part of airport operators, to conduct the study and make recommendations.

Airports are commonly viewed as serving the social good in much the same manner as highways, mass transit, and other public transportation infrastructure and services. Airports, which serve both as foundations for economic development and as key elements of the national aviation system, confer many public benefits. Most airports open to the public for civilian use are in fact owned by the public, usually by municipalities or county governments. For the most part, however, airport operations are expected to be self-financed, with revenues derived from concessionaires, passengers, aircraft operators, and other airport users and tenants. Exactly how airport operators go about raising revenues and structuring their operations is heavily influenced by their role in providing a social good and is thus subject to many federal, state, and local controls.

This mix of roles and responsibilities places airport operators in an unusual and often delicate position. On the one hand, they are expected to act nimbly and efficiently, like a private business serving its customers. On the other, they are required to pursue the broader social good, which is evidenced by the many—and sometimes divergent—local, regional, and national demands placed on them. Airport operators are therefore in a challenging environment. The obligations and constraints they face are in many ways unique, derived from their position at both the intersection of the public and private sectors and the nexus of federal, state, and local governments’ jurisdictions.

The committee’s report is organized into five chapters that mirror the study approach. In the remainder of this chapter the complex operating, financial, and regulatory landscape in which airports exist is described. An understanding of these complexities can be helpful in understanding why a

cooperative research program has much appeal but faces many challenges. Consideration is given to the various types of airports and their uses, financing, regulation, and administration. The chapter concludes with a review of the respective roles of federal agencies, state and local governments, universities, and the private sector in sponsoring and undertaking airport-related research.

In Chapter 2 several important research needs that airport operators have in common are identified. These needs have tended to be neglected or addressed only tangentially or with insufficient urgency by existing research activities. The committee approached the study with an open mind about the need for an airport cooperative research program. Therefore, its initial emphasis was on gaining a better understanding of airport issues and problem areas and how existing research programs are structured to address them. The origins and structure of the existing cooperative research programs in the highway and transit modes are reviewed in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, the insights gained from these and other program reviews are referred to in examining options for organizing an airport cooperative research program and in proposing a specific means of program funding, governance, and management. The key findings and conclusions of the study are summarized in Chapter 5, and the next steps toward the creation of an airport cooperative research program are recommended.

The United States has some 5,000 airports open to the public, of which about 3,300 are designated by FAA as part of the national airport system and thus eligible for federal aid for planning and infrastructure development (Table 1-1). Most of these public-use airports are owned by local governments.²

About 15 percent (525) of the 3,300 airports in the national system [the National Plan of Integrated Airports (NPIAS)] handle airline passenger and cargo traffic (sometimes seasonally) and are thus classified as “commercial-service” airports. The remainder serve general aviation (GA) operations only. About 250 airports are classified as “metropolitan relievers”; they are the busiest and best-equipped GA airports and are often located in the country’s largest urban areas. Relievers are often operated in conjunction with a larger

commercial-service airport in an area, typically under the auspices of a regional airport authority. Commercial-service airports are first in federal funding priority. They are followed by relievers and then other GA airports in the national system.

The 525 commercial-service airports handle nearly all of the airline passenger traffic in the United States, including passengers on both the major and regional (commuter) airlines. In fact, about two-thirds of the approximately 600 million airline passenger enplanements (boardings) per year are handled by the 30 busiest airports. The top 150 commercial-service airports— ranging from Hartsfield in Atlanta to Asheville Regional Airport in North Carolina—account for 97 percent of airline passenger traffic, and the top 60 of these airports account for nearly all of the traffic carried in large jets (having 60 seats or more).

FAA defines as “large hubs” all airports that account for 1 percent or more of total airline passenger enplanements (see Table 1-2). About 30 airports meet this threshold each year. Roughly 35 airports are categorized by FAA as “medium hubs” because they each account for between 0.25 and 0.99 percent of total airline enplanements. The next-busiest airports, described as “small hubs,” account for 0.05 to 0.249 percent of enplanements; they total about 150. The remaining 300 or so commercial-service airports are referred to as “nonhubs,” including about 100 (often only partly certificated) that are used by airlines on an irregular or seasonal basis.

Nearly all commercial-service airports accommodate a large amount of GA traffic in addition to airlines. The GA industry encompasses everything from operators of jets and turboprops used for private and on-demand for-hire passenger and cargo transportation to single-engine propeller aircraft used

for recreation and aerial services such as right-of-way surveillance, highway traffic reporting, law enforcement, and flight instruction. In fact, most commercial-service airports handle far more GA operations (landings and takeoffs) than airline operations. Even at the largest airports, GA can account for 15 to 50 percent of total aircraft operations.

As a practical matter, an airport cannot attain “commercial-service” status unless it meets FAA criteria for facility equipage, design, and operational capabilities that are required for the medium- to large-capacity turbine aircraft commonly used in air carrier service. FAA prescribes minimums for such features as runway marking, lighting, and navigation systems, as well as capabilities such as runway and aircraft deicing, fire fighting, and emergency rescue. The agency has a series of advisory circulars that describe the procedures, designs, and equipment that meet these minimums.

The demands placed on the busiest commercial-service airports in major metropolitan areas of the country differ significantly from those placed on much smaller commercial-service airports serving smaller cities and rural regions. Nevertheless, the smaller commercial airports are under pressure to meet FAA’s requirements for scheduled air carrier service, since many provide the regions’ only links to the national and international airline systems.

All major metropolitan areas are served by one or more GA reliever airports. FAA designates certain GA airports as relievers because these airports can divert GA traffic away from the heavily used commercial-service airports. Relievers tend to be the most intensely used, and hence the best equipped, of the country’s GA airports. To be designated as a reliever and thus have priority among GA airports for federal aid, the airport must have at least 25,000 itinerant (point-to-point) operations per year, house 100 or more based aircraft, and be located in a metropolitan area with 250,000 people or more.

Reliever airports are often conveniently located and sufficiently equipped to handle the kind of aircraft used by regional and commuter airlines. Many reliever airports have instrument landing systems, control towers, passenger waiting areas, rescue and fire-fighting services, and other infrastructure that enhance their reliability and support intense use. Some large relievers, such as Teterboro near New York City and Centennial near Denver, average more than 1,000 operations per day. Dekalb–Peachtree Airport near Atlanta is second only to Atlanta–Hartsfield in daily operations

in the entire state of Georgia. Its level of activity surpasses that of the state’s eight other commercial-service airports.

GA airports must meet certain minimum criteria to be included in the 3,300-airport NPIAS and thus to be eligible for federal aid. For instance, an airport must have at least 10 based aircraft and be available for public use. For the most part, the roughly 2,500 GA nonreliever airports in the national system have paved runways and runway lighting systems, and they are the best equipped and maintained of the nonreliever small airports. Thousands of other publicly and privately owned small airports are not in the national system. Conditions at these airports vary greatly; many do not even have lighted or paved runways (Table 1-3). It is noteworthy that about 2,000 airports not in the national system are nevertheless open to public use, including about 1,000 privately owned airports.

Most of the public-use airports in the United States are owned by county and municipal governments or by special regional authorities created by one or more government jurisdictions. Many regional authorities operate more than one airport. In some cases, they operate multiple commercial-service airports (for example, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey); more commonly, they operate a single large airport and one or more GA reliever airports. Some states, such as Alaska and Maryland, own both GA and commercial-service airports, but these are the exceptions. Even rarer is the federal government’s ownership of civilian airports. Maritime law set the early precedent for a limited federal role in airport construction and operations. Whereas the marking and maintenance of shipping channels and provision of lighthouses and other navigation aids were deemed to be federal responsibilities, the provision of docks and terminal facilities was treated as a state, local, and private-sector function (Horonjeff and McKelvey 1983, 17). Early air commerce acts went so far as to prohibit the use of federal funds for the construction of airports (a prohibition that was disregarded during the public works programs of the Great Depression).

During World War II, the federal government constructed hundreds of military landing areas and hangars across the country. Soon after the war’s end, many of these aviation facilities were designated “surplus” and turned over to state and local governments for civilian use. Coincidentally, Congress passed the Federal Airport Act of 1946, which authorized federal aid for use by state and local governments in airport construction and improvements.

In the two decades after World War II, the aviation sector was transformed. Airlines introduced jet aircraft on many routes beginning in the late 1950s, which made it practical for many more Americans to fly on business and for leisure travel. Meanwhile, private pilots, thousands of them trained in the military, were crowding GA airports throughout the country. These developments created many new demands on airports—including the need for more spacious terminals and new runways to handle the larger jet airliners and the establishment of more modern, high-capacity GA reliever airports in large urban areas. However, federal aid for airports and air traffic management was appropriated by Congress each year as part of FAA’s budget, often resulting in a mismatch between the demands placed on the airport system and the resources available to meet them.

Recognizing the need to better match the supply of aviation infrastructure with user demands, Congress created the Airport and Airway Trust Fund in

1970, along with a financing program for airport development now known as the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).³ The trust fund was to be financed through a series of user-based fees, including—at the time—an 8 percent tax on domestic airline passenger tickets, a $3 levy per passenger on international departures, a 7-cent charge per gallon of fuel used in GA, and a 5 percent tax on all air-cargo waybills.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund, often referred to as the Aviation Trust Fund, has now been in existence for more than 30 years. During this time, more than $130 billion in revenue has been collected, and $30 billion has been distributed to state and local governments for airport planning and development. The bulk of the remaining $100 billion has been used to help pay for FAA air traffic management operations, facilities, and equipment.

In FY 2002, the trust fund took in about $10 billion, nearly three-quarters of which was derived from taxes on airline passengers (ticket tax, international arrival/departure fee, and passenger flight segment tax). Grants in aid to airports totaled some $3.2 billion in FY 2002. About 1,000 airports received AIP grants, including more than 500 GA airports. In addition, other GA airports receive federal aid through block grant programs administered by individual states.

These direct and state block grants are apportioned through funding formulas and awarded through competitive applications (in the case of discretionary grants). They are used for a variety of purposes, including the installation of runway lighting, the acquisition of land for longer approaches, the rehabilitation of taxiways, the purchase of noise abatement technologies, and the conduct of environmental impact assessments.

As noted, to be eligible for federal aid, the airport must be in the NPIAS. Commercial-service airports automatically receive AIP funds on the basis of the total number of passengers and the amount of cargo flowing through them. Along with GA airports, they must compete for funds awarded through discretionary grants.

In 1990, Congress enacted legislation allowing commercial-service airport operators to levy a $1, $2, or $3 facility charge to be paid by each enplaned passenger (as part of the ticket taxes charged with the air fare). Congress

stipulated in the law that the proceeds be used to finance FAA-approved projects that reduce noise or enhance safety, security, and capacity. Congress raised the maximum passenger facility charge (PFC) to $4.50 in 2001 (capped at $18.00 per round-trip) and stipulated further that the proceeds be used to furnish opportunities for increased competition among air carriers (e.g., by construction of more gates available to new entrants). Airport operators must apply for permission to levy a PFC, but in doing so they must relinquish a portion of their entitlement AIP funds.

A major advantage of the PFC to airport operators is that the revenues collected can be used for a greater variety of expenditures than can those received through the AIP. For instance, PFCs can be used to construct an access road or buy land for a parking garage. Although such “landside” projects often do not qualify for AIP funding, they can be essential components of plans to expand the overall capacity of an airport. Today, PFCs are in effect at about 300 airports, and operators of most large airports receive more revenues from the PFC than they do from AIP grants.

Despite the large amount of federal aid to airports each year, most airports derive only a minority of their total operating and capital revenues from federal sources. For most airports, most revenues are locally derived. The commercial-service airports alone generate more than $10 billion in operating revenues each year. Aviation-related revenues—that is, revenues from aviation users of airports—account for about half this figure, with landing and terminal fees being the main sources among the top 150 commercial-service airports (the primary airline markets). By comparison, smaller commercial-service airports rely more on GA services for their revenues, such as rents from fixed-base operators and profits from aviation fuel sales.

Nonaviation sources account for about half of airport operating revenues. At large airports, car parking and rental car concessions are major, and often the largest, sources of revenue. The commercial-service airports took in another $8 billion in nonoperating revenues in 1999. These funds are typically used for capital improvements. For large airports, revenue-bond proceeds are the primary source of these funds. The principal and interest on the bonds are paid through rents and fees obtained from concessionaires, airline tenants, and other airport users.

Although most of the nation’s public-use airports are owned and operated by local governments, they have critical roles in interstate transportation and commerce and in the safe and efficient performance of the national aviation system. As a result, airports large and small are subject to numerous rules and requirements of the federal government. Several federal agencies have regulatory and permitting responsibilities affecting airports, including FAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, airports are subject to many state and local laws and rules. As a practical matter, nearly all major decisions by airports are influenced or must be approved by many governmental agencies at several jurisdictional levels.

As key elements of the national aviation system, airports are subject to various federal requirements governing operations, safety, and environmental compatibility. For the most part, FAA administers these requirements, because it has primary responsibility for the safety, security, and efficient operations of the civil aviation system. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, many aviation security responsibilities have been shifted to the newly created Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA requirements, which have major implications for airports, are described later. For other purposes, FAA’s authority prevails, since it implements and enforces

1. Rules governing aircraft operations and traffic control in the airways, in terminal airspace, and on the ground at airports;

2. Certification standards for airport operations and safety-related capabilities and services; and

3. Contractual requirements for airports receiving federal grants for development.

Congress has given FAA exclusive and broad authority to control civil aviation and the use of navigable airspace in the United States. The rationale for this centralized authority is that the aviation sector must have uniformity in

operations and traffic management to function in a safe and orderly manner. Congress views the country’s airspace as a public good of national importance whose use must not be hindered by fragmented state and local controls. FAA’s authority, therefore, preempts state and local authority over the use of airspace and thus establishes numerous requirements that state, local, and private airports must comply with.

A direct effect of FAA’s control of air traffic is numerous federal requirements concerning the design, maintenance, and operation of airside facilities, such as the configuration and use of runways and taxiways and the format and placement of airfield signs, markings, and other visual aids. These requirements stem from the need to ensure safe aircraft operations through consistency and from the recognition that operations at one airport can affect operational performance and safety elsewhere in the national system.

While these are the most obvious effects of FAA’s regulation of air traffic on airports, they are by no means the only ones. Perhaps the most controversial effects are those derived from FAA’s exclusive control over aircraft operations. In particular, the regulation of aircraft noise—often a major concern of communities—is largely a federal responsibility. FAA has maintained, and Congress and courts have affirmed, that state and local governments cannot create laws and ordinances that restrict operations of aircraft into or out of airports. The concern is that such local powers would impinge on FAA’s ability to set consistent operational standards and manage air traffic as a national system.

Only in their capacity as owners of airports do state and local governments have a limited ability to regulate noise through restrictions on aircraft operations. Airport owners can, for instance, prohibit the operation of all aircraft emitting noise above a certain threshold during nighttime hours; however, they cannot ban particular kinds of aircraft, such as jets, or particular kinds of operators, such as airlines. Concerned that such local restrictions would impair its ability to manage air traffic, FAA has been vigilant in protecting its air traffic management prerogatives.

In its capacity as chief regulator of aviation safety, FAA has authority to issue operating certificates to airports handling aircraft used by commercial operators. Airports that seek airline service must first meet a series of FAA safety requirements, such as weather reporting and notification capabilities,

approved instrument approach procedures, runway maintenance programs, and preparedness plans for aircraft accidents and other emergencies. The prescribed standards and procedures, which are more stringent for airports seeking authority to serve passenger airlines using large aircraft, are typically contained in FAA advisory circulars. Approximately 525 airports hold full or limited certificates to handle air carrier operations.

Of course, an airport that is certified to serve air carriers may not have all the qualifications to accommodate all of the many kinds of aircraft used by air carriers. Individual aircraft types are certified by FAA as airworthy and subject to specific operational and maintenance requirements; these requirements can vary depending on how the aircraft is used (e.g., in private or for air transport). A Boeing 737 airliner, for instance, cannot operate from a runway that is shorter than the aircraft’s FAA-certified minimum distances for safe landing and takeoff. As a margin of safety, FAA prescribes even longer runway distances for aircraft used in air carrier service. Although they are not required to accommodate all of the many kinds of aircraft used by airlines, commercial-service airports compete for airline services with other airports. They are seldom in a position to ignore these requirements lest they lose their airline tenants. Consequently, FAA’s aircraft certification requirements can compel airport operators to make significant investments to change runway and taxiway dimensions, maintenance and fueling facilities, and other services and infrastructure to accommodate as many different kinds of aircraft as possible.

FAA, which administers both the AIP and PFC programs, has a stewardship role in ensuring that the funds are used wisely and fairly. Accordingly, airports must obtain FAA approval for intended uses of AIP and PFC funds. To gain this approval, airports must typically follow FAA specifications for designs, materials, methods, and procedures.

FAA maintains a series of advisory circulars that contain many of these standards. They cover all kinds of projects eligible for federal aid. For example, a comprehensive (300-page) circular covers all major aspects of airport design, and specific guidelines cover the design, construction, and testing of aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicles procured with federal aid. Airports that do not comply risk losing federal aid; hence, FAA retains a high degree of control over airport projects and procurements through these grant requirements.

Moreover, in accepting federal aid, airports must adhere to a series of contractual “assurances” laid out by the federal government. These assurances compel grant recipients to comply, for instance, with the provisions of relevant federal statutes and executive orders and to use specific project recording, accounting, and procurement procedures. The assurances can obligate the airport to follow procedures that go well beyond the specific project. As an example, an airport that accepts federal aid must make the airport available for public use on reasonable terms and must avoid unjust discrimination among all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities.

Many other grant assurances apply. Together they circumscribe the operator’s ability to set user fees, enter into leases and contracts, spend revenues, and restrict the kinds of aviation activities at the airport. As grant administrator, FAA is responsible for ensuring compliance with most of these federal assurances.

Airports have long been a focus of environmental concern. Because of their size, functional requirements, and use in transporting passengers and high-value cargo, airports tend to be located on large, flat sites near populated areas. Suitable sites are often found on the shores of rivers, lakes, and oceans, or in wetlands or other types of landscape thought to have little economic value when originally selected for airport development. However, these sites often support important ecological systems whose disturbance can affect plant and animal communities, as well as humans.

With passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, airport planning and development projects became subject to much greater scrutiny by the federal government, including EPA. NEPA mandates an environmental impact assessment when a federal action is proposed. Most airports receive federal aid or require some federal decision in connection with airport development programs (e.g., FAA approval of a new instrument approach procedure or runway layout). Therefore, airport operators are often required to initiate such assessments. FAA is responsible for reviewing them, or, if more detailed analyses of impacts are required, for conducting the assessments and preparing environmental impact statements. About 40 federal laws, executive orders, and regulations protect particular elements of the environment, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and Order on Protection of Wetlands (see Box 1-1 for a listing)

(DOT 2001). Each must be considered by airport operators and FAA during the conduct of environmental impact assessments. EPA and all other federal agencies responsible for administering these laws, orders, and regulations must be given the opportunity to review the impact statements and consulted on means of addressing potential adverse effects of proposed development actions. The NEPA analysis and documentation process cannot be completed and the planned project or action cannot go forward until all the environmental effects identified are resolved to the satisfaction of each responsible agency.

As an example, CAA requires EPA to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and welfare. EPA has set ambient air quality standards for various pollutants, which are called “criteria” pollutants. Where the standards are not attained, individual states must develop plans prescribing attainment strategies. Many large airports are located in metropolitan areas that are not in attainment for one or more criteria pollutants. Consequently, an airport project that requires federal action or funding will first require FAA to determine whether pollutant thresholds may be exceeded and, if so, to devise mitigations that comport with the state attainment plan. It may be necessary, for instance, to offset projected increases in emissions through reductions in other airport emissions sources or the purchase of emissions “credits” from nonairports (e.g., local stationary sources).

Because aircraft noise has long been a special environmental concern of aviation, it has been the subject of much legislative and regulatory action. Congress passed the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act in 1979 to address mounting concern over airport noise. The act requires FAA to adopt regulations establishing a single system of measuring aircraft noise and determining the exposure of people to airport noise. While airport operators are not required by the act to conduct noise studies or develop abatement plans, federal funds are available for doing so. FAA offers guidance to operators on how to measure noise and develop abatement plans, and operators seeking federal noise abatement funds must follow this guidance.

Airport operators that propose restrictions on aircraft operations must first examine all other reasonable mitigations, including changes in local land use planning and zoning. FAA is authorized to fund noise abatement projects with AIP funds. Such projects also may be funded with PFC revenues on FAA’s approval. FAA has sole authority to impose operational restrictions on aircraft and thus to affect noise boundaries.

FAA has long set rules directing airports serving airlines to ensure security— for instance, by taking steps to control access to runways, parked aircraft, and other airside facilities and to secure baggage-handling areas. FAA rules also required airports, in concert with airlines, to establish “sterile” areas where passengers board aircraft. Airports were given leeway to customize their security plans, which FAA reviewed and approved. In November 2001, President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which transferred a number of these regulatory responsibilities and some of the security functions themselves to TSA. The act also created new requirements, such as the installation of explosive detection systems at all commercial-service airports. Now TSA must not only approve individual airport security programs, it must also assist in their development and implementation through a federal airport security manager stationed at all major commercial-service airports. Congress authorized a $2.50 tax per passenger enplanement (not to exceed $10 per round-trip) to defray the cost of TSA security operations and investments in explosive detection systems and other screening devices and technologies. The revenues generated from this surcharge are expected to generate about $1.7 billion in FY 2004.⁴

The federal government’s heightened security role is having and will continue to have far-reaching implications for airports as they try to integrate security with infrastructure and operations. As TSA deploys explosive detection systems and other screening and scanning technologies, airports will be required to accommodate them by providing floor space and supporting infrastructure (e.g., upgrades in electric power, blast-resistant areas where suspect bags can be examined). The Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that about $3 billion will be needed just to integrate existing explosive detection technologies with baggage-handling systems and suggests that investments in more effective equipment and associated infrastructure will continue for many years. In FY 2002, airports used more than $560 million of AIP funds (17 percent of the total) for security-related projects, compared with $56 million in FY 2001.⁵ Airports are facing many design challenges presented by changes in passenger flows in and

around TSA-manned security checkpoints; the need for “meeter/greeter” halls outside the sterile gate areas (no longer accessible to nonticketed individuals); and uncertainties about future security requirements that may affect the configuration and location of ticket counters, parking garages, and access roads. These changes have yet to play out fully, but they will undoubtedly create many new airport challenges and problems in need of research.

On November 25, 2002, the President signed the Homeland Security Act, which transferred TSA to the new Department of Homeland Security, effective March 1, 2003. The shift of TSA to a federal department separate from FAA presents a major challenge to airport operators as they try to coordinate the various federal demands and requirements.

As discussed above, FAA has sole authority to control and restrict aircraft operations, and only in their role as airport owners can state and local governments exercise some control over aviation operations at airports. However, state and local governments exercise other controls that affect airport use and capacity. Many states have established their own environmental review processes for airport development projects. While these processes and their substantial requirements are often similar to those of NEPA, some states mandate review of additional topics and establish different standards for determining impact significance. For instance, some states have adopted ambient air quality standards that are more stringent in many respects than those of the federal government. In California, for example, environmental reviews may be required to include analyses of air toxic emissions and related human health risks that are not required in federal NEPA documentation.

With regard to local requirements, local land use planning and zoning are relied on to help control noise impacts and other environmental effects at airports. In most places, such zoning is handled at the county, municipal, or even submunicipal level. Thus, airport operators must often deal with a multiplicity of jurisdictions with authority to control land use within airport noise impact areas. The more jurisdictions involved, the greater the chance that some localities will not adopt planned land use controls, which can eventually result in noise complaints, noise nuisance lawsuits, and public opposition to airport proposals to expand. In turn, local political pressure can hinder an airport’s ability to obtain state and local support for access roads and other needed infrastructure. Airport operators must therefore work

closely with local governments to limit adverse effects on neighboring communities while providing the levels of service desired by the larger region and fulfilling their integral roles in the national aviation system.

Because airports face so many operational, economic, social, and environmental issues, their owners, users, and regulators require much data, analysis, and technical knowledge. Research is therefore crucial to supporting sound airport planning and investing, ensuring safe and environmentally acceptable airport operations, and solving day-to-day airport problems. The federal government has a central role in financing and conducting research, and the operators of individual airports themselves sponsor specific studies and provide test beds for evaluating and demonstrating research results in the field.

Of course, defining what is encompassed by “airport-related” research is complicated by the fact that so much R&D activity can have results that are pertinent to airports. The broadest definition of airport-related research could include such topics as the effect of low-frequency noise on people living near airports, transferable highway and chemical industry R&D on paving technologies, and basic operations and human factors research, all of which are essential for designing and operating airports efficiently, safely, securely, and in an environmentally responsible manner. This broad view of airport-related research, though reasonable, has no practical bounds. The more manageable emphasis here, therefore, is on describing research activities—public and private—that are aimed specifically at meeting the identifiable needs of airports and the nation’s airport system.

In the civilian aviation sector, the two main federal sponsors of airport-related research are FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As the federal agency most responsible for regulation, stewardship, and day-to-day operation of the nation’s airspace system, FAA sponsors the largest and most varied set of supporting research activities. They range from individual studies to address the needs of a particular airport rulemaking to multiyear, multiproject programs aimed at furthering the state of major airport investment areas, such as runway pavements and visual aids. NASA’s role is to promote research and development activities with

a longer-term potential for improving the national airspace system, including the airport component.

FAA research activities are spread out among a number of divisions, branches, and staff offices. Most of the agency’s research is conducted in the Office of Aviation Research, which is funded primarily from the Research, Engineering, and Development appropriation. The office’s budget in FY 2003 was approximately $124 million, which was used for research in support of FAA’s varied functions and responsibilities, including managing air traffic, setting flight standards, increasing airport capacity, and certifying aircraft. FAA is budgeted to spend another $85 million on research funded through various offices and appropriations, including the Facilities and Equipment and AIP appropriations.

By and large, this dispersion in research activities reflects FAA’s diverse policy-making, programmatic, and operational responsibilities, such as administering grants in aid, providing air traffic services, acquiring air traffic control technologies, establishing rules and standards for aviation safety, and mitigating the environmental effects of aviation. Each of these responsibilities requires supporting research. As an example, FAA’s Office for Aviation Policy and Plans may undertake a study of airport noise measurement methods in support of a particular policy or legislative initiative. At the same time, the Office of Aviation Research may fund research on noise measurement and abatement methods through its program to reduce the environmental impacts of aviation. Consequently, there is no one place within FAA responsible for all “airport-related” research, nor is such a concentration of effort likely to be practical given the differing mission needs of individual FAA units.

The largest FAA research program centered on airports is carried out by the Airport Technology Research and Development Branch, which is a unit of the Airport and Aircraft Research Division of the Office of Aviation Research. The Airport Technology Research and Development Branch, located in the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, focuses on the development and evaluation of technologies and materials for airport pavements, airport lighting and marking, rescue and fire-fighting equipment and procedures, and wildlife management techniques. Its budget in FY 2003 was approximately $10.5 million, including $3 million for research on pavements mandated in legislation.

Much of the research carried out by the Airport Technology Research and Development Branch is intended to support revisions to FAA advisory circulars, as well as other FAA facility design, construction, and operations guidelines used by airport operators, consultants, and equipment makers. Among its accomplishments during the past 5 years, the Airport Technology Research and Development Branch has produced a manual on wildlife control methods, tested arresting systems to stop aircraft that have overrun runways, evaluated technologies to improve airfield lighting, and developed testing protocols for fire-extinguishing agents. Another major area of research is airport pavements. In cooperation with the Boeing Company, FAA operates the National Airport Pavement Test Facility at the Hughes Technical Center, which is used to conduct research to support standards for durable pavements. The federal emphasis on pavement research is justified on the grounds that runway and taxiway pavements are a major cost item for airports and are paid for largely with federal funds, and because the downtime for pavement repairs and maintenance can contribute to aviation system delays.

Various other divisions within the Office of Aviation Research support or perform research relevant to airports in areas such as weather prediction, system planning, and environment and energy. The Office of Aviation Research administers and distributes funds to the Air Transportation Centers of Excellence program, which consists of four university centers that specialize in particular research areas—pavement technology, aviation operations, GA, and airworthiness assurance. FAA may use the centers to perform research in their specialty areas as funds are available.

To better coordinate FAA’s research and provide an avenue for users of the research results to have input on programming, Congress established the Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) in 1989. REDAC, which consists of approximately 30 members representing trade associations, industry (including airport operators), academia, and government agencies, meets twice each year to review FAA’s planned and ongoing research programs. It reports to the FAA Administrator on its findings and makes recommendations concerning aviation R&D needs, funding levels, and priorities. REDAC periodically holds joint meetings with NASA’s Aerospace Technology Advisory Committee, which offer a means for FAA and NASA to better coordinate their aviation research programs. REDAC has also traditionally reviewed FAA’s security-related research through its subcommittee

on aviation security. Although security responsibilities have been transferred to TSA, REDAC continues to provide the same review function.

NASA spends about $500 million per year on aeronautics research. It has set a goal to “revolutionize aviation” by pursuing a number of 10- and 25-year objectives to increase aviation safety, mobility, and capacity and reduce emissions and noise. To a large extent, NASA has a medium- to long-term time horizon for aeronautics research, compared with FAA’s nearer-term focus on more applied research and technology development in support of its guidelines, standards, and current operational needs. NASA researchers working to reduce aircraft noise, for instance, are exploring new designs for jet engine inlets and nozzles and new ways to model airport community noise impacts. To increase aviation capacity and efficiency, researchers are examining decision-support tools for air traffic controllers and airlines to find shorter, time-saving routes. To increase personal mobility, NASA is examining new designs and technologies to make smaller aircraft more affordable and practical to use for transportation.

Precisely where this research will lead and how the results will be implemented in the field are difficult to assess. Nevertheless, any developments in these areas are likely to have a mix of direct and indirect effects on airports and how they are used.

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act specifically called on TSA to “identify and undertake research and development activities necessary to enhance transportation security” and authorized $50 million for such activity. FAA’s research responsibilities for security were therefore transferred to TSA, including the security-related work performed at the Hughes Technical Center. While the research, engineering, and development function at TSA is still being established, it will certainly include research and testing capabilities to support extensive technology programs in the areas of explosives detection, screening operations, container and vehicle hardening, and passenger and personnel identification.

The President’s budget request for FY 2004 calls for an increase in TSA’s budget for research and development to $75 million. In addition, the President requested $800 million in funds for the Department of Homeland

Security’s Science and Technology Directorate, expected to be the department’s main research and technology development arm. The Science and Technology Directorate will assist in the funding of research related to aviation and transportation security.

The Department of Defense owns and uses thousands of aircraft landing sites, and civil aviation airports are used by reserve and National Guard units. Accordingly, it has an interest in furthering research to improve the performance of these installations. Of course, many of the performance needs of the military, such as rapid repair of bombed runways, differ in kind from those of the civilian sector. Nevertheless, much of the research has application in both the military and the civilian domains.

USACE has lead responsibility for the construction and maintenance of military airfields, and it conducts pertinent research through its various laboratories. The Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, for instance, studies the effects of low temperatures on materials and equipment, which is helpful in developing runway pavements that are more resistant to freeze–thaw cycles and in improving airport snow- and ice-control operations. USACE’s Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory has an airfield and pavements branch that serves as the Department of Defense’s lead pavements research facility for roadways and airfields.

Research relevant to airports is conducted elsewhere in the Department of Defense and the federal government as a whole. As an example, numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, NASA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the National Park Service, are represented on the Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) because each conducts research on aviation-related noise. Working through FICAN, these agencies often coordinate and sometimes jointly sponsor research on aviation noise effects, measurement, and abatement methods and technologies.

The amount of research conducted by airport operators is difficult to quantify, although it can generally be characterized as highly applied and task-specific in nature. Much of the research is performed by consultants and conducted as particular needs arise. Nevertheless, aspects of these specific

studies may have broader application. For example, a consultant may be hired to collect and analyze data on traveler demographics, behavior, and destination selection to gauge the economic impact and financial feasibility of a proposed construction project or a new airport service. Whereas the specifics of such a study will need to be tailored to the individual airport and its market, determinations about data requirements and the most appropriate statistical, modeling, and analytical approaches may have general validity. Because the individual consultants are often hired on a case-by-case basis as needs arise, there is a tendency to “reinvent the wheel” in such research.

A major function of state aviation departments is airport system planning, some of which is conducted with AIP funds. Statewide planning normally entails preparation of aviation demand forecasts and studies of the interconnections between airports and surface transportation infrastructure, many of which are provided by state and local governments. A certain amount of research and technical support can be required for planning activities. For example, in developing its aviation system plan, California has sponsored a study of forecasting methodology by the University of California that proposes a framework for localities to develop aviation forecasts on a consistent basis (Caves and Gosling 1999, 232). California provides an example of how states typically sponsor aviation research—that is, by funding particular studies at state universities or providing a modest annual contribution to state university aeronautics and transportation research programs.

As in all industries, the suppliers of products and services used at airports undertake proprietary research and development activities. These suppliers, in turn, buy products and services from other suppliers, some of which support their own R&D activities. The private sector is extremely large and contributes to the continual flow of new and improved technologies into the airport sector. And even though the makers of aircraft and aircraft components do not supply products directly to airports, their research has important implications for airports—for instance, by influencing the design of runways, taxiways, appurtenances, and other airport facilities. Private suppliers to airports number in the thousands, and their diversity makes it difficult to estimate the overall scale of private-sector R&D activity. However, it encompasses all aspects of airport planning, design, construction, and operations.

One source of research ideas and results is the many airlines, aircraft operators, and other users and tenants of airports. They all have a strong interest in ensuring that the design and operation of the terminal environment, airside facilities, and even access to and from the airport meet their needs. Thus, industry associations such as the Air Transport Association, the Regional Airline Association, the National Business Aircraft Association, and the Airports Council International maintain committees that help set industry standards. In doing so they identify key research needs. Professional associations such as the American Association of Airport Executives, the Aircraft Operators and Pilots Association, and the American Society of Civil Engineers also provide an informal forum for identifying research needs and disseminating results of research.

Together, the private suppliers and consultants, airport users, and various trade and professional associations play a critical role in identifying and meeting the research needs of airports. This highly dispersed process, however, can at times produce slow and uneven results and dissemination.

More than 5,000 airports are open for public use in the United States. They range in size from small GA airports handling a few airplanes per day to large commercial-service airports handling hundreds of aircraft and thousands of passengers per hour. Together they form the national airport system, which is a key element of the nation’s air transportation system. Nevertheless, they are very much a collection of autonomous entities—mostly owned and operated by local governments.

Recognizing the importance of airports in the national airspace system, the federal government regulates many aspects of their operations and provides them with funds for capital improvements. Airports are thus subject to many national requirements and standards governing their design, operations, safety performance, security, and finances. Airports are also subject to national environmental regulations. Hence, airport operators have much in common with one another and face many of the same problems and research needs. However, they lack a way to address these shared problems and needs that balances the many separate—and sometimes conflicting—requirements that they face.

Through FAA, NASA, and other agencies, the federal government sponsors and performs research related to airports. With the advent of TSA,

additional research related to airport security—and thus to facility design and planning—can be expected. Each agency funds research to fulfill its own mission and support its own policies and requirements. For the most part, the research does not provide airports with information and guidance sufficient to implement solutions to problems that stem from the requirements and demands of multiple federal, state, and local entities. Airport operators themselves do not have the capacity to undertake such research. Yet, it is in their interest and the interest of regulatory agencies and airport users to acquire this capacity.

ACI Airports Council International

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials

TRB Transportation Research Board

ACI and FAA. 1985. Airport System Long-Range Research and Development Plan. Prepared by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Caves, R. E., and G. D. Gosling. 1999. Strategic Airport Planning. Pergamon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

DOT. 2001. Report to the U.S. Congress on Environmental Review of Airport Improvement Projects. Office of the Secretary, May.

Horonjeff, R., and F. X. McKelvey. 1983. Planning and Design of Airports, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.

NASAO. 1992. Assessment of Airport and Air Transportation Research Needs. FAA and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

TRB. 2002. Special Report 263: Future Flight: A Review of the Small Aircraft Transportation System Concept. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.