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

Important features of governance, funding, and management that have led to successful cooperative research programs in the highway and public transportation modes were described in Chapter 3. These features are summarized in this chapter, and other cooperative research programs are considered as possible models for an airport program. The review suggests that no single program structure can achieve all of the desired features of a cooperative program. However, certain program features, such as processes that result in credible and applicable research results, are crucial. A number of options for governing, financing, and managing an airport cooperative research program (ACRP) are examined below with such considerations in mind. The chapter concludes with a specific proposal for governing, funding, and managing an ACRP.

All research programs need to be guided by a well-articulated mission— whether it is to find solutions to pressing problems or to gain the knowledge needed for longer-term technological advances. Keeping a program focused on its mission is typically the responsibility of a governing board. Much like the board of directors of a corporation, the governing board’s role is to establish the policies and strategic direction of the program so that it can best achieve its mission. The board typically has the following responsibilities:

• Establish the program’s strategic direction and monitor the direction the research is taking (for instance, whether the research is leading to progress in solving a particular set of problems).

• Ensure overall quality and relevance of the research.

• Articulate expected research products and assist with dissemination of research results.

• Coordinate with other research and development programs that have complementary functions (for instance, research programs engaged in medium- and longer-term research).

Setting up a governing board for an ACRP will require that many important decisions be made about who shall appoint the board members, the size and composition of the membership, and board voting and decision-making procedures. To ensure that the program focuses on the needs of operators, a majority of the board’s voting members may have to be drawn from the airport operator community. Decisions as to the mix of participating airport operators would have to consider such factors as geographic location, airport size, and type of operations [general aviation (GA), commercial service, cargo]. Because of their large numbers, small airports may need to be represented in part by a broader entity such as a state aviation department. Ultimately, the size, composition, and voting rights of members of the board will be affected by the financial participation of the industry segments represented.

Whatever form the board takes, the link between operators and the research should remain strong, and the program must remain focused on addressing the research needs of operators. Thus, involvement of the operators in identifying research needs, prioritizing projects, assisting in the conduct of research, and applying the results in the field will be the governing board’s overarching responsibility. The governing board will have various other tasks, such as screening individual project ideas and monitoring the financial performance of the program, but the central responsibility to keep the program focused on airport needs deserves the most attention in examining alternative governance models.

Existing cooperative research programs offer various models of governing boards, each structured differently but with many of the same essential functions. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) provides a model of a governing board made up exclusively of operators. Its 18-member board is composed entirely of highway and transportation agencies. Like members of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials itself, members of the Standing Committee on Research are all from state highway and transportation agencies; hence, highway operators retain exclusive control over the direction of NCHRP and its research agenda.

The NCHRP mode of governance ensures that operators have a strong sense of ownership of the research results, which is an important advantage. Operators are responsible for identifying research needs and for directing research funds to priority problem areas. As users of the research results, they are in a position to aid with dissemination and provide feedback on the quality of the research. A disadvantage of this governance scheme is that the views and expertise of other parties interested in research may be neglected. Suppliers, manufacturers, system users, academic researchers, and government agencies can have important roles in helping to conduct research and in applying the results. Hence, their limited involvement in program governance can come at some cost.

The governing board of the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) is composed mostly of operators but is supplemented by other interests, including federal agencies, transit suppliers, and university researchers. The 28-member Transit Oversight and Project Selection panel is appointed by a nonprofit entity created by the American Public Transportation Association, whose membership includes transit operators, suppliers, consultants, and other public agencies. This model of governance, in which operators make up a slight majority but not the entirety of the board, provides an opportunity for a wide spectrum of the industry to participate in the program. Whereas transit operators can exercise their majority control of the program, coalitions of transit operators and other interests can also emerge to help guide TCRP.

On the one hand, this open approach to governance can enlarge the scope of ideas for research and enhance support for the program within the industry. Governing board members can elevate the program’s prominence within the industry by serving as “missionaries” or “ambassadors.” On the other hand, operator influence on the program could become diluted, which is a drawback. The program’s research priorities could drift away from solutions to the practical problems of operators and toward the needs of others.

Other models for a governing board are available. One is that of the Health Effects Institute (HEI), which is a nonprofit research institution sponsored cooperatively by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and more than two dozen automobile manufacturers and suppliers. HEI is chartered to conduct impartial, science-based research on the health effects of motor vehicle emissions. It is guided by a governing board of six to eight members made up exclusively of distinguished individuals, believed to be independent and

beyond reproach, who serve in a stewardship capacity for the program. A distinctive feature of this board is that its members are not direct users of the research. The board’s main role is to ensure the integrity of the research program, because the results are intended to influence public policy.

HEI’s “third-party” form of governance shields the program from concerns that research results are biased or advocacy-oriented. Neutrality is an especially important quality for research aimed at influencing policy, especially in contentious matters such as environmental and health policies that can have significant economic implications. A credible and science-based research process is important to all research programs. However, third-party governance runs the risk of the program becoming so remote from practitioners that it fails to recognize their pressing needs. Moreover, a research program that is aimed at solving day-to-day problems—such as finding a better run-way deicer—is probably not generally vulnerable to concerns about an underlying political or social agenda. Thus, it may not demand the kind of independence and insulation that a third-party form of governance provides.

An example of a cooperative research program with a strong emphasis on applied research is the Construction Industry Institute (CII). This program is sponsored by construction-related contractors, architectural firms, suppliers, and public agencies. Its mission is to conduct research that can be translated directly into improved construction practices in the field. Its governing board consists entirely of sponsoring members. Dues-paying members are entitled to serve on the board, regardless of the member’s status as a construction contractor, supplier, or participant from another industry segment.

CII’s approach to governance ensures that the research program addresses the needs of those who are both the funders and the ultimate users of the research. Those who pay for the program are directly responsible for selecting the research agenda. If the research does not provide useful results, the sponsors can withdraw funding. A shortcoming of this approach is that the research agenda may ultimately be driven by the interests of those most able to pay for the research. This could lead to a research portfolio emphasizing certain problem areas to the exclusion of others that may be equally important from a public policy perspective. Such an approach may work well for private enterprise. However, airports are operated by public agencies, and many airport operators may be less able than other industry segments to afford membership status on the governing board. Thus, their views may be overlooked or marginalized.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) offers another hybrid model of a governing board. EPRI is a nonprofit organization that performs research for the electric power industry. It is sponsored by electric utilities and their suppliers and users. It is directed by two governing boards working in tandem. One is composed of program sponsors and the other of external advisors from public utility commissions, environmental groups, universities, and government agencies. The board consisting of program sponsors proposes the research agenda, and the second board reviews the proposals. This form of governance combines the practical direction of a board made up of sponsors and users of the research (much like the CII board) with the stewardship role of a third-party entity (much like the HEI board). This example demonstrates the variety of potential models of governance.

Hybrid forms of governance, as exemplified by EPRI, can combine desirable attributes, such as ensuring that the program is both acting in the public interest and meeting the practical needs of operators and other users of the research. However, multiple governing boards may become unwieldy, slow to make decisions, and costly to organize and administer.

The two modes of governance that appear best suited as models for an airport-oriented research program are those of NCHRP and TCRP. Under both approaches, operators make up a majority of the governing board and are therefore assured significant roles in guiding and prioritizing the research. This outcome is crucial to ensuring that the programs address the practical problems of operators, and it will be equally important to an airport-oriented program. Moreover, because both programs are financed with public funds, their governance is designed to ensure that unbiased results are produced. If an ACRP is financed in a similar manner—that is, with significant support from public funds—a commitment to involving a broad spectrum of operators and users in the program’s governance will be essential.

The NCHRP model—in which operators are solely responsible for program governance—may be uniquely applicable to the highway mode, because 50 state agencies operate much of the system. This is a manageable number of operators to organize. By comparison, there are hundreds of commercial airports and thousands of GA airports, which vary significantly in size and services. This situation resembles that of the transit industry. A more open form of governance, as exemplified by TCRP, may therefore be more fitting.

The means by which the program is funded is critical in ensuring that the program stays focused on the needs of operators, the results of the research are viewed as objective, and the program operates efficiently. Whatever financing scheme is selected, it will be important that the funding have the fol-lowing attributes:

• It should be reliable, and its magnitude should be generally predictable from year to year. This will allow longer-range planning of research and will help develop a constituency of users who can depend on the research results.

• It should be sufficient to maintain the continuity of the program, which is necessary in attracting staff to manage the program and in disseminating results.

• It should be sufficient to support multiyear research efforts covering a range of problem areas of interest to many users. Otherwise, funds may be stretched over a large number projects with limited potential for progress, or they may be focused on projects appealing to a narrow subset of users.

• Operators of all sizes and types of airports should have a sense of ownership of the program and a stake in seeing it work, and the sources of funding should reflect this.

• The funding should be tied to the continuing efficient and effective management of the program.

• The funding of research should not be contingent on the research supporting a desired outcome or advocating a particular position.

A strong funding scheme would incorporate these features to the extent possible. What is most important is that the base funding be sufficient in size and reliability, remain insulated from outside influences, and prompt broad constituent participation, especially by airport operators.

Of course, the program may permit special or supplemental funding for particular projects of interest to individual government agencies, airport operators, and users. Indeed, the program may be well suited to performing such activities, since it will have a respected research structure in place. However, should the program become dependent on such specialized activities to support itself, it may gradually shift its emphasis away from problem

areas that are important to many airport operators. The program could also become administratively costly and subject to large fluctuations in activity and resources. A stable funding base is therefore desirable.

Both NCHRP and TCRP are financed with federal funds. The key difference between the two programs is that states voluntarily redirect to NCHRP a share of funds that have already been appropriated. In the case of TCRP, Congress appropriates funds directly to the program through the Federal Transit Administration.

Thus, an NCHRP-like option for funding an airport research program would entail airports and state aviation departments voluntarily setting aside a percentage of their federal aid to be pooled for common research needs. By doing so, airport operators would retain direct control over the program. If operators do share many important research problems, they might be expected to willingly pool some of their federal aid for cooperative research.

NCHRP has demonstrated for more than 40 years that such voluntary funding compels program responsiveness to the needs of users and a strong connection between the research and specific applications. However, this voluntary approach has some notable shortcomings for an ACRP. Any effort to obtain funds from the thousands of airports receiving federal aid will require costly collection procedures and produce a high level of uncertainty about program size and sustainability from year to year. In addition, Congress may need to enact legislation permitting airports to pool a percentage of their federal-aid funds for cooperative research.

Another finance option, similar to that of TCRP, is for Congress to authorize and appropriate funds directly for the program. The funds may be derived from a single source, such as the Aviation Trust Fund, or from multiple sources, such as the trust fund and a share of other federal funds devoted to specific airport activities, such as security. Such a funding scheme could better ensure that the program covers a wide range of research needs shared by many airport types and would avoid the costly process of collecting voluntary contributions from thousands of airports. Since the federal government has much at stake in ensuring that airports operate and maintain their facilities efficiently, federal support could be readily justified. An important drawback of this option—as experienced by TCRP—is that congressional appropriations are often accompanied by earmarking of funds and increasing

federal control over the research agenda. An ACRP financed in this manner could face a loss of programming autonomy and the uncertainties associated with the federal appropriations process.

Some airports differ from highway and transit properties in that a large share of their operating revenues is derived from sources other than government aid. This is especially true of the nation’s largest airports, which earn significant revenues from landing fees, airline tenants, car rental agencies, and parking concessions. Hence, one option is that airports contribute a portion of their nongovernmental revenues to help fund a cooperative research program. Congress would likely need to enact legislation allowing the use of some, or all, of these revenues in this manner, since federal grant assurances now limit how airports may spend the revenues they generate. Another drawback of this approach is that only the nation’s busiest airports would be candidates to fund the program. The large number of smaller airports that do not generate significant commercial revenues would not have ample funds to contribute. Funding of the program by the busiest airports would imply governance by these same airports, and interest in the research needs of thousands of smaller commercial and GA airports might be limited.

The most desirable means of financing an operator-oriented research program is for a large number of airport operators to voluntarily contribute funds in support of the program. By doing so, the operators can maintain control of the program’s scope of activity to ensure that their research needs are met. As a practical matter, however, such financing presents many problems. Too few airports are likely to have the resources to commit funds to such a program on a sustained basis, and the process of collecting voluntary payments from hundreds, or even thousands, of airport sponsors is likely to prove unwieldy and costly. An alternative that does not require mass voluntary contributions from airports but that maintains a connection between airport operators and users as program sponsors is likely to be required.

Federal funding for an airport-oriented research program is an option with great practical advantage, but it raises the prospect of annual appropriations being diverted or not keeping pace with research needs. A funding scheme based on a percentage of federal-aid distributions from the Aviation Trust Fund, which is itself financed through user fees, may provide a stronger connection between the research agenda and the needs of airport operators.

In addition to receiving guidance from a strong governing board and active participation from airport operators, the program must be well organized. The management organization will provide the day-to-day program administration and contact with the researcher community, sponsors, and users of the research. It will be responsible for processing contracts and research agreements, supporting and arranging meetings of the governing board and technical panels, administering program funds, involving users in the program, and disseminating the results of research.

The choice of an organization to manage the program involves a number of considerations. The host organization must demonstrate a capacity to manage a sizable research program and inspire confidence in the objectivity and soundness of the research. Its potential to meet these requirements can be gauged by considering the following questions:

• Can the organization coordinate the involvement of many stakeholders while being perceived as fair and not having an inherent bias toward one group or industry segment?

• Is the conduct of research an important mission of the organization and likely to be accorded priority, or is it a side activity that could be viewed as a distraction from the organization’s main mission?

• Can the organization bring to bear administrative and technical expertise from a range of disciplines that will be needed to define, oversee, and ensure quality control for research projects covering many problem areas?

• Does the organization have the capability to disseminate research results through a wide variety of means that will be accessible to users?

Numerous other issues will need to be addressed. For instance, the organization must be able to accept and administer federal funds. If a new organization is established, consideration must be given to the start-up expenses and time associated with creating it and to the challenges involved in building a trusted “brand name” within the research and user communities. Another consideration is whether the program is best managed by a single entity or under a more decentralized format, such as a consortium of research institutions.

With these considerations in mind, what kinds of research organizations and processes are best suited to an airport research program? In requesting

this study, Congress specifically cited TCRP and NCHRP as models for managing an airport program. Both programs are managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies, an independent, nonprofit research organization. TRB is widely recognized as impartial by the research community, the transportation industry, and government. Because TRB’s core mission is to facilitate the conduct of research and the dissemination of research results, it has an experienced staff of research managers and an extensive publication and research dissemination capacity. It has developed a wide constituency in the researcher and practitioner communities. It can draw on this constituency for technical experts and practitioners to serve on project oversight panels, perform research, and disseminate the results. All of these attributes represent advantages. However, this model is not an inexpensive approach to research. Convening technical panels to oversee projects, soliciting and reviewing proposals from contractors, and maintaining a professional staff of research managers all require a financial commitment.

Other management options warrant consideration. One general option is to create an independent organization to manage the research program. Its structure and management processes could be tailored to fit the specific needs of the airport research program, which would be an important advantage. By their very nature, new organizations are unencumbered by past associations and have the opportunity to build confidence and trust. Of course, these opportunities present challenges. The creation of a new organization can entail significant start-up costs and time. Achieving widespread recognition of the program, establishing stakeholder ties, and building confidence in the research would take even more time. For these reasons alone, the creation of a new organization to manage an airport research program—itself new—appears risky.

An apparently more practical option is for the program to be managed by an existing professional society or industry association with established ties to airport operators. The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), the Airports Council International (ACI), and the National Association of State Airport Officials (NASAO) all have strong ties to airport operators. They can use these connections to ensure participation by operators in the research program and to disseminate research results to them through many existing avenues, such as association conferences, training programs, and publications. The widespread recognition and participation that such organizations enjoy within the industry are important qualities. However, they lack a core

research mission and the management structure that would support a significant research program. Each would need to make a substantial investment in research management staff and quality control methods. In addition, professional and industry associations have particular missions and constituencies, and they may not be able to engender the confidence or attract the participation of individuals and organizations outside these traditional constituencies. The latter deficiency would present a major challenge and may by itself make this option undesirable.

The nation’s universities present another option. The research program could be administered by a single university research institute or by a consortium of institutes with some centralized management. An advantage of this option is that research is a core mission for universities, and the research results are generally viewed as objective. However, close ties to the user community, which are essential for an applied research program, are missing from a university setting. Another possible drawback is that university researchers are themselves likely candidates to perform much of the contract research. Conducting research, rather than managing and disseminating it, tends to be the strength of universities; the mixing of these roles may prove problematic and counterproductive.

Finally, it is conceivable that the existing federal airport research enterprise could host a program created to meet research needs identified by airport operators. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) airport research activities at the Hughes Technical Center are programmed with some input from airport operators, and this input might be formalized and strengthened for at least part of the research program. However, FAA’s role in hosting an ACRP would almost certainly detract from the sense of ownership of the program by airport operators and industry. The program might become subject to FAA’s budgetary pressures and to the restrictions associated with federal procurement, contracting, and hiring. These drawbacks make the federal option unappealing.

Congress requested this study of the desirability of a national cooperative research program for airports. In so doing, it asked for an assessment of the applicability of the financing and administrative approaches used by NCHRP and TCRP. An outline of an ACRP that draws on the key features of these two

programs is given below. The features are modified where necessary to accommodate the differing circumstances of the airport and aviation sectors. It is assumed that the resulting program will be managed in a manner consistent with NCHRP and TCRP.

An allocation by Congress of 0.2 percent of annual Airport and Airway Trust Fund revenues (approximately $10 billion per year) would generate approximately $20 million at current revenue levels for core funding of an ACRP. This percentage is comparable with what the federal government provides for research by highway and transit operators. For instance, state highway agencies are required to spend at least 0.5 percent of the $30 billion they receive in federal aid each year on research, whereas TCRP accounts for about 0.12 percent of annual federal expenditures on public transportation. In fact, the nation’s public transit operators are urging Congress to double this percentage so that a higher share of their research needs can be met.

A contribution equivalent to 1.5 cents from the $2.50 airline passenger surcharge for airline security (which is expected to generate about $1.7 billion annually) would provide an additional $10 million to the research program. The result would be an annual research budget of about $30 million.

At the moment, future sources and levels of revenue for aviation and transportation security remain unknown. They will be determined in part by funding for the Department of Homeland Security. However, the country will certainly spend billions of dollars over the next several years on airport security equipment, infrastructure, and operations, and these investments will have to be well integrated into the airport environment. As noted in Chapter 1, airport operators used more than 17 percent of Airport Improvement Program funds for security-related project in FY 2002. Research that involves airport operators and that is coordinated with other airport research activities will thus warrant a significant role in the program and funding on the part of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Department of Homeland Security.

Of course, additional program funds could be sought from other sources (for example, revenues generated by the airports that are not subject to spending restrictions) to help finance individual research projects approved by the program’s board of governors.

Before a means of program governance is suggested, it is emphasized that any specific proposal will involve judgments about the appropriate number of representatives, their balance, and the range of interests and expertise represented. With such considerations in mind, a governance structure is proposed in the form of a governing board similar to those of NCHRP and TCRP. The proposal is offered as a starting point for initiating an ACRP, and many of the organizations identified in the proposal must have instrumental roles in the program’s formation.

The following concerns underlie the proposed governing board:

• The program must respond to the needs of airport operators, since they face problems and must field the solutions.

• It must involve major regulators and funders of airport infrastructure and airport-related research, since they must work with operators and with one another to define research needs, set research priorities, and ensure that the result are useful.

• It must recognize the perspective and needs of airport users, who will ultimately be the beneficiaries of the research.

Another important concern is that the board be large enough to engage varied perspectives and expertise but not be so large and unwieldy as to preclude effective decision making.

The board proposed below represents a balance of these concerns. In the committee’s view, airport operators must make up a majority of the members, and they must represent a cross section of airports. GA airports are a majority of the nation’s public-use airports; however, commercial-service airports—particularly large and medium hubs—account for nearly all passenger travel and air cargo movements. Operators of large, medium, and small airports have many similar and many different interests and perspectives—indeed, the nation’s large airports are often part of regional airport systems that include GA airports. No single set of interests or perspectives should dominate.

The proposal calls for participation by representatives of four specific federal agencies, because they have crucial roles in airport funding, regulation, and research. With regard to airport users, most of the public travels on airlines, and this travel generates most of the revenues that support the nation’s

airport and aviation system. The proposal calls for airlines to participate on the board. With the need for a board that is of manageable size in mind, the committee also suggests avenues for the participation of other airport users and individuals knowledgeable about airport infrastructure, operations, and research.

As a first step, a nonprofit research institute will need to be designated to appoint and host an Airport Research Governing Board responsible for setting the policies and providing guidance for ACRP research. This institute could be established jointly by ACI, AAAE, and NASAO.

A majority of the board should be drawn from airport operators. A 23-member board, whose members would be appointed by the host organization, is proposed. The members would be chosen by the following process:

• ACI would name ten members, including six officials from large hub airports, two from medium-size hub airports, and two from small hub airports.

• NASAO would name four members, two from nonhub or GA airports and two from state aviation departments.

• AAAE would name two members from nonhub or GA airports.

• The Air Transport Association would name one member.

• The administrators of FAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would each name one member.

• The Undersecretary of Transportation Security would name one member.

• The organization hosting the board or managing the program would nominate two members who are interested in and knowledgeable about airport infrastructure, operations, safety, security, and environmental impacts. These nominations should be rotated periodically among air travelers, GA operators, air cargo carriers and shippers, airport consultants and suppliers, and researchers.

The board would convene one to three times per year and would have the following responsibilities and functions:

• Solicit problem statements and serve as a focal point for research needs identified by airport operators, users, and regulators.

• Set the annual research agenda by identifying the highest-priority research themes, screening candidate projects, defining project funding levels, and articulating expected products of research.

• Guide and monitor the overall quality and strategic direction of the program over the course of several years.

• Determine the technical objectives of all research projects.

• Coordinate with other research programs, including university and private-sector activities and the federal R&D programs at FAA, TSA, and NASA.

• Develop dissemination plans and ensure the dissemination of results.

• Utilize the expertise and research ideas of airport users and regulators.

In addition to carrying out these functions, the board may be charged by Congress with conducting periodic assessments of the performance of the program and reporting the results. The report shall be made available to the public, the federal agencies providing and administering the funds, and Congress.

The board will need staff support. Under NCHRP and TCRP, such support is provided by TRB, which serves as secretariat to the board. Secretariat activities include soliciting research needs, scheduling and preparing agendas for board meetings, collecting and tabulating board member ballots on research priorities and other matters related to the research program, and preparing and circulating board meeting notes.

Day-to-day management responsibilities, also fulfilled by TRB, include

• Appointing and coordinating the expert technical panels with responsibility to direct, monitor, and peer-review the research progress;

• Developing, distributing, and processing requests for proposals;

• Executing, monitoring, and closing out contractual agreements with selected researchers; and

• Editing, publishing, and disseminating research reports approved by technical panels.

The use of expert panels to guide research projects provides the strength of TRB’s approach for managing cooperative research programs and is perhaps

a unique capability of this organization. Panels are chosen for their technical expertise within the specific problem areas. They provide technical advice and counsel during all phases of the project. Panel members serve voluntarily and without compensation. They are appointed as individuals possessing expertise in specialized areas, not as representatives of the organizations by which they are employed.

An important concern of TRB and its parent organization, the National Academies, is appropriate balance and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. Panel members cannot act as individual consultants or advisors to the researchers and are prohibited from submitting proposals on research projects under their purview. It is largely the National Academies’ status as a nonprofit, nonadvocacy research institute chartered by Congress to advise the government that enables TRB to convene these voluntary panels, which are integral to ensuring the quality and integrity of the cooperative research programs. As discussed in Chapter 5, this capability makes TRB a candidate to manage an ACRP.