Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

122 Appendix A to the Report comprises three sections. Sec- tion A.1 presents a summary of what was learned in a series of detailed interviews with key technical managers at major air- ports in the two study areas, incorporating their views of con- straints and the seriousness of the capacity problem over the next 20 years. Section A.2 includes a brief review of what might and might not be expected from the application of improved airspace management technology. Section A.3 reviews the con- cept that additional scheduled time for transfer movement would have a beneficial impact on spreading the peak move- ments at congested airports. A.1 Issues of Capacity Limitation as Perceived at the Airport Level A.1.1 Airport Interviews The research team began by contacting the management of the busiest airports in the coastal metropolitan corridors. The planning staffs at those airports were interviewed to confirm the validity of the FACT 2 report and to obtain advice about current problems with congestion, the outlook for the future, and measures that might improve that outlook. Planners for 11 major airports were interviewed, through face-to-face meet- ings for 6 airports (JFK, LGA, EWR, IAD, DCA, and SFO) and telephone conversations for five (BWI, PHL, BOS, OAK, and LAX). The interviews ranged from 0.5 to 2 hours long. The interviews followed a standard format, but were flexible enough to allow airports to emphasize issues of local significance. The airport representatives were asked about their experi- ences with regional transportation planning and their attitudes regarding the potential for expanded multimodal, multi- jurisdictional planning focused on short-haul passenger travel. Particular emphasis was placed on the airport’s willing- ness to cooperate with regional and intercity rail operators. This section of Appendix A summarizes the results of inter- views conducted at each of 11 airports by the research team, first in terms of local views toward capacity and second in terms of other key issues brought up in the interviews. Table A.1 lists the location and dates of the interviews and the airport official(s) interviewed for each airport. A.1.1.1 Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) Primary Concerns. The research team identified limited land area and environmental issues as major constraints to expansion at BOS owing to the complexity and time require- ments for environmental review of runway expansion. Con- gestion in New York airspace limits BOS operations to the south and east, and flights bound for New York are frequently delayed on the ground at BOS. These problems linger, even though passenger traffic between New York and BOS has been cut in half over the past 10 years by the introduction of compet- ing air service at PVD and MHT and, more important, by very effective competition from Amtrak. (Hubbing is not a major issue, as airlines at BOS concentrate increasingly on direct flights and international growth.) The aviation planning man- ager interviewed for this study reported that BOS has not had to implement its demand management program because the trigger of a 15-min average delay during good weather condi- tions has not been reached, nor is it anticipated in the near term. Other Research Findings. BOS is involved in regional transportation planning, as a permanent member of the MPO with a big interest in airport accessibility. The New England System Plan, initiated by the FAA in cooperation with the states and major transportation facility operators, has been very successful in promoting an effective regional system of air- ports. The regional plan has helped build confidence among investors and developers and provides a favorable context for local development decisions. According to interviews carried out by the research team, the governance of BOS by Massport has helped the transportation planning process because the airport is not unduly impeded by political interference and can proceed with planning in a businesslike manner. The regional planning process is now looking at issues such as A P P E N D I X A Airport Interviews and Technology Issues

123 airspace use and bus/rail service. Interest in mass transit and rail is fairly high at BOS, partly because of the emerging con- cern about the carbon footprint of transportation systems. A.1.1.2 Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark Airports (JFK, LGA, and EWR) Primary Concerns. The New York region is unique in sev- eral ways, and on the basis of the research team’s interviews, no single measure exists that will satisfy the region’s requirements; consequently, a broad range of measures will be needed to meet emerging demands. The research team’s findings of con- straints at the three airports reflect this complexity: • JFK, LGA, and EWR are all constrained by space limita- tions and environmental considerations; • Airspace management issues constrain all three airports, owing to their proximity to one another and neighboring airports; • Airline management issues affect the New York airports; and • Legally enforceable policies, particularly restrictions on traffic management and rules limiting the use of airport revenues, limit the strategies that the PANYNJ can use to satisfy the demand for air travel. Other Research Findings. As revealed in the interviews, no MPO or Councils of Government play a key role. The Regional Planning Association draws funds and support from public and private sources for ad hoc studies, but its influence is based on the usefulness of its products rather than from a statutory role. Regional planning is primarily done by the PANYNJ, often in cooperation with other agen- cies such as the NY DOT or the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. The air transportation market is heavily concentrated, limiting the potential role of outlying supplementary airports. The research team recorded evidence of frustration in two key areas. First, the local officials interviewed expressed concern that federal regulation of how airport funds can be used adds complexity and impedes efforts to maximize the role of rail. Rail already plays a large role in the region, with Amtrak diverting a large number of short-haul pas- sengers from the airports—especially Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C. The team found no evidence that this increase in rail travel has led to reduced flight sched- ules accordingly. During the interview, the PANYNJ staff presented their interpretation of the problems in the New York region. Although this view does not represent a complete summary Table A.1. Airport interview list. Airport Date of Interview Airport Official and Title BOS 30 April 2008 Flavio Leo: Aviation Planning, Dept. of Aviation, Massachusetts Port Authority JFK, LGA, and EWR 24 June 2008 William Radinson: Assistant Director of Capital Programs for Aviation Tom Bock: Assistant Director for Operational Enhancement Patty Clark: Senior Advisor to the Director of Aviation Ronnie Taste: Certified transportation planner Linda Bentz: Assistant Director of the Policy and Planning Department Richard Milhaven: Manager of the Aviation Department's Federal Aid Programs Gregory B.Wong: Policy analyst with the Policy and Planning Department Jeff Zupan: Senior research fellow with the Regional Planning Association; direct- ing the Future of the NY Region Airports Study Richard Barrone: Researcher with the Regional Planning Association; working on the Future of the NY Region Airports Study Matt Lee: With Landrum & Brown, lead consultant on the Nine Airport Regional Air Service Demand Study PHL 5 May 2008 Calvin M. Davenger, Jr.: Deputy Director of Aviation Planning & Environmental Stew- ardship Division of Aviation BWI 6 May 2008 Wayne Schuster: Director, MAA—Office of Planning and Environmental Services DCA and IAD 23 April 2008 William Lebergern: Manager, Planning Department, Office of Engineering OAK 10 June 2008 Kristi McKenney: Manager of Aviation Planning and Development LAX 10 June 2008 Susan Collette: Supervisory Transportation Planner, LA World Airports SFO 11 & 13 June 2008 Ivar Satero: Airport Deputy Director Danielle Rinsler: Director of Planning

124 of these complex issues, the interviews revealed their posi- tion that, despite extensive research and huge investments, there has been no increase in the throughput capacity of the runways at JFK, LGA, and EWR. Participants have seen the throughput reduced by 2–8 operations per hour at each air- port over the past 10 years and the same schedule that was once handled in 14 hours now stretches to 16, costing air- lines and travelers billions of dollars and exposing air- port neighbors to late-night aircraft noise. Moreover, the gradual improvement of air traffic control (ATC) equip- ment has not increased runway throughput. Instead, the improved equipment is being used to enforce, ever more precisely, air traffic spacing rules that were developed decades ago when it was much less accurate and reliable. Those participating in the interviews believe that this may be the most important single issue for the New York region. The local participants stated their view that, until the new rules are developed that reflect the improved accuracy of the ATC system, the region will be subjected to billions of dollars in unnecessary travel delay and environmental degradation. The research team found that landside improvements (e.g., terminal construction and ground access enhancements) are possible, and some airfield configuration changes may be studied in the future if improvements in ATC procedures provide a basis for them. NextGen should result in some relief to the airspace management issues identified, but NextGen must be translated into higher runway throughput if the region is to benefit substantially. A.1.1.3 Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Primary Concerns. The research team determined that the expansion of PHL is very constrained by limited land area and environmental issues—for example, when adverse weather conditions severely reduce capacity. The current air- port master plan is designed to work within those constraints to expand capacity, including the opening of a new runway. Other Research Findings. According to interviews with the airport’s deputy director of aviation, airlines are con- cerned that the New York and Washington air traffic affects the adequacy of airspace for operations at PHL. It is hoped that relief will come as new technology comes on line in the ATC system. The plans for airfield improvements and trends toward efficient airline schedules are expected to keep con- gestion within acceptable limits. The present requirement that congestion pricing be revenue neutral also limits the air- port’s interest in the subject. The airport participates in regional transportation planning, and the airport is con- nected to Amtrak by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Trans- portation Authority. A.1.1.4 Baltimore Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport (BWI) Primary Concerns. The research team found that expan- sion of BWI will be constrained eventually by limited land area and environmental issues, but not before 2020. Local air- space management is generally adequate and free of serious constraints; however, airspace is a constant concern of air- lines and could become a problem as activity increases at IAD and PHL. Other Research Findings. Owing to frugal fiscal policies, airlines are slow to make improvements in tenant space. According to the interviews, a particular concern at BWI is in the baggage handling areas below the terminal that have been affected by baggage screening procedures. The space should be expanded and the flow streamlined, but the airlines do not want to make a major investment now. BWI is not currently affected by policies related to the use and allocation of capac- ity. BWI is accessible from a nearby rail station served by the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) and Amtrak. The airport is able to handle its projected growth without additional planning guidance and assistance. Although traf- fic is likely to grow at 1.5–2% annually, BWI probably will not become congested before 2020 or 2025. A.1.1.5 Washington, D.C., Airports (DCA and IAD) Primary Concerns. The research team found that DCA is very constrained by limited area and environmental issues. IAD, on the other hand, has adequate space and a more favor- able environmental situation, but the environmental review and approval process for improvements is still very lengthy. Airspace management is a continuing issue for IAD: one con- cern is military airspace set aside for Quantico to the south of the airport. Airspace at DCA is less of a concern because traf- fic levels are more constant. Other Research Findings. The team also found that air- line policies on aircraft size and hubbing affect the airports but are viewed by airport staff as customer requirements that need to be accommodated. DCA is heavily affected by slot limits and limits on long-distance flights; IAD has a sharp peak in international departures because of curfews at major European airports. Regional planning has not addressed reliever airport issues. An effective regional planning effort aimed at reducing airport congestion was the airspace plan- ning for the Potomac TRACON, which was conducted by the FAA. The team noted that although DCA is relatively close to Amtrak, and improved connectivity could be achieved with a large investment, the airlines would insist that Amtrak make an appropriate payment to the airport budget if it were to use airport facilities.

A.1.1.6 San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Primary Concerns. The research team found that SFO is heavily impacted by limited space and environmental con- straints. Space is limited and any major runway improvement would involve filling in a portion of the Bay. Although the long-term impact on the Bay might not be significant, com- munity concern about airport development is a very large political issue. Other Research Findings. SFO officials interviewed for this study reported that airspace is adequate for current oper- ations, but SFO and other West Coast airports are dispropor- tionately affected by flow control measures such as ground holds. The use of regional jets aggravates runway congestion at SFO, but the airport is less dependent on airline approval of policies and investments than most other airports because it has few airline-funded facilities. The emphasis on common- use facilities will continue in the future. SFO would like to have more authority to manage demand on the runways, particu- larly during bad weather conditions. The airport is participat- ing in a Bay Area regional planning study and also supported the recent referendum on HSR. The research team’s findings reflect a sense that local solutions to airport congestion can be crafted, but the federal government must be supportive. SFO’s issues are thought to be significantly different from those of New York or Boston, so solutions must be tailored at the local level. A.1.1.7 Oakland International Airport (OAK) Primary Concerns. As OAK is a single-runway airport, it is not surprising that the research team found OAK to be highly constrained by limited area and environmental issues. Those interviewed took the position that a new runway is warranted by traffic levels, but would probably have to be built in the bay on fill at an extraordinarily high cost. A loca- tion on solid ground is possible but would result in public opposition because of noise impact. Other Research Findings. Airspace management is not a major issue for OAK in its current configuration, but SFO does appear to take priority in some weather conditions. The airport does not have much regional-jet traffic. However, it does have a sharp peak in traffic during the morning depar- ture push, which is common at West Coast airports. The research team reported that airline financial problems have curtailed capital spending at OAK and other airports and will be a major constraint to any large capital programs in the future. The authority to manage air traffic demand would be helpful at OAK, if only by providing greater flexibility to man- agement. OAK is now involved, together with San Jose (SJO) and SFO, in a regional planning study with the technical work done by the Oakland MPO. The study will address the avia- tion capacity needs of the Bay Area and may recommend improvements. A.1.1.8 Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Primary Concerns. In interviews with the supervisory transportation planner for LAX, it was reported that the air- port is impacted by limited space and environmental con- straints. The airport is heavily constrained on the landside, with aging terminals, congested access roads, and noise- sensitive communities and needs to be modernized. Space is limited, but there is room for midfield terminal expansion and runway redevelopment to provide more space for new large aircraft. Community concern about airport develop- ment is a very large political issue. Other Research Findings. In contrast to most other air- ports where the research team conducted interviews, airspace at LAX is adequate for current operations. Capacity at the air- port is limited by a cap of 89 million air passengers annually, which is a locally imposed ceiling on the future use of the air- port. Diverse patterns of use by airlines, however, are a chal- lenge. Interview results suggest that a significant portion of LAX runway capacity is used for short-haul flights, some of which may be handled by a future HSR system. Frequent flights by commuter aircraft and regional jets account for much of the air traffic at LAX. (Los Angeles maintains good alternative airports for general aviation, so general aviation does not use LAX.) A.1.2 Lessons and Issues Raised in the Local Interviews By design, much of the content of the interviews concerned local conditions and local interpretations, as summarized in sections A.1.1.1 to A.1.1.8 above. In addition, the research team explored many common themes that emerged from the interviews, as summarized here by subject area. A.1.2.1 Local Perception of the Accuracy of the FACT-2 Report The FACT 2 report, released by the FAA in 2007, was pre- pared by the FAA in cooperation with the MITRE Corp. and coordinated with airport managers when the final report was in draft form. However, the interviews showed that only a few representatives of airport management were fully aware of the report. The general sense of airport planners is that the FACT 2 report was accurate in its summary of the outlook for airport congestion (i.e., worsening problems at the busiest airports in the East and West Coast corridors through the 125

126 foreseeable future). However, several current efforts that were not reflected in the FACT 2 analysis could reduce the severity of congestion. A major new runway has been proposed for PHL to allow the airport to operate two runways at full potential during most weather conditions, greatly increasing the airport’s capacity during instrument weather conditions. An analysis of the environmental impact of the proposed runway is under- way and is expected to be completed in 2010. On the basis of the criteria used by FACT 2 for inclusion in the assumed capacity increases, the PHL runway was not included. Thus, congestion at a future PHL airport might be somewhat lower than that reported in FACT 2. An airspace redesign effort is underway in the New York area, and it has the potential to improve the efficiency of the three major airports. The airspace redesign was not addressed by FACT 2, nor were the potential benefits factored into the report’s conclusions. In addition, there is an ongoing effort at the national level to develop slot allocation procedures for use at the New York airports. Officials of the PANYNJ believe that well-designed procedures could play a key role in controlling congestion and delay, but they disagree with the approach that has been proposed over the past few years. They prefer sched- ule coordination procedures similar to those already in use in other countries, developed by the IATA, as better suited to the New York airports. A regional airport system planning effort is underway in the Bay Area to address issues related to the distribution of traffic among the three major airports (SFO, OAK, and SJO); the potential to add traffic to other existing airports, construct a new airport, or add a new runway to an existing airport; and the prospects for some form of demand management to bring airline schedules into conformity with airfield capacity. The planning effort is in the early stages and, although participants are optimistic, major results are probably 5–10 years away. A.1.2.2 Reduction of Airline Schedules More significant to the near-term outlook is the combined effect of a struggling economy and substantial increases in fuel costs, which pose a threat to the financial viability of U.S. airlines. The airline reaction is still emerging, but major themes include de-emphasis of small aircraft—particularly regional jets—elimination of marginally profitable routes, retirement of inefficient aircraft, and downsizing of person- nel rosters. These measures are likely to relieve runway con- gestion by reducing the number of flights and increasing the average number of passengers per aircraft operation, in effect up-gauging the airline fleets using congested airports. Another likely effect of high fuel costs and a sluggish econ- omy will be slower growth in demand, probably lagging well behind current FAA forecasts for at least the next 5 years. Slow growth could extend the time frame for some airport improvement programs. The long-term outlook is muddied by the great difficulty that airlines are having with fuel costs, which approximately doubled in the 12 months before the interviews and then swung downward in the period after the interviews. The uncertain situation is not favorable to short flights by small aircraft, because these consume the most fuel per passenger mile flown. There is some possibility that, in the long term, high fuel costs may cause a sea change in the business model for commercial aviation, reversing the emphasis on stimulat- ing growth by lowering cost that has dominated the industry since deregulation. A.1.2.3 Airport Perspective on Congestion The issue of air traffic congestion and delay is sometimes summarized at the national level as the simple prospect of impending gridlock in the sky. However, airport operators see a much more complicated situation, in which factors such as technology, government policy, economic growth, traveler preferences, market forces, finance, and local politics interact to influence the ability of an airport to perform at an accept- able level. Within this framework, congestion is viewed not as a looming disaster but rather an ongoing challenge that requires a multifaceted strategy that is technically feasible, affordable, politically acceptable, and flexible. Many of the planners who were interviewed addressed demand as a mar- ket force that is not entirely predictable. This is somewhat dif- ferent from an alternative viewpoint, which envisions a steady growth in scheduled traffic, without regard to delay, until gridlock occurs. The airport planners emphasized the uncer- tainty that is inherent in forecasts of demand. All have had experience with some degree of congestion and high delay, particularly during extended periods of adverse weather. However, none of them spoke in terms of gridlock, and none foresaw a future in which all options to enhance capacity would be exhausted. A.1.2.4 Financial Capability of Airports Historically, the busiest airports have been able to draw on a variety of funding sources for capital improvements, including grants, passenger facility charges, and bonds. The busiest airports have been able to maintain excellent credit ratings even during periods of economic hard times for the airlines. However, the current financial crisis within the air- line industry is clearly having an effect on airports. There is increased emphasis on revenue generation by airports and ongoing efforts to reduce costs. Many airports indicated that airlines have become frugal and are reluctant to make improvements within leased areas,

127 and some report that airlines may be neglecting expensive maintenance—for example, on baggage conveyor systems. The extent of these frugal policies varies, depending on the type of agreement an airport has with its tenants. Airports with primarily common-use gate and ticket counter areas, such as SFO, are less affected than airports where individual air- lines have exclusive use of terminals. Another effect of frugal air- line budgets is to delay ongoing capital improvement programs. For example, the pace of midfield terminal development at IAD would be slowed if the major tenant is forced to curtail spend- ing. The regional planning effort in the Bay Area is in part a recognition that a new runway at SFO or OAK is likely to be too expensive in the future for a single airport to finance. A.1.2.5 Interaction with Rail Airport access is primarily by automobile, which provides a large part of airport revenues through parking lot and car rental fees. However, major airports tend to support link- ages to regional rail systems wherever possible, despite high development costs. DCA has incorporated Metro rail into the terminal complex. BWI, PHL, EWR, BOS, JFK, SFO, and OAK have convenient links, typically by dedicated bus or people mover. Metro rail service to IAD is currently being designed. The most notable obstacle to effective rail links has been high cost, which can be subsidized by the airport only under certain conditions because of federal restrictions on the use of airport revenues for non-aviation purposes. Convenient connections are also provided to Amtrak at BWI, PHL, and EWR. The PANYNJ has met and exchanged data with Amtrak regarding Boston and Washington service and discussed the need for more rail capacity in those markets. The enormous shift of travelers from aviation to Amtrak was the result of faster and more comfortable train sets and the additional time required by aviation security procedures enacted since 9/11/2001. The PANYNJ believes that the shift is long term and is unlikely to be reversed by faster security procedures. It is interesting to note that, while Amtrak’s share of the Boston– NYC market has risen to over 50%—with a corresponding reduction in passengers at Boston and New York airports—the number of scheduled flights in those markets has not been sig- nificantly reduced. It appears that flight frequency in dense, short-haul markets is not always closely linked to passenger volume, as discussed in Chapter 2 of the Report. On the West Coast, the director of SFO is a prominent sup- porter of a proposal to develop an HSR system to link major cities in California. The eventual benefit would be to give short-haul travelers the option of using rail, freeing airport space for long-haul passengers. The current thinking would locate the rail stations in densely populated areas, and air- ports would be linked to them by regional rail. A.1.2.6 Involvement in Regional Planning through MPOs A powerful regional transportation planning process is a mandatory aspect of federal aid for surface transportation in major metropolitan areas. However, the mandate does not extend to aviation, with the result that airport involvement in regional planning varies from city to city. Only a handful of the nation’s MPOs (notably Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Southern California) have been able to maintain a staff specialist dedicated to aviation issues, and only one (Washington, D.C.) receives a steady and reliable stream of federal aid to support aviation activities. In the Washington metro area, ongoing activities include fore- casting and passenger surveys. The development of effective reliever airports to serve general aviation has been an impor- tant activity in Philadelphia and St. Louis. In Southern Cali- fornia, numerous studies have been undertaken, including airspace utilization and potential sites for new airports. The amount of cooperation and coordination between the planning staff of major airports and MPOs depends largely on the activities the MPO has underway. The broadest and best defined relationship is in the Washington, D.C., area, where three major airports (IAD, DCA, and BWI) draw on the MPO for passenger survey data, forecasts, and support in airport ground access analysis. The airports are pleased with the arrangement and rely on the data as a sound basis for planning. The more typical arrangement, however, is an annual meeting of the airport and MPO staff, with briefings on current activities and surface transportation plans. A.1.2.7 Ad Hoc Regional Planning Many major airports have been or are now involved in regional planning efforts on an ad hoc basis, addressing issues that extend beyond their immediate service areas. A notable example is the New England Regional Airport System Plan, sponsored by the FAA and a coalition of 6 states and 11 air- ports. The study included a detailed analysis of the passenger forecasts, origins and destinations, and passenger preferences when deciding which airport to use. The resulting plan recog- nizes that BOS alone cannot meet the regional demand for air transportation, but the demand can be met by the 11-airport system, at least through 2020, provided appropriate improve- ments are made. The regional approach was bolstered by the introduction of additional service by one national carrier to MHT, PVD, and Bradley. The regional concept has been very successful in New England. During the period 1996–1999, about 75% of increased passenger movements in the region occurred at regional airports rather than at BOS. Observers note that the regional concept was carefully tailored to the New England

128 environment, where air travel is 80% higher than the national average and a number of large regional airports are sur- rounded by viable air transportation markets. The PANYNJ undertook an inventory and forecast for the eight-airport system around the New York region, including Westchester County Airport, Islip, and Trenton. The findings indicate that demand for air transportation is heavily concen- trated in the central core of the area, particularly within the limits of New York City, and this will limit the potential util- ity of outlying airports. However, the PANYNJ did take a leasehold interest in Stewart Airport and intends to improve it to draw air travelers from the surrounding area. The regional study now underway in the Bay Area, involv- ing the airport operators at SFO, OAK, and SJO, is another example of a regional strategy. This study reflects the unwill- ingness and perhaps the inability of the individual airports to undertake major improvements such as new runways with- out a regional consensus that the development is warranted and preferable to any alternatives. A.1.2.8 Conclusions from the Airport Interviews Major airports in the East and West Coast corridors are concerned about issues related to accommodating future demand for travel with an acceptable level of service. The most difficult aspect is providing adequate runway capacity to meet forecast increases in aircraft operations. Improved ATC technology, presented by the FAA as the NextGen ATC system, is expected to increase the rate at which aircraft can land on runways. This improvement was included in the analysis for the FACT-2 Report and, while significant, it is not adequate to keep pace with rising demand. The biggest gains are likely to be enjoyed during instrument weather at airports, such as PHL, EWR, and SFO, which are currently unable to use their closely spaced parallel runways efficiently. NextGen should permit aircraft to continue to use visual spacing rules even during instrument weather conditions. However, some airport managers interviewed are skeptical about the ability to translate technical advances into higher landing rates in a timely manner. New York area airport man- agers expressed the position that improvements to date have been used to monitor controller conformance to existing rules with greater precision, resulting in a decline in the num- ber of aircraft that can be landed in a given amount of time. In this view, the eventual benefit of NextGen may be to greatly reduce the delays that are now encountered when adverse weather reduces runway capacity, but only permit the addition of a few flights during the visual flight rule weather that occurs more than 90% of the time. Additional runways are under construction at IAD, where provision was made for them in the initial airport master plan. Runways will be very difficult to build at other airports where space is limited. LAX will pursue a runway relocation to expedite operations by very large aircraft for the purpose of reducing runway incursions, an important safety consid- eration. SFO has stopped the analysis of the environmental impact of a new runway, looking to a regional study for advice about future requirements and options. PHL has an environmental analysis underway for a new runway, but the results will not be known for several years. The outlook for new runways in general is particularly gloomy owing to high construction cost estimates and the weak financial condition of the airline industry. Ground access and terminal buildings are also concerns, but these face fewer local political problems than new run- ways. The major obstacle they will face in the near term is apt to be financial. Multimodal activities are often undertaken by major air- ports. Linkages to regional rail and connections to Amtrak, typically via a dedicated people mover, are common. On the West Coast, SFO is a major supporter of HSR proposed for service between major cities in California. Major airports are not heavily involved with metropolitan planning agencies, which are a mandatory part of the federal funding process for federal aid to surface transportation. The coordination between airports and regional planning organ- izations depends greatly on whether the planning agency maintains a specialist in aviation and on the studies that are currently underway. Some large airports are involved in ad hoc regional plan- ning, including those in Boston, New York, and San Francisco. These studies are typically undertaken by the airport in coop- eration with the FAA. The studies are multijurisdictional and extend beyond the airport service area. The purpose of the studies and the composition of sponsoring agencies vary from city to city. A.2 Considerations about Airspace Limitations A.2.1 Defining the Issues of Airspace Constraint There are two different types of airspace constraints affect- ing airports in the study areas, each with somewhat different possible solutions: (a) deficiencies in individual airport capac- ity and (b) regional airspace interactions that prevent realiza- tion of individual airport capacity. A.2.1.1 At the Airport Level The most common and commonly recognized form of airspace constraint is the lack of capacity at the individual

129 airport level, particularly at OD airports in the study regions.1 Individual airports’ lack of capacity most often manifests itself with high levels of delay during instrument meteorolog- ical conditions, when ATC procedures reduce the airport acceptance rate to below the scheduled levels. However, in some cases, such as what occurred in SFO in the summer of 2000 or at LGA in the summer of 2001, airport capacity can be exceeded even in good weather by unconstrained airline scheduling practices. Looking to a future that might require substantial increases in the number of aircraft operations needed to satisfy passenger demand, as is assumed by the NextGen program, this lack of individual airport capacity could pose a serious constraint at an increasing number of airports in the study areas. The solutions to individual airport capacity limitations range from the construction of new runways, to improved air traffic procedures, to increased use of regional airports, to NextGen2 technology improvements, to rational congestion management techniques that limit excessive scheduled activity. The difficulty of constructing new runways at the critical airports in the study areas is well known and is unlikely to prevent the addition of sig- nificant capacity at the critical study area airports. However, one advanced NextGen operational improvement being considered might permit instrument approaches to runways more closely spaced than today’s technologies allow and could open the pos- sibility of “infill” runways constructed between existing run- ways at some of the study area airports. Improved air traffic procedures also hold significant potential. As an example, the New York Airspace Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommended initiation of mixed arrival/departure operations on EWR’s two runways, which had been traditionally operated for only arrival or departure opera- tions. This initiative is being pursued and represents a class of potential improvement to other idiosyncratic ATC procedures that limit capacity at study area airports. Increased use of regional airports has been well demonstrated in New England (BOS, MHT, PVD), and holds promise in other study areas, provided that regional air traffic capacity can support the increased traffic at secondary airports and environmental con- siderations do not preclude development of regional airports. Other NextGen technologies also offer a broad promise of improving capacity, but the program is dealing with the inability to translate the theoretical promise of technologies like Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B) to benefits that airlines can realistically use. A telling example of this challenge is the ADS–B/OUT system that is currently being procured. That initial system provides surveillance per- formance similar to existing radar systems, requires that air- craft be equipped with the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) that few airlines are planning to install,3 cannot sup- port approaches to runways spaced more closely than today’s 4,300-ft limitation, and, in its present form, will not improve the capacity of constrained airports. Finally, the use of conges- tion management tools to maximize capacity and stimulate up-gauging at congested airports is being actively pursued, but it is highly controversial and may not be politically viable. Sec- tions 5.3 and 5.4 of this Report address the issues of up-gauging and congestion management. The existence of multiple airports in the mega-regions included in this study complicates the efficient use of termi- nal airspace. Airspace separation standards currently in use in these regions’ terminal airspace were developed at a time when navigation and surveillance accuracies were prim- itive compared with current capabilities. In many instances, these regions must also deal with the existence of military air- space in close proximity to terminal airspace. The mega- region airports are also affected by the heavy traffic occurring in the en route environment that often limits the amount of traffic that en route sectors can accommodate from these air- ports. The application of Required Navigational Performance (RNP) technologies has potential to relieve these constraints. A.2.1.2 Constraint from Conflicting Interactions The second type of constraint in the study area is caused by conflicting interactions between airspace used to support multiple airports or military users in a given region. Within a given terminal area serving a metropolitan area, the airspace required under today’s rules to ensure safe operations is large and overlaps between the surfaces needed to protect opera- tions at one airport sometimes preclude the use of certain runways at other regional airports. This problem is currently most severe in the New York area, but exists to a lesser extent in other metropolitan areas. At other locations, the requirements of the military have similar impacts on regional air traffic. The corridors leading into and out of Southern California and the offshore airspace in the Northeast are currently affected by the static nature of military airspace, which precludes its use by civil aviation, even when it is not actively being used by military exercises. In their most extreme manifestation, both of these types of regional airspace conflicts severely impede the delivery of 1 Interconnecting hub airport congestion is discussed in Section 1.3 of the Report. 2 It should be noted that the full NextGen program includes the domain of air traffic, aircraft, and airports. The analysis contained in this section, however, deals primarily with those aspects impacting capacity and congestion. 3 Major air carriers are reacting to FAA plans that envision WAAS as primarily of use by general aviation aircraft operating into small airports with no ground- based precision landing systems. The plan provided for development of a higher precision Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) to be used by major airlines at larger commercial service airports. LAAS development is currently on hold.

130 aircraft to some critical airports, effectively resulting in an inability to use the existing regional runway capacity. Similar constraints exist in transitional en route airspace near the con- gested terminal areas, when departures from regional airports cannot be inserted into the overhead traffic flows because of nearby sector saturation. Traditional solutions to this regional airspace congestion involve redesigning the airspace to provide additional routes and fixes. However, this is a painfully slow process, and envi- ronmental controversies stemming from new routings have the potential to limit their applicability.4 As with individual airport capacity problems, NextGen technologies can greatly reduce the volume of airspace needed to protect approaches to airports and can permit simultaneous operations to different airports in high-density terminal airspace. However, as with the impact of NextGen on individual airports, it is unclear whether the actual delivery of those capabilities will be achieved or that air carriers will make the necessary investments in aircraft systems to sup- port the NextGen technologies. Airspace and ATC constraints affect the study area airports to varying degrees. Most of the major airports in the mega- regions either currently suffer from some degree of individual airport capacity constraint or are likely to under the NextGen traffic assumptions. Several of the major metroplexes also suf- fer regional airspace congestion that threatens to limit the abil- ity of the en route ATC system to feed or accept traffic from study area airports. Traditional capacity enhancements such as adding runways or traditional navaids at major airports; air- space redesign; and adoption of simple overlay Area Navigation (RNAV), RNP, or WAAS procedures are unlikely to provide significant relief at the congested airports. Further development of regional airports in the mega-regions, while holding prom- ise, is threatened by regional airspace conflicts. Innovative pro- cedures supported by advanced NextGen technologies hold the promise of providing substantial capacity increases—both at the individual airport and at the regional level—but some lead- ers in the aviation community believe that the timing of their delivery is somewhat uncertain at present. In short, for purposes of this study, it is not clear at this point whether the airspace and air traffic capacity in the mega-regions will be capable of accom- modating the anticipated demand. A.2.1.3 Candidate Technologies for Application A number of ATC programs and new technologies show promise to help ease congestion at some mega-region air- ports, including RNAV, RNP, ADS–B, and airspace redesign. Around 80% of commercial aircraft are now equipped with RNAV and RNP avionics capability. RNAV increases the num- ber of departure routes, allowing controllers to disperse aircraft more efficiently. The benefits of the use of RNAV departures to reduce terminal area inefficiency are being seen in some major airports (e.g., Dallas/Fort Worth and Atlanta Hartsfield), and such use of airplane capability is slowly increasing. As airplanes get close to the runway, airport throughput in today’s system is often constrained by visibility and cloud ceiling conditions. The availability of runway configurations and separation standards on final approach is dependent on weather conditions— that is, visual meteorological conditions (VMC), marginal VMC, or instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The result is that when weather conditions deteriorate, runway configurations are limited and in-trail separations between airplanes are increased, reducing throughput substantially in some cases. This problem is compounded when con- trollers are operating arrivals with mixed-weight categories, since IMC-based separations may be substantially larger than those during VMC to avoid wake vortex encounters between heavier leading and lighter trailing airplanes. Many of the problems associated with dependent operations on closely spaced parallel, crossing, and converging runways could be reduced by the development and use of alternate proce- dures that enable operations in lower ceiling and visibility conditions. RNP builds on RNAV, allowing pilots to use more precise navigation upon arrival and departure. RNP is essentially RNAV with the addition of an onboard monitoring and alert- ing function. New procedures enabled by these capabilities should be implemented in the near future, with emphasis on arrivals and departures between airports near each other, including EWR, JFK, and LGA. RNP permits controllers to sequence aircraft further out from the airports, where there is more space to do so. This makes the flow of air traffic more efficient, even in bad weather. ADS–B is a backbone of NextGen. It is a satellite-based technology that broadcasts aircraft identification, position, and speed with once-per-second updates (as compared with the current 5- to 12-second refresh from today’s radar). Although a time savings of 4–11 seconds may seem brief, this savings actually allows for far greater accuracy in determin- ing aircraft position. PHL, which has been selected as an ini- tial key site for the installation of ADS–B, is scheduled to have coverage both in terminal airspace and on the airport surface by February 2010. ADS–B technology allows time-critical information to be sent from air traffic managers to aircraft digitally rather than through voice-only analog means. ADS–B is to be imple- mented nationwide by the end of 2010. It holds the promise of providing more precise aircraft position information than radar and allows aircraft safely to fly closer together, increasing 4 The recent NYC area airspace redesign has prompted vigorous opposition by congressional delegations in New Jersey and Connecticut. It is unclear what effect this opposition will have on the ultimate adoption of the redesigned procedures.

capacity. However, as mentioned earlier, the actual in-service accomplishment of these higher precision capabilities remains uncertain. The New York Airspace Redesign Project, currently under- way, is intended to address congestion and delay in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia area. The project’s goal is to enhance the efficiency and reliability of the airspace struc- ture and the ATC system for pilots, airlines, and the traveling public, while laying a foundation for NextGen. Implementation of this project will be able to use procedures like RNAV and RNP. For example, only a few miles separate the streams of arrivals at EWR and LGA. Southbound LGA departures are “climbed over” EWR arrivals and the approach path to LGA can depend in part on runway use at JFK; this repre- sents only a fraction of the activity. This interdependency means that PHL departures are frequently delayed because of volume in New York. With Philadelphia and New York airspace so interdependent, technologies deployed in one airport in the region will have a beneficial “cascade” effect on the others. Thus, deployment of technology and other solutions at JFK should reduce congestion and result in fewer delays at PHL. One feature of the redesign effort is the “terminalization” of the airspace. The project expands the terminal airspace over a larger geographical area than is currently designated and expands it vertically up to 23,000 ft. above mean sea level in some areas. Upon project implementation, some airspace sectors that are currently worked in the en route or center environment will be worked using terminal rules and equipment. Expanding the terminal airspace permits air traffic control to use terminal separation rules as well as the more flexible terminal holding rules over a larger area. This improved flexibility should make traffic flow more efficient, even in poor weather conditions. A.2.1.4 Capacity Impact Assessment Some work is taking place to assess the expected benefits of the new concepts and technologies that NextGen comprises. The Boeing Commercial Airplane Company has assessed one of the NextGen technologies, and the DOT’s Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) is currently developing an assessment that is still preliminary. In 2006, Boeing assessed the implementation of RNP by performing a model-based benefits assessment for airports and airspace in the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). The primary outputs of the model, Boeing’s National Flow Model, are annualized delay across the NAS and sector-loading metrics. Delays tied to airport capacity constraints in all visi- bility conditions as well as airspace constraints due to air traf- fic sector workload were assessed. The results indicate that, at an average system-wide level, RNP implementation would be adequate to enable traffic growth at least through 2010 and would reduce predicted system-wide delays by about 50% by 2020. Boeing staff believes that most improvements will be in the form of effi- ciency benefits to reduce fuel cost and emissions with some capacity benefits. The goal is to increase operational pre- dictability, thus increasing efficiency. This should benefit chronically overloaded sectors such as those in the Cleve- land center and sectors along the path between the LA area and the Northeast. Boeing provided a caveat on its sector capacity analysis by noting that the quantification of sector capacity is con- troversial because there is yet no reliable and commonly accepted metric for this parameter. To get some sort of esti- mate of growth in sector capacity, Boeing held discussions with FAA staff about the extent to which sector capacity has increased due to adoption of another procedural improve- ment, Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM), a few years ago. Implementation of RVSM increased overall sec- tor capacity on the order of 15% as a system-wide average according to FAA staff. Boeing used this estimate as a basis for its model-based estimate of the growth in sector capac- ity resulting from implementation of RNP. As a result of basing its modeling on an estimate, Boeing considers its model results to be a very preliminary assessment based on the only available sector capacity metric for the NAS. Fur- ther work would have to be done on human performance modeling to develop more confidence in these results. The computer simulation modeling experts detailed to the JPDO office have been able to model today’s national airspace system performance. They are still working up NextGen benefits and report having more work to do. It is proving difficult to translate surface operational improve- ments into the system model because many objectives do not lend themselves to being modeled. For example, some objectives are of the form, “Improve the efficiency of X,” or, “Reduce inefficiency in Y.” The problem is there is no information on what the baseline state is relative to efficiency/inefficiency, so there is nothing to track against to calculate the benefit. Thus, about half of the NextGen oper- ational improvements have not yet been modeled because of lack of specificity. It is difficult to cite the overall benefits of NextGen because many are airport specific. However, preliminary work conducted thus far indicates that full implementation of NextGen has the potential to eliminate the gap between VMC and IMC operations at many airports. However, since airlines typically schedule to near the VMC capacity of airports, reducing this gap has the potential to reduce delays, but not to materially increase capacity in VMC weather. 131

132 A.2.2 Airspace Constraints at Study Airports The primary airspace constraints affecting airport capacity are proximity to other airports, controlled/reserved military airspace, and heavy-traffic sectors. These are summarized in Table A.2. A.3 Constraints Due to Airline Practices: Hubbing Congestion Sections A.3 and A.4 review the basic logic of getting the airlines to cooperate in programs to gain more productivity out of a given amount of runway capacity, focusing on the concept of achieving more throughput through the use of larger aircraft and decreased use of smaller aircraft. For any given number of slots, or opportunities for take-off and land- ing, the size of the aircraft will determine the throughput of the airport (assuming the ground-side terminals are prepared for the increase in passenger volumes). This section of Appendix A examines two cases in which air- line operational strategy influences the capacity of the airport, usually above and beyond the control of the airport manage- ment, or even the FAA and examines the airport congestion implications of the assumption that all flights need to arrive and depart in a minimized time envelope. Rather, work under- taken recently by members of the research team, in coopera- tion with a major European airline and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), suggests that the air traveler places value on the reliability of the plane-to-plane connection as much as the time-minimization of that transfer. A.3.1 Effects of Air Carrier Hubbing on Airport Peaking Although air carriers in practice operate using different competitive strategies for constructing optimal flight schedules, the use of hub airports suggests that carriers will try to match arrival and departure schedules so as to minimize passengers’ connect times. As hub airports in the coastal mega-regions also serve passengers with local origins and destinations, flight schedules at these airports typically exhibit AM and PM peaking patterns that correspond to the peak demands of both local and connecting passengers. When carriers try to match arriving and departing flights in these peaks in a way that minimizes connect times, the peaks can be exacerbated. A recent research project undertaken at MIT was designed to determine whether passengers in fact seek to minimize con- nect times in itineraries that involve connects at hub airports.5 The hypothesis developed by the research team was that air passengers have a more complicated preference structure that includes several other factors and that, in particular, involves a non-monotonic relationship between connect times and “util- ity,” or desirability, of an itinerary. Airport/airline minimum connect times are set in a way that in theory provides both (a) a reasonable time margin to allow passengers to deplane, move between gates, and board a connecting flight and (b) time for baggage for connecting passengers to move similarly between the arriving and departing flight. Further, these minimum connect times presumably allow for some level of delay in the arriving flight. However, the minimum connect times do not explicitly represent the dimensions of passenger preferences beyond scheduled itinerary time minimization. The MIT research hypothesized that at least some passengers might actually prefer longer scheduled connect times to accommodate (a) risk averseness to missed connections and (b) activities such as eat- ing and checking email. This potential attractiveness of addi- Boston Logan—Proximity to other airports and to heavy-traffic sectors Kennedy—Proximity to other airports La Guardia—Proximity to other airports Newark—Proximity to other airports Philadelphia—Proximity to other airports and to heavy-traffic sectors Baltimore—Proximity to other airports Washington National—Proximity to other airports Washington Dulles—Proximity to other airports and to military-controlled airspace San Francisco—Proximity to other airports Oakland—Proximity to other airports Los Angeles—Proximity to other airports and to heavy-traffic sectors San Diego—Proximity to heavy-traffic sectors Table A.2. Study airports and their airspace constraints. 5 Theis, G., et al. “Risk Averseness Regarding Short Connections in Airline Itin- erary Choice,” Transportation Research Record 1951, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2006.

tional buffer time for transfer movement could offset the negative consequences of longer average itinerary times. Figure A.1 illustrates three components of an air passen- ger’s utility that could be affected by scheduled connect times. The “value of time” represents the cost that passengers associ- ate with each minute of additional itinerary time. This can be offset in part by the perceived (and actual) increase in likeli- hood for a successful transfer with longer connect times. The final element, here labeled “Rush,” may associate positive ben- efits to some additional amount of time available for eating, checking email, and so on during the transfer. When these ele- ments are added together, the result is a shape that potentially has increasing utility (benefit) for some additional amount of time above the minimum connect time, flattens off, and then turns down as the value of additional time in the airport ends and the value of travel time component dominates. This shape implies that connecting times greater than the published min- imum connect times are preferred by air travelers. Within the coastal mega-regions, the minimum connect times for domestic-to-domestic transfers range from 30 min. (e.g., BOS) to 60 min. (e.g., JFK, EWR). Carriers will create itin- eraries that respect these minimum connect times, but these times do not always avoid missed connections, nor do they rep- resent the amount of time that passengers will have to accom- modate personal activities within the airport. During the peak periods and at the busiest hub airports, much of that connect time could be consumed by flight delays. As a result, knowl- edgeable air travelers whose itineraries require connections may well prefer itineraries with connections that are longer than the specified airport/carrier minimum connect times. Many factors are confounded in data on actual travel pat- terns that are available through sources such as the DOT’s DB1B 10% ticket sample and booking records from global dis- tribution systems in the form of MIDT (Market Information Data Transfer) files. As a result, the MIT team chose to use a primary survey research approach to address the issue of whether and by how much connect times could be increased to best suit air passengers. A survey instrument was developed to address the research issue. That instrument included detailed questions about U.S. air passengers’ most recent domestic air trips and a set of stated preference (also known as choice-based conjoint) questions that explored the effects of different con- nect times on passengers’ likely behavior for a given trip. The survey was administered to more than 800 air passengers, and the results were used to develop discrete choice models of pas- sengers’ itinerary choices. A.3.2 Findings: Delays Associated with Hubbing Connect Times The findings of this research were that, on average, itineraries having additional connect times of up to 15 min. above the minimums were associated with increasing utilities (attractive- ness) on the basis of the rush factor alone. Increasing connect times to reduce the likelihood of missed connections could fur- ther increase the passenger-perceived optimal connect time, especially during peak periods at busy hub airports. While this finding is not especially surprising in retrospect, the possibility of this type of result had not been previously theorized nor had any similar empirical work been previously reported. 133 Hypothesis: Three components of disutility associated with scheduled elapsed time in connecting itineraries Value of time Transfer success rate Rush Total Scheduled connecting time Utility MCT window of indifference MCT –minimum connecting time as published by airport Utility Utility Utility Scheduled connecting time Scheduled connecting time Scheduled connecting time Figure A.1. Diagram showing how components of air passenger’s utility potentially affected by scheduled connect times (from Adler, Clark, and Ben-Akiva; 2006).

134 Were air carriers to accept the notion that longer connect times might indeed be preferred by passengers, and given the operational costs associated with trying to maintain short con- nection times, it is possible that carriers could use this addi- tional information to de-peak their schedules to some extent and thus relieve some of the peak congestion. However, given the natural tendency of travelers to prefer certain arrival and departure times and the fact that a major portion of traffic at the major airports in the coastal mega-region has local origins or destinations, this adjustment by itself would be unlikely to eliminate peak congestion at these airports. The magnitude of the effects of delayed flights, both on pas- sengers and on carriers, should constitute a strong incentive to address at least one of the root causes: congestion caused by flight schedules that approach or exceed airport capacity. Most experienced travelers are well aware of the locations and pat- terns of flight delays from their own personal experience and may further inform themselves using information from the numerous on-line sites that offer both historical and real-time flight performance data.6 However, the less-experienced air travelers, who constitute the majority in most air markets, do not necessarily apply similar knowledge when choosing among alternative travel itineraries. Virtually none of the major consumer-oriented online booking sites provide on-time per- formance information for the flight itineraries that they create. As a result, a flight during a peak period with very low on-time performance will, in advance, appear undifferentiated from other flights with higher on-time performance. Although carriers’ yield management policies might result in higher fares for peak-period flights as a result of higher demands during those periods, the full “price signal” that includes both the fare and the indirect costs to the travel con- sumer of flight delays is not passed through to the less well- informed air travelers. As a result, many of the less-experienced air travelers end up with itineraries that are not, for them, optimal in that the hidden cost of flight delays have not been considered. In addition, given that approximately 60% of travelers are on non-business itineraries for which delays have much lower perceived costs, it is not surprising that airlines are able to continue to sell seats even on flights with exceptionally low on-time performance. It is in each carrier’s best interest to provide peak-period flights as long as there is demand for those flights at a rea- sonable price. The competition among airlines for slots in those periods with finite airside and landside capacity creates a “tragedy of the commons”7 in which the individ- ual airlines, each acting in its own interest, degrade a shared resource (in this case, the airports’ peak period). In some ways, this problem is analogous to that faced by most trans- portation services. Transportation demands vary signifi- cantly over time, with strong diurnal, weekly, and seasonal patterns. Infrastructure capacity is generally fixed and, for a variety of reasons, service levels degrade rapidly as demand approaches capacity. In many cases, it is either too expensive or simply infeasible to provide sufficient infra- structure capacity for the peak demands. Although the actions of each individual in these cases may be optimal for that individual, the outcome can be one in which everyone is worse off than if some system were put in place to better allocate the capacity. 6 For example, DOT’s BTS maintains monthly online flight performance data, and dedicated sites such as flightstats.com offer detailed ratings of flights by OD pair, carrier, and even flight number along with real-time tracking of flights. 7 This term was popularized in the article by Hardin, G. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859, December 13, 1968, pp. 1243– 1248.