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.

1Background A major study undertaken by the FAA, known as the FACT 2 Report (1), suggested that the nation’s airports will be able to provide for adequate aviation capacity in the United States to the year 2025, except for two major areas on the East and West Coasts. As noted in the Project Statement: FACT 2 indicates metropolitan areas and regions along the east and west coasts are experiencing large amounts of growth in pop- ulation and economic activity that demonstrate chronic conges- tion problems in the air and on the ground. Based on the FACT 2 information, conditions in these two coastal mega-regions are projected to get worse in the future. Traditional approaches are unlikely to address these problems that extend beyond current jurisdictional and legislative authorities of existing agencies. (2) ACRP Report 31: Innovative Approaches to Addressing Avi- ation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions was created to examine the nature of the problem of addressing aviation capacity issues in the two coastal mega-regions. Objectives of the Research This Executive Summary provides a capsule summary of the content of each of the six chapters of ACRP Report 31. Specific suggestions for action or further research are presented in the summary of Chapter 6, where they are included in more detail in the main body of the text. Each of the major conclusions was created in order to carry out the objective of this research: The objective of this research is to identify potential actions to address the constrained aviation system capacity and growing travel demand in the high-density, multijurisdictional, multi- modal, coastal mega-regions along the east and west coasts. New and innovative processes/methodologies are needed if the aviation capacity issues in these congested coastal mega-regions are going to be successfully addressed. These high-density areas invite an entirely new approach for planning and decision making that goes beyond the existing practice for transportation planning and programming that is usually accomplished within single travel modes and political jurisdictions or regions. (2) Questions Addressed The Executive Summary presents a shortened presentation of the results ACRP Project 03-10, which deals with the fol- lowing four questions: 1. Is there a long-term crisis in aviation capacity in the coastal mega-regions, and is the basic premise of an over- arching problem valid? If present patterns were simply continued, what would be the cost of doing nothing? 2. Is there a need for better integrating the aviation planning process with the other modes, with a particular emphasis on the emerging role of high-speed rail (HSR)? Does the scale of possible impacts merit an alteration of the aviation plan- ning process? Might major advances in alternative trans- portation modes obviate the need for dealing with aviation capacity issues? 3. What changes could be made in the aviation planning process to make it more relevant to the public policy ques- tions now being asked, which might demand alternative geographic focus and alternative tools and methods? 4. Given that some solutions to the issue of aviation capacity will require new multimodal and multijurisdictional strate- gies, are reforms on new approaches needed within the industry to better manage the airports that already exist? Four Conclusions of ACRP Report 31 The Executive Summary is structured around the presen- tation of the four main conclusions of the research. In the report, they are presented in the following order: 1. Under the present relationship between the airports and the airlines, there is a serious lack of usable aviation capacity in E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions

the mega-regions. Chapter 1 builds the case that there is a growing problem in the mega-regions and that the eco- nomic and environmental cost of doing nothing is sig- nificant. Without a proper response to the revealed problems, the basic validity of the long-term capacity fore- casts must be considered to be in doubt. The chapter con- cludes that a new approach is needed. 2. To gain access to alternative forms of short-distance trip- making capacity, the aviation planning system could benefit from becoming more multimodal. Chapter 2 reviews the extent to which aviation planning is inherently intertwined with the planning and analysis of capacity increases in other longer distance modes, specifically HSR and highway planning. 3. To gain better utilization of existing underused capacity at smaller airports in the region, the aviation capacity planning system could benefit from becoming more multijurisdic- tional. Chapter 3 analyzes briefly the market potential of some smaller scale regional airports to provide additional capacity to the systems in the mega-regions, provided that the operating carriers decided to take advantage of their presence. The chapter examines the importance of gather- ing and analyzing data on a multi-airport, super-regional basis and shows examples of how such new regional avia- tion planning tools could be used. 4. The research has concluded that the current system suffers from unclear responsibility; no one has the authority and accountability for the management of congestion at mega- region airports. Chapter 5 builds the case that capacity in the mega-regions will be significantly increased only when the managers are empowered to solve the problem. The chapter concludes that the management of existing resources could be improved and that this represents the most important single element in a larger strategy to deal with potential avia- tion capacity issues in the coastal mega-regions. An Overarching Theme in the Research The conclusions and suggestions of the research share (to a varying degree) a common theme. The report concludes that the aviation planning process could benefit from becom- ing more user-oriented, more transparent, and, thus, more accountable. If the unreliability of service at a given airport reaches a “trigger point,” the operating rules could be changed to regain the lost level of reliability for the benefit of the user. If the service levels of HSR, as experienced by the user, provide a superior overall product for the customer, that customer should be encouraged to select the higher quality good. If the plan- ning process can explain why a given customer would reject use of a “reliever” airport, that process could muster the mar- ket research tools of user preference/choice to form policies to facilitate a change in those service conditions. If major agencies can learn to organize their most basic planning data in a man- ner that can be shared with others, a user-based description of demand can be assembled, replacing a modally based format for the benefit of all. Responsibilities for providing reliability in air services should be transparent and accountable. Thus, those responsi- ble for aviation planning should take steps to clarify the issue of accountability and bring it closer in format and method to the established continuing, comprehensive, cooperative plan- ning process, which, in theory, applies to all the ground trans- portation modes. Summary of Chapter 1—Defining the Issues: Defining the Problem Chapter 1 presents an overview and introduction to the four major themes developed in the project (see Exhibit S1 for high- lights and key themes included in Chapter 1). Chapter 1 also introduces the two study areas in terms of their geography, 2 • There is a major problem in the provision of effective aviation capacity in the coastal mega-regions, and the economic impacts of doing nothing are significant. • The number of air trips within the West Coast study area is vastly higher than the number of air trips within the East Coast study area, even though their geographic area is similar. • The present amount of air travel delay is vastly higher in the East Coast study area than in the West Coast study area, even though the intra-area volumes are much lower. • Using a range of economic assumptions, the “cost” of present air travel delay in the coastal mega-regions ranges from a low of about $3 billion per year to a high of over $9 billion per year (2007). • Using the same range of assumptions, the cost of air travel delay in the future (2025) would range from about $9 billion to about $20 billion, if none of the present capacity constraints were addressed—that is, the cost of doing nothing. • Much of the aviation industry’s capacity forecasting assumes that, by one means or another, a process of up-gauging of aircraft will occur: the research team did not find any support for the assumption that systematic up-gauging of air- craft will occur without some form of public policy intervention. Exhibit S1. Highlights and key themes included in Chapter 1.

demographics, and propensity for shorter air trips within and between their mega-regions. The Geographic Scale of the Mega-regions The East Coast study area generally includes the states from New England in the north to Virginia in the south. Thus, the term East Coast study area includes all of the geography con- tained in the states between Maine and Virginia. The term Eastern Mega-region refers to the areas covered by the Boston region airports to the north and to the areas of Richmond and Norfolk, VA, to the south. The western edge of the Eastern Mega-region incorporates Syracuse, NY, and Harrisburg, PA. The West Coast study area includes all of California and Clark County, Nevada. The term Northern California Mega- region refers to the Bay Area region and the Sacramento region. The term Southern California Mega-region refers to the Los Angeles Basin area, the San Diego region, and Clark County (NV) together. Distances. Each of the two maps (Figures S1 and S2) is presented at similar scale: in the East Coast study area, the northernmost mega-region airport, MHT (Manchester, NH), is about 487 miles from the farthest airport (Richmond, VA). In the West Coast study area, the distance from the Sacramento airport to the San Diego airport is 480 miles. Population. In terms of population, the two study areas are not so similar. The East Coast study area has about 69 mil- lion inhabitants, whereas the West Coast study area has about 38 million. This difference is explored in Chapter 1 where the number of internal aviation trips within each study area is compared. The results are startling and point to real differ- ences in the transportation behavior of the two coastal regions. The Scale of Air Travel within the Two Study Areas This section of the Executive Summary deals with the city- pair volumes of existing air travel, which are perhaps better described as “metro-region pair” passenger volumes between “families of airports.” Classic origin–destination (OD) “desire lines” are presented for the East Coast study area and the West Coast study area, making possible a startling comparison of the aviation passenger volumes between the two coastal areas. Metro-area to Metro-area Pair Air Passenger Flows within the Eastern Mega-region Figure S3 summarizes air passenger travel within the East Coast study area between January and December 2007. It can be best understood as a desire line diagram showing the flows between airports of origin to the airports of destination of somewhat under 10 million air trips. People making trips between Manchester, NH, and Richmond, VA, may under- take this trip by transferring at a point such as Newark (EWR), LaGuardia (LGA), or Philadelphia (PHL). From the vantage point of OD analysis, they are portrayed here as flows between the Boston region family of airports and the Richmond/ Norfolk family of airports. These East Coast aviation flows are examined on an airport-by-airport basis in Chapter 4 of the report. (NB: The lack of a line between two areas in Figure S3 means that the number of air trips is insignificant.) Metro-area to Metro-area Pair Air Passenger Flows within the West Coast Study Area Air passenger travel within the West Coast study area be- tween January and December 2007 is summarized in Figure S4. It can be best understood as a desire line diagram showing the flows between airports of origin to the airports of destination 3 Figures S1 and S2. The geographic extent of the East Coast study area and the West Coast study area (scale is constant) (3).

of about 20 million air trips. As in Figure S3, flows are expressed from their airport of origin to their airport of destination with- out reference to possible use of transfers or connections. These lines represent the flow of airport passengers between the large metropolitan areas and other large metropolitan areas. These West Coast aviation flows are examined on an airport-by- airport basis in Chapter 4 of the report. Implications of Scale between the Two Study Areas The first observation about our two study areas is that the West Coast generates about twice the volume of short- distance air passengers than does the East Coast. And within the West Coast study area, it is the air trips between the Bay Area family of airports to the north and the Los Angeles Basin family of airports to the south that dominate the travel. The Los Angeles Region, served by LAX, Burbank, John Wayne, Long Beach, and Ontario together, generates 8 million trips to or from the Bay Area region, which is served by the airports of San Francisco (SFO), Oakland (OAK), and San Jose (SJO). In terms of coast-versus-coast comparison, the volume of air travelers between the Los Angeles Region and the Bay Area Region is more than five times the air traveler volume between the New York region family of airports and the Washington/ Baltimore family of airports. It is almost five times the volume between the Boston region family of airports and the New York region family of airports. It is also clear that air travelers on the West Coast have a short-distance trip generation rate that is more than three times that of those of the East Coast. The Scale of the Problem of Airport Congestion in the Mega-regions The research team has estimated that the phenomenon of aviation congestion associated with 11 of the largest airports in the two coastal study areas resulted in passenger-perceived delays calculated in the billions of dollars in 2007. Importantly for the interpretations included in ACRP Report 31, those delays were not evenly divided between the two coastal study areas. Figure S5 shows the sharp differences in the delay patterns of the two coastal study areas. The “Total Delay Index” (Figure S5) has been calculated by the research 4 Note: The absence of a line between two areas means that the number of air trips is insignificant. Figure S3. Air passenger flows between metro regions in 2007: East Coast (4 ). Note: The absence of a line between two areas means that the number of air trips is insignificant. Figure S4. Air passenger flows between metro regions in 2007: West Coast (4 ).

team as the average frequency of delay times average duration of delay, plus the average frequency of cancellation times a value of 3 hours delay per cancellation. It is expressed as num- ber of minutes of delay per total airport passenger. The index was calculated from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Transtats data (5), for the 12 months of 2007. The higher volumes are on the West, but the greater con- gestion is on the East, as shown in Figure S5. In short, there is no simple formula that suggests that higher amounts of short- distance air travel are linearly associated with higher levels of airport congestion. The causes of the delay need to be exam- ined more carefully, as will be addressed in Chapter 5. The Perceived Costs of Delay Times at the Mega-region Airports The project undertook an estimation of the perceived costs of aviation delays. Based on a recent study by Resource Systems Group, Inc., (RSG), (6) special survey and modeling tech- niques were developed to measure the trade-offs (also called marginal rates of substitution) between the various compo- nents of service associated with air itineraries, resulting in a new measure of the value of time. From these calculations, val- ues of time (VOT) to represent the perceived costs of aviation delays were calculated. The RSG study found that the average VOT for domestic air travelers is approximately $70/hour for travelers on busi- ness trips and $31/hour for non-business trips. For the air travel market, which is split roughly between business (40%) and non-business (60%), the weighted average VOT is approximately $47/hour. That is, air passengers on aver- age are willing to spend an additional $47 in higher fares to save an hour of travel time or, conversely, will be willing to accept an hour of additional travel time for a fare reduction of $47. Between the years 2003 and 2007, the average on-time performance at the 12 largest coastal mega-region airports decreased on average by over 10 points. Applying the 2003 on- time performance benchmark, this means that the aggregate perceived cost across all boardings at the 12 airports of the per- formance decline in 2007 is approximately $3.9 billion/year (see Table S1).1 The Cost of Doing Nothing In interviews with airport managers, managers of the fore- casting process, and other leaders in the field, it became clear that in almost every case, in one manner or another, the opti- mistic assumptions about the amount of capacity that will be available in 2025 were based on the intuitive belief that, as demand grows over time, this will be matched by a voluntary program of up-gauging of the size of aircraft flown to the sub- ject airport—currently a matter almost entirely under the control of the airlines, not the airport managers. The research team devoted considerable attention to the economic and environmental implications of continuing with the present pattern of degradation in service quality in the mega-regions. The Report includes a new analytical pro- cedure that examines the implications of having attained no solutions to the issues discussed in this project. The reader should be aware that these calculations are not based on the same set of assumptions as the FACT 2 study, which did explicitly deal with changes in capacity and operations that might come into play between now and 2025. Rather, the work of the research team predicts the future conditions 5 Figure S5. Total delay index for East Coast and West Coast airports, expressed as minutes per passenger trip (5). 3335 30 25 20 M in ut es 15 10 5 0 29 28 24 23 22 East Coast Airports 20 19 18 17 14 19 13 13 12 12 12 West Coast Airports 11 11 11 10 Ne wa rk La Gu ard ia JF K Ph ilad elp hia Du lles Bo sto n Re ag an Na tion al Pro vid en ce Ma nc he ste r Bra dle y BW I SF O LA X LA S Bu rba nk Jo hn W ay ne Sa n D ieg o Lo ng Be ach OA K On tar io Sa n J ose 1 Chapter 2 reports on a wide range of definitions for these values: using meth- ods adopted in a U.S. Senate Report, the total cost of delays for coastal airports is calculated at almost $15 million.

based strictly on the scenario that solutions are not found and implemented, as shown in Figure S6. Between the years 2003 and 2025, the average on-time per- formance at the 12 largest coastal mega-regions airports is estimated to decrease on average by 25 points. Of course, this assumes status quo operating conditions (no capacity increases, etc.) and assumes air traffic growth as projected in the FACT 2 report. Applying the 2003 on-time performance benchmark, this means that the aggregate perceived cost of missed flight connections and other costs across all boardings at the 12 airports of the performance decline in 2025 is over $12 billion/year (see Table S2).2 Chapter 1 concludes with a concern that the amount of 2025 aviation capacity assumed by leaders in the aviation community may be based, at least in part, on the working assumption that, as demand increases, a voluntary program of aircraft up-gauging can be expected to take place. Given the overall decrease in the average size of aircrafts over the past decade, it is clear that this assumption needs more ana- lytic attention. This issue is addressed in Chapter 5, after the presentation of a review of both multimodal and multijuris- dictional issues facing the industry. Summary of Chapter 2—Aviation Capacity and the Need for a Multimodal Context This research has concluded that, to gain the benefit of capac- ity provision by other high-quality inter-city transportation modes, the aviation capacity planning system could become 6 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 Co st in B illi on s 1.00 0.50 0.00 JFK LAX EWR LAS PHL SFO LGA Airports BOS IAD BWI DCA SAN Year 2007 Year 2025 Figure S6. The cost of doing nothing: increase in passenger delay costs 2007–2025, assuming no resolution of key issues (based on Tables S1 and S2). Airport On-time 2003 (%) On-time 2007 (%) 2003 Boardings 2007 Boardings 2007 Flight Costs (2003 On-time Benchmark) ($) Baltimore, MD (BWI) 83 77 10,200,000 11,000,000 138,000,000 157,500,000 197,000,000 3,894,000,000 Boston, MA (BOS) 83 75 11,100,000 13,800,000 209,000,000 Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 85 76 17,800,000 23,100,000 379,000,000 Los Angeles, CA (LAX) 89 80 27,200,000 30,900,000 526,000,000 New York, NY (JFK) 83 69 15,900,000 23,600,000 633,000,000 New York, NY (LGA) 84 72 11,400,000 12,500,000 299,000,000 Newark, NJ (EWR) 83 68 14,800,000 18,200,000 519,000,000 Philadelphia, PA (PHL) 79 70 12,100,000 15,900,000 289,000,000 San Diego, CA (SAN) 88 83 7,700,000 9,400,000 98,000,000 San Francisco, CA (SFO) 89 76 14,400,000 17,600,000 438,000,000 Washington, DC (DCA) 88 77 6,900,000 9,100,000 183,000,000 Washington, DC (IAD) 82 74 8,200,000 11,900,000 182,000,000 Table S1. 2007 Airport flight delay cost estimates (4, 5 ). 2 All 2025 costs cited here are in 2007 dollars. If a lower VOT used in FAA studies were applied to the 2003 benchmark assumption, a “low range” estimate of about $9 billion would result. If assumptions made in a U.S. Senate report were used, a “high range” estimate would exceed $20 billion.

more multimodal. Chapter 2 reviews the extent to which avia- tion planning is inherently intertwined with the planning and analysis of policy changes in other longer distance modes, specifically HSR and highway planning (see Exhibit S2 for highlights and key themes included in Chapter 2). There are key conclusions from this portion of the research on two very different levels. First, the report reviews key results and conclusions concerning the potential scale of can- didate HSR investment in the East and West Coast mega- regions. Then, the report reviews the rationale for integrating the aviation capacity planning process with that of HSR and more general surface transportation planning. Intermodal Considerations The federal government is now committed to an increase in federal participation in HSR projects of at least $8 billion (over and above previous investment commitments). The implica- tions of this federal commitment for the need to undertake detailed multimodal analysis in such corridors as Boston– NYC, NYC–Washington, D.C., and SFO–LAX are immediate in nature and urgent in their ramifications for intermodal and multimodal policy making. In the long-term planning period, the research concludes that the implications of possible HSR investment on aviation flows could be massive in scale, with a possible diversion of 10 million aviation passengers in California alone, more than 1 million to/from Las Vegas, and more than 3 million in the Northeast Mega-region. The scale of these numbers suggests that the aviation planning process should explicitly and overtly consider various HSR policy options as input vari- ables for the forecasting process. The potential impact on aviation volumes from the kind of HSR systems now under policy review is significant. A recent 7 157,500,000 256,300,000 12,496,000,000 Washington, DC (DCA) 88 60 6,900,000 12,400,000 639,000,000 Washington, DC (IAD) 82 79 8,200,000 12,800,000 82,000,000 Baltimore, MD (BWI) 83 61 10,200,000 14,900,000 613,000,000 Boston, MA (BOS) 83 53 11,100,000 21,100,000 1,212,000,000 Las Vegas, NV (LAS) 85 54 17,800,000 32,900,000 1,899,000,000 Los Angeles, CA (LAX) 89 63 27,200,000 38,800,000 1,898,000,000 New York, NY (JFK) 83 58 15,900,000 27,800,000 1,343,000,000 New York, NY (LGA) 84 54 11,400,000 18,800,000 1,082,000,000 Newark, NJ (EWR) 83 48 14,800,000 25,000,000 1,617,000,000 Philadelphia, PA (PHL) 79 62 12,100,000 16,700,000 533,000,000 San Diego, CA (SAN) 88 63 7,700,000 14,400,000 667,000,000 San Francisco, CA (SFO) 89 66 14,400,000 20,800,000 910,000,000 Airport On-time 2003 (%) On-time 2025 (%) 2003 Boardings 2025 Boardings 2025 Flight Costs (2003 On-time Benchmark) ($) Table S2. 2025 airport flight delay cost estimates (1, 4, 5 ). • The aviation planning process could benefit from becoming more multimodal in nature. • Plans for HSR investment now under consideration in both coastal mega-regions could result in a total diversion of up to 15 million air trips per year in the long term. • The scale of diversion in the established literature is much higher in the West Coast study area than in the East Coast study area. • Analysis undertaken in the EU shows that, when city-center to city-center rail times can be decreased to under 3.5 hours, rail can capture more market share than air. • In some cases, such as Frankfurt–Cologne, HSR acts as a feeder for long-distance flights; in other cases, such as Frank- furt–Stuttgart, rail does not: the role of rail in a complementary mode should be studied further. • High-speed rail can decrease the number of air travelers; without better management of the airports, this may not result in a decrease in flights. • Although no breakthrough in highway capacity will change the need for air travel, the highway planning process could be better integrated with aviation capacity planning; better long-distance travel data will result when the two planning processes are combined. Exhibit S2. Highlights and key themes included in Chapter 2.

study from the EU undertaken by the British consulting firm Steer Davies Gleave (7) shows that rail services with city center to city center travel times of under 31⁄2 hours can result in rail capturing a larger market share than air. Figure S7 shows that as rail journey time is improved (moving to the left on the x-axis) that market share of the rail plus air market increases (moving upward on the y access).3 This report has reviewed the available literature on poten- tial diversions from air. Chapter 2 shows that the forecast diversions are greater on the West Coast than on the East Coast. This is in part because the intra-region air passenger volumes in the West are twice the scale of those in the East. It also reflects that a major diversion to rail has already occurred along the Northeast Corridor. Scale of Diversions from Air to Rail in the West Coast Mega-regions Much of the predicted air diversion in California would come from three major market corridors. Looking at the year 2030 forecasts undertaken for the California High Speed Rail Authority, and managed by MTC, (8) if there were about 25 million travelers between the Bay Area and Los Angeles, the reported decrease in market share (compared with the present share) would represent about 5 million air passengers diverted to rail. If there were about 14 million travelers between Los Angeles and Sacramento, air would capture 3.6 million, or 2 million passengers would be diverted to rail. If there were about 7.5 million travelers between the Bay Area and San Diego, air would capture about 3.4 million, or about 1.8 million passengers would be diverted to rail. At this point in the analysis, these diversion potentials are somewhat spec- ulative and are presented here only to give a sense of scale to the possible diversion phenomenon. Total system diversions. The California analysis is based on 65 million interregional HSR riders and 20 million intra- regional HSR riders (9). Of the interregional trips, the Cali- fornia forecasting process calculates that 79% were diverted from auto, 16% were diverted from air, 3% diverted from other rail, and 2% never made the trip before. Thus, for the ambitious system as a whole, a high-end estimate is that more than 10 million riders are projected by the project proponents to divert from air in the analysis year of 2030. Scale of Diversions from Air to Rail in the East Coast Mega-region On the East Coast, a wide variety of sources were exam- ined together for Chapter 2: a key U.S. DOT study forecast that moderate improvements to HSR between Boston and Washington, D.C., would divert an additional 11% of air pas- sengers in that corridor; with the assumption of European- style HSR travel times, the diversion factor would be almost 20% of air volume (10). Entirely on the basis of published forecasts (10, 11, 12), the research team assembled a very early and very preliminary estimate of upper limits of diversion from air that might be expected from an assertive program to transform the existing Northeast Corridor (NEC) into a European-style HSR system and to extend that concept to the many feeder corridors adja- cent to the existing high-speed service area. Chapters 2 and 4 present some of the first summary assess- ments of the impact of alternative HSR system assumptions on airport-to-airport flows and total East Coast study area flows. 8 3 Chapter 2 notes that since the publication of this graphic, better travel times and rail market shares have been established in Spain. 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 00:00 01:00 Rail journey time R ai l m ar ke t s ha re (% ) Madrid-Barcelona London-Edinburgh Rome-Milan London-Manchester London-Brussels Frankfurt-Cologne Madrid-Seville London-Paris Paris-Marseille Figure S7. EU study of impact of change in rail travel time on air plus rail market share (7).

That early analysis suggested a total potential diversion of between 1.5 million (low estimate) and 3.8 million (high esti- mate) air travelers as a result of system-wide implementation of HSR throughout the East Coast Mega-region, as shown in Table S3. This number could be compared, in theory, with the 11 million air travelers forecast to be diverted in California and Nevada. Chapter 2 notes that much of the “diversion” to rail in key East Coast markets has already occurred, which helps to explain some of the difference in scale between East and West Coast levels of potential diversion from air. At the same time, the project concluded (see Chapter 4) that the levels of diversion on an airport-specific basis do not support the concept that the provision of HSR in either cor- ridor will make the problem of airport congestion disappear. The research team’s very preliminary analysis of possible decreases in airport boardings ranged from a high of 6% at SAN, to under 1% at JFK and at EWR. What Happened in Response to the Diversion of Air Passengers? Parallel with the dramatic rise in Amtrak ridership over the past decade, air traffic between BOS and the NYC region (two directions) fell by more than 750,000 passengers, as shown in Table S4 (reported in one direction). Most of these moved to rail, which raised its ticket price; some rail riders (simultane- ously) moved to low-fare bus carriers. But the impact on air- port and airspace congestion is more complicated than implied by these basic observations. Although the number of passen- gers declined sharply, the number of planes did not. Looking just at BOS–LGA (home of the original two shuttle operators), the number of planes declined only by about 4%, responding to a corresponding passenger decline (for several reasons) of about 40%. In this period, the average aircraft size fell by about 30% for the BOS–LGA route. There are two powerful “lessons” from the Boston–New York case study. First, the implementation of alternative poli- cies toward HSR could have massive impacts on air passenger demand and should be explicitly modeled in the aviation fore- casting process. Second, the expected “diversion” from air to rail cannot be seen as automatically causing any kind of linear, parallel impact on the number of planes in the subject corri- dor. This underscores the essential message of Chapter 5: the primary issue in aviation capacity in the two mega-regions concerns the need for airport managers to have more control 9 Market Corridor Used for Diversion Rates* 2007 2025 2007 2025 2007 2025 Adjacent North– D.C. Partial Empire/NEC 929,540 1,590,703 92,955 159,072 228,121 390,379 Adjacent North– PHL Partial Empire/NEC 116,030 294,356 11,603 29,436 28,475 72,239 Adjacent North– Adjacent South Partial Empire/NEC 113,200 194,767 11,320 19,477 27,781 47,798 Boston–D.C. NEC 1,814,090 3,212,528 199,550 353,378 489,716 867,227 NYC–Albany/ Rochester Full Empire/NEC 339,810 669,774 33,981 66,978 83,394 164,371 NYC–D.C. NEC 1,503,440 3,049,680 165,378 335,465 405,856 823,266 NYC–BOS NEC 1,680,870 3,253,951 184,896 357,935 453,753 878,409 NYC–Adjacent South NEC/Partial SEC (Southeast Corridor) 484,520 969,040 49,468 98,935 121,398 242,797 PHL–BOS NEC 579,390 1,119,553 63,733 123,151 156,407 302,225 NYC–Harrisburg Partial Empire/NEC 880 1,935 88 193 216 475 7,561,770 14,356,286 814,979 1,546,045 1,997,125 3,791,210 Definitions: Adjacent North= BDL, ALB, and SYR. Adjacent South= RIC, ORF, and PHF; from Figure 2.9 *Diversion rates by CRA International. Markets and Diversion Rates Air Passengers; Base Case, No Diversion Air Passengers Diverted to HSR: Low Diversion Air Passengers Diverted to HSR: High Diversion Table S3. Possible diversions from air to rail in the East Coast Mega-region (10–12). AIR PASSENGERS 1993 1999 2007 BOS to EWR 302,160 300,300 145,050 BOS to JFK 62,090 58,420 176,790 BOS to LGA 704,550 868,790 512,980 Total BOS to NYC 1,068,800 1,227,510 834,820 Table S4. Change in air passengers from BOS to NYC (4).

and more accountability for improving the throughput of their facilities. The research summarized in Chapter 2 suggests that only a combination of lowering actual air travel with a well- developed program to optimize the efficiency of the airports will bring about the policy objective of lowering congestion and producing the kind of 2025 aviation capacity the industry has been seeking. Rail as a Complementary Mode to the Aviation System Because of an extensive literature base on the subject of potential air passenger diversion from new HSR services from city center to city center, it has been possible to establish a sense of scale for the amount of possible diversions from air passenger traffic, and to briefly observe how the market has responded in one case study corridor (BOS–NYC). The same is not the case for analyzing the potential role of intercity rail in providing short-distance feeder service to airports provid- ing long-distance air trip segments. In theory, rail services could provide a complementary func- tion in which short-distance intercity feeder services are pro- vided to the airport, with precious slots freed for profitable use in longer distance services. In fact, however, the number of cases where the rail services have become feeder services to the exclusion of flights on that city-pair are few. To better under- stand the ability of intercity rail services to (a) feed longer dis- tance flights and (b) decrease the actual number of short flights in the impacted airport, the project undertook a comparison of the highly integrated AIRail ticketing program offered by Lufthansa German Airlines between Frankfurt Airport and Cologne (90 miles to the north) and the same program offered between the airport Stuttgart (90 miles to the south). As documented in Chapter 2, the joint ticketing project resulted in the abandonment of short flights in one case, Frankfurt Airport–Cologne (Figure S8) and no abandonment of short flights in the other, Frankfurt Airport–Stuttgart. This case study in air/rail complementarity shows that the concept is indeed viable (based on the Cologne leg), but that the air- line will be driven by more concerns than just the quality of the services offered on the short leg of the trip; the decision not to abandon the short feeder flights to Stuttgart was based on a concern for market competitiveness for the profitable long- distance flight segments. The case study suggests that the pub- lic perception of rail for short-distance feeder service is still perceived as a good that is either inferior to the short-distance air segment or is simply not understood by the market. The research team found the literature base to be distinctly weaker, and of generally lower quality, on the subject of rail services in a complementary mode to support longer dis- tances air services at major airports than for city-center to city-center markets. In carrying out the work program for the preparation of this report, it has become clear that the techni- cal base for analyzing rail services as part of an intermodal pas- senger trip is weaker than for other aspects of this project. In Chapter 6, the report suggests that the passenger rail and avi- ation communities should work together to better document the potential of intercity rail services to provide short-distance feeder access to long-distance flight segments. The Adequacy of the Planning Process to Support Investment in Long-Distance Services The research team concluded that the present level of coor- dination of alternative long-distance modes could benefit from a fundamental restructuring. The general state of data on which to base policies and judgments concerning the longer distance trip (i.e., beyond the metropolitan area or beyond the state borders) is lacking. That decisionmakers are being asked to allocate $8 billion to HSR, and even greater amounts to highways, with an absence of a common data source for inter- state and interregional trips is of concern. There is at present no publicly owned data set that describes county-to-county (or even state-to-state) automobile vehicle trip flows on a multistate basis. In this manner, the multimodal analysis capacity is far behind the MITRE FATE forecasts (1), which have created national county-to-county aviation trip flows. As a result, the mode share of airline trips as a portion of total trips is not documented even for the largest, most dominant city-pairs. This poses a challenge to even the best-intentioned analyses of longer distance travel. Until very recently, airport forecasting has been focused on an airport-specific approach to demand. The shift to a county- of-origin to county-of-destination forecasting approach included in the FACT 2 study is laudable and should be widened considerably to accommodate recent policy and fund- ing changes. It could benefit from becoming more multimodal in nature, to be merged with similar work from other modes. In many cases, modal agencies use elaborate descriptions of multistate travel, but these resources are not made available to 10 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 N um be r o f P as se ng er s AIRail passengers between Frankfurt Airport and Cologne Train Station Flight passengers between Frankfurt Airport and Cologne Airport 100,000 50,000 0 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 Year 20 06 20 07 20 08 Figure S8. Rise in AIRail market share between Frankfurt airport and Cologne train stations (13).

the public for business reasons. The result is that the quality of public debate suffers from a lack of a continuous, comprehen- sive, and cooperative process. To begin to develop the kinds of multimodal tools envi- sioned in this research, the research team has taken the first step in the development of county-to-county aviation trip tables reflecting the true origin and true destination of the trip- maker, as discussed in the Executive Summary under Chap- ter 3. Ultimately, the organization of aviation data in a format consistent with the requirements of the continuing, compre- hensive, and cooperative planning process required for ground modes will support the development of a new, multimodal transportation planning process for the longer distance trip, including aviation. Summary of Chapter 3— Multijurisdictional Issues in Aviation Capacity Planning The research has concluded that changes could strengthen the aviation planning process in two dimensions. As discussed in the summary of Chapter 2, aviation decision making could benefit by being integrated with the decision-making process for the other long-distance modes—most notably, HSR and highways. Chapter 3 focuses on the opportunity for aviation planning to reach beyond the present boundaries of the airport at two scales, both of which can be described as multijurisdic- tional (See Exhibit S3 for highlights and key themes included in Chapter 3). Gaps in the Current System Planning Process First, national planning efforts may need to be augmented to a mega-regional scale to understand and model multimodal alternatives on a corridor-specific basis. Although it could be argued that gaining a full understanding of modal alternatives between the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin in the West Coast is fundamentally a national planning issue, extensive modeling of highway and rail alternatives (both data-intensive activities) will result in a geographic focus that takes the form of a mega-region, not a national model. To this end, the U.S. DOT commissioned a series of “Corridors of the Future” in which individual states are encouraged to form multistate, corridor-based joint planning efforts. Second, what is often referred to as regional aviation plan- ning needs to focus on a logical geographic area whenever there is a potential application of the “family of airports” con- cept brought to fruition by the New England Regional Avia- tion Systems Project (NERASP) (15). The interviews with airport managers (Appendix A in the report) revealed that, with rare exceptions, the present system planning does not fill the gap between airport-based planning and national planning. Most airport executives reported that they are only slightly affected by regional planning. Currently, no public agency is tasked with analyzing and presenting the needs and expectations of the longer distance travelers in the metropolitan areas. Topics that are not addressed include travel preferences in terms of markets and frequency of service as well as airport preferences in terms of accessibility and reliability. These topics are the logical start- ing point for a revitalized metropolitan (or a possible supra- metropolitan) system planning process that would monitor traveler expectations and document certain benchmark levels of measured performance. A passenger-centric planning process could provide analytic support to airport planning and empower those officials who are interested in maximizing the satisfaction of travelers from the surrounding region. Such a multijurisdictional planning process could address such issues as benchmarking airport 11 • There is a gap in planning coverage between the scale of on-airport planning and national aviation planning: regional plan- ning efforts have not yet met their potential. • In New England, a highly innovative multi-airport planning process supported the eventual growth in the role of the smaller, more underused airports—to the benefit of all. • Aviation planning could benefit from adopting the data organization scheme of the comprehensive transportation plan- ning process, which is based on the flows by all modes from origins to destinations; this will support integration with planning for other modes. • To support a multi-airport planning process, it is essential to create analysis tools that reflect the true origin and true destination of the passenger—not just airport to airport. • The organization of aviation data in terms of true origin to true destination allows a more exact description of the poten- tial contribution of underused airports. • An evaluation process based on the measure of performance of the total trip experienced by the traveler would result in a planning process that is more transparent and accountable. Exhibit S3. Highlights and key themes included in Chapter 3.

capacity, tracking projections for capacity enhancement, and raising issues of total system performance. Gaining Capacity from Underused Airports The research has concluded that to gain better use of exist- ing underused capacity at smaller airports in the region, the aviation capacity planning system would need to become more multijurisdictional. Chapter 3 reviews how the creation of a unified, coordinated multi-airport planning process (NERASP) was associated with the creation of a more rational “family of airports” (Figure S9) for the Boston region. The chapter shows how a regional analysis (rather than an airport-based analysis) can support the study of the potential of lesser scale regional airports to provide additional capacity to the systems of the two mega-regions, provided that the operating carriers decided to take advantage of their presence. The chapter examines the importance of gathering and analyzing data on a multi-airport, super-regional basis and provides examples of how such new regional aviation planning tools can be used. New England’s regional airports have continued to evolve into a system in which increasingly overlapping service areas and improved ground access options are providing passengers with real options as they make air travel decisions. As Figure S10 shows, the goal of reducing passenger burden at BOS is being realized through this cooperative planning effort—since 1980, the share of New England air passengers at BOS has declined from about 75% to less than 60% in 2005. The conveners of the NERASP initiative believe the New England region has bene- fited by combining an understanding of the long-term needs of passengers with an appreciation for the financial risks in the air transportation industry and the interaction among airport markets. The FAA included the NERASP initiative as a strategy for increasing system capacity in its 2006–2010 Flight Plan (17). A key conclusion of this research is that enhanced metro- politan (or supra-metropolitan) airport system planning can be helpful in addressing airport congestion issues in regions that include major metropolitan areas. There are a variety of remedial measures available, from more efficient use of existing runways to expanded use of secondary airports and the shifting of some trips to surface transportation, particu- larly HSR. The evaluation of these options should take into account the need to generate passenger acceptance and polit- ical support. When the tools of regional analysis, including the develop- ment and refinement of a planning process based on flows between true origins and true destinations, are applied to the question of underutilized capacity, market research data can be generated quickly and economically. In the example shown in Table S5 and Figure S11, the pres- ent air travel patterns are revealed for all those living in a loca- tion closer to Allentown/Lehigh Valley International Airport in Pennsylvania than to any other airport. Of those in this “natu- ral market area,” 77% of air travelers do not use their “home town” airport. The policy question can then be examined con- cerning whether some of these local travelers could make their transfer movements outside of the congested mega-region, instead of at the heart of it. Organizing the planning data in this manner allows the examination of the possibility that under- used airport capacity could make a greater contribution than is now the case. The Importance of Applying Transport Planning Tools to Aviation Planning The research team believes that employing a complete trip OD approach to airport planning would provide aviation 12 Figure S9. Airports included in the NERASP (15). B os to n- Lo ga n Sh ar e of N ew E ng la nd A irp or t P as se ng er s 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 1980 1990 Year 2000 2005 Figure S10. Restructuring of volumes in the Boston family of airports (16).

planners with a view of the market-driven issues that airlines consider when planning service and routes. Importantly, this approach holds potential for enabling aviation managers to strike a better balance between meeting customer needs and operational desires. Finally, the organization of basic travel flow data in this manner will allow later integration with the dominant work describing highway and rail travel. To enable such an approach to become the norm, rather than a periodic undertaking stemming from a particular one-time study, standards and protocols for data collection, manage- ment, and reporting could be developed. Unless “true” OD data on airport passengers are collected in a standardized way and on an appropriate geographic scale (as pioneered in NERASP), the usefulness of such data for improving mega-region scale airport 13 Southeast U.S. 28 28 34 5 2 Upper Midwest 25 34 34 3 4 Transatlantic 52 13 1 33 0 Lower Midwest 35 36 21 5 3 California South 34 30 18 16 1 South-Central America 44 23 4 28 1 California North 33 29 19 18 1 Northwest Zone 35 30 23 9 1 New England 14 64 11 7 3 Transpacific 42 15 11 31 1 Alaska–Canada 35 23 30 7 5 NY, NJ, PA 14 52 9 23 2 Mid-Atlantic 26 22 17 18 14 Grand Total 33 29 23 12 2 Destination Zone EWR (%) PHL (%) Lehigh Valley Intl. (%) JFK (%) LGA (%) Table S5. Airport choice by trip destination and natural market area for Lehigh Valley international airport. Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton, PA: Lehigh Valley International 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 Destination Zone N um be r o f P a ss e n ge rs Other LaGuardia JFK Lehigh Valley Philadelphia Newark Liberty 100,000 So ut he as t U S Up pe r M id we st Tr a n sa tla nt ic Lo w e r M id dl e W e st So ut he rn C al ifo rn ia So ut h- Ce nt ra l A m er ic a N or th er n C al ifo rn ia N or th we st Z on e N ew E ng la nd Tr a n sp ac ific Al as ka /C an ad a N Y/ NJ /P A M id -A tla nt ic 0 Figure S11. Airport choice by trip destination, Lehigh Valley natural market area.

planning will be minimal. However, by collecting data regularly and at the appropriate geographic level, airports within the mega-regions could jointly assess their capacity—individually and collectively—and plan for more efficient and customer- focused allocation of operations. Such multijurisdictional air- port planning that seeks to share and take advantage of regional data can be a critical element of improving overall air system capacity in the coastal mega-regions and nationally. Summary of Chapter 4—Airport- Specific Implications of the Major Themes The previous chapters focused on the total impact of vari- ous strategies and management on the system as a whole, or as part of a larger aggregation. Chapter 4 reviews the implica- tions of the major themes of the research on the largest air- ports in the two areas, with particular attention to the shorter distance trips and trip segments that occur within the borders of the study area (see Exhibit S4 for highlights and key themes included in Chapter 4). In this research area, the short-distance air segments require the most analysis. Trips to and from areas outside the study area are simply not candidates for either rail for substitution or for providing complementary services, as discussed in Chap- ter 2. However, longer distance trips may be candidates for diversion to adjacent airports closer to the origin of the trip- maker, as discussed in Chapter 3. Thus, the longer distance trips are described for each major airport in terms of the geo- graphic distribution of their destination trip ends. Table S6 shows an airport activity summary prepared for the San Fran- cisco International Airport, allowing the analyst to examine 14 For each major airport in the study areas, Chapter 4 includes the following: • A summary of the role of shorter distance, intra-mega-region traffic at the subject airport. • A review of the possible implications of planned rail projects for trip substitution. • A review of the role for rail and proximate airports for multijurisdictional solutions. • A review of the importance of shorter distance flights to support economically important longer distance flights, such as international services. • Conditions in the year 2025, in which the calculated impacts of doing nothing are presented as a surrogate metric for the scale of the challenge at the subject airport. • A quick, preliminary assessment of the potential roles of rail substitution, rail complementarity, and better regional cooperation, suggesting that none of these alone represents a “silver bullet” that will eliminate the problem of aviation capacity in the mega-regions. Exhibit S4. Highlights and key themes included in Chapter 4. San Francisco, 2007 (SFO) Where Are the Enplaning Passengers Going? From Where Are the Connecting Passengers Coming? Destination Zone Total (%) Total Boardings Originating Boardings Boardings from Transfer Flights From West Coast Study Area Outside West Coast Study Area From Atlantic/ Pacific From South-Central America California North 1.9 318,233 22,280 295,953 82,740 169,566 73,195 4,905 California South/LAS 14.6 2,405,822 1,614,370 791,452 127,720 618,016 271,751 7,868 To the North 11.2 1,852,852 1,250,521 602,331 278,036 145,823 155,797 29,199 To the East 42.2 6,963,448 6,067,140 896,308 251,760 271,390 504,283 2,220 Transatlantic 9.1 1,503,667 1,419,502 84,165 57,671 48,320 0 0 Transpacific 16.8 2,767,323 1,846,162 921,161 287,275 767,697 10 220 South-Central America 4.2 696,748 652,236 44,512 12,773 60,618 320 0 Totals 100 16,508,093 12,872,211 3,635,882 1,097,975 2,081,430 1,005,356 44,412 Table S6. An example of the airport activity summaries presented in Chapter 4 for SFO.

where travelers are going (the rows) and where they are com- ing from (the columns). The Implications of the Airport-by-Airport Review A quick, preliminary assessment of the potential roles of rail substitution, rail complementarity, and better local air- port cooperation suggests that, while important, none of these represents a “silver bullet” that will eliminate the issue of lack of aviation capacity in the mega-regions, based on this airport-by-airport review. In the following chapter, the argument will be made that the aviation industry would benefit from significantly increasing the role of accountabil- ity and transparency in the management of the airport/ aviation system. While the need to become more multimodal and more multijurisdictional is self-evident, the major opportunities to increase functional capacity in the coastal mega-regions lie within the aviation sector itself. Chapter 5 will suggest a new relationship between local and national institutions to deal with a real and present crisis in func- tional capacity. Summary of Chapter 5—Airport Demand Management The research team found that opportunities to reduce mega-region airport congestion and improve the overall cost and quality of passenger service do exist; what would be ben- eficial are policies and programs that encourage key deci- sionmakers to grasp them. The chapter concludes that the management of existing resources could be improved. Chapter 5 suggests that capacity in the mega-regions will be increased only when all the major players are empowered to solve the problem (see Exhibit S5 for highlights and key themes included in Chapter 5). The Potential for Demand Management at Airports From the research undertaken, it is clear that the scarce resource of capacity is not allocated efficiently. Chapter 5 inves- tigates methods in which such capacity could be allocated in a way that balances passenger service from two perspectives: flight frequency and service reliability. The balance of stake- holder roles is explored in Chapter 5, with the goal of develop- ing approaches that are agreeable to all stakeholders and fit the individual needs of a congested airport. The chapter examines alternatives to the current congestion and demand manage- ment structure in which the roles at the federal and local levels are unclear. It reviews a wide variety of candidate strategies and actions, under the context of local action with federal guidance. Chapter 5 further develops several strategies to increase airport throughput capacity, examining the barriers and constraints that impact their implementation. The report explores the idea that more attention should be paid to studies at individ- ual congested airports that are using the methods to prioritize the value of individual flights, based on their contribution to delay and their customer service values. In Chapter 5, the research team describes an example of how a framework might be developed for implementing demand management. The purpose of a demand management program as identified here is to limit delays that occur when the num- ber of aircraft scheduled to arrive at an airport during a par- ticular time exceeds the capacity of that airport. The most fundamental change suggested by the research is for all the major parties to recognize demand management as a legitimate alternative to capacity expansion as a means of ameliorating airport congestion problems. 15 • This research has concluded that the current system suffers from unclear responsibility: no one has the authority and accountability for the management of congestion at mega-region airports. • The management of existing resources could be improved: capacity in the mega-regions can be increased only when the all the major players are empowered to solve the problem. • Opportunities to reduce mega-region airport congestion and improve the overall cost and quality of passenger service do exist; what would be beneficial are approaches and programs that encourage key decisionmakers to grasp such opportunities. • When the system fails, a trigger mechanism could be set off; with the responsibilities of each party clearly specified, the goals of accountability and transparency could be met. • There are roles for both the national and local levels in defining these roles and procedures. • The responsibility of those in charge is to make air travel reliable for passengers; this is a form of accountability beyond making the airport available for all classes of aeronautical activities. • A way to do this is to focus on the passenger experience. A congested airport does not necessarily make the airport rea- sonably available nor are delays arguably nondiscriminatory from the passenger perspective. Exhibit S5. Highlights and key themes included in Chapter 5.

The Purpose of Demand Management The same quantity of air transport payload capacity can be provided with larger numbers of small aircraft flights or smaller numbers of large aircraft flights. It has long been rec- ognized that the decisions of air carriers about what recipe to use have important ramifications for the quality of service and level of accessibility provided by the air transportation system on the one hand and for the amounts of flight traffic, levels of congestion and delay, and infrastructure requirements on the other. In most airports, small aircrafts use the same runways as large ones and occupy them for about the same length of time. Thus, when the airport is congested, the operational impact of a small flight is no less than that of a large one. Indeed, the slower approach speeds and longer in-trail separation require- ments of small aircraft can result in longer effective service times. Thus, when airlines and other airport users provide capacity with more small flights rather than fewer large ones, the result can be higher levels of congestion and delay. Using the ability to predict the delay impacts of removing flights from the arrival stream, the research examined three up-gauging strate- gies in a detailed case study. In the first strategy, short-haul flights are eliminated. A second approach to up-gauging is to encourage, when appropriate, the substitution of less frequent large jet service for more frequent commuter service. Finally, the strategy of diverting small aircraft from the case study air- port, SFO, to some other local airport is considered. Implications The chapter shows that changing the schedule, whether by eliminating short-haul flights, consolidating flights, or divert- ing very small aircraft, can reduce delays and often does so at a reasonable cost in terms of the extra line-haul time, schedule delay, and access time that such changes require. For any airport with high delays due to inadequate operational capacity, elimi- nating flights during busy periods will reduce delays consider- ably. The quantity of this benefit, as well as the cost of losing any particular flight, will vary from flight to flight, time period to time period, day to day, and airport to airport. There is, however, a wide body of research and experience suggesting that, in many circumstances, the benefit greatly exceeds the cost and that the cumulative gain from such changes would be impressive. What should be done to realize these gains? Broadly speak- ing, in the current system there is no actor who has both the authority to make the desired schedule changes and the ability to realize the gains from doing so. Airlines and other aircraft operators whose decisions determine the flight demand at any particular airport can realize benefits for some flights they con- trol by eliminating or rescheduling other flights, but this is gen- erally a small fraction of the total benefit (18). Moreover, in a competitive, unregulated industry, the elimination of a flight by Airline A may be offset by initiation of a new service by Air- line B. In this event, A has not only lost the operational bene- fit from its schedule change, but it also now faces stronger competition. FAA-Proposed Changes in Rules/Regulations Most recently, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend its 1996 policy on rates and charges, the DOT proposed to explicitly allow airport proprietors to establish a two-part landing fee that recognizes both the number of operations and the weight of the aircraft, in order to provide incentives for air- lines to modify aircraft gauge or frequency to reduce delays at a congested airport. In the words of the GAO, this should “pro- vide greater flexibility to operators of congested airports to use landing fees to provide incentives to air carriers to use the air- port at less congested times or to use alternate airports to meet regional air service needs” (19). Airport operators have essentially no direct control of airline activity at their airports, including whether the airline serves the airport at all, the frequency or time of day of service, or the aircraft type or size used to provide service. They do have pro- prietors’ rights to use rates and charges to influence airline service patterns, but those rights are still being refined. In light of the potential to reduce delays with innovative management and the unclear role of aviation stakeholders in managing delays, a change in approach could better align flight scheduling decisions with the needs of society through demand management. The chapter argues that there are a number of reasons why the primary focus of demand man- agement responsibility and action should be at the local level. As currently practiced in the United States, air demand man- agement is a reactive strategy that is performed after delays have reached unacceptable levels. In contrast to this, the demand management policies and programs could be implemented most effectively prior to the advent of severe congestion. Guidance and Accountability A broad outline for how this can be accomplished is the following: setting mutually agreeable airport-delay targets, providing a detailed list of actions an airport can take to meet the delay level, and implementing incentives and penalties for not meeting such an action. Airports that exceed the delay trigger immediately could be requested to perform an immediate update to their master plan. This airport master plan update could have, at the mini- mum, two new sections. One could address the potential of the airport to expand capacity in the long term to manage demand. The other section could be the development of a demand man- agement plan. Airports where the trigger is not exceeded could be further subdivided into two categories. Some airports will find through their modeling that traffic will exceed the trigger before their next scheduled master plan update. There could then be guid- 16

ance about how quickly such airports should update their master plans—potentially immediately. Airports where the trigger will be exceeded in over 5 years but before the next master plan could be requested to update their master plan in a 5-year period. When airports accept public funds from the FAA, they agree under United States Code Title 49 (Section 5.4.3) to conditions of grant assurances. Agreeing to these assurances means that all aircraft that can safely land at that airport must be accommo- dated with no discrimination. The chapter introduces the idea that carriers have fleet mix recipes with important ramifica- tions for the quality of service and the level of accessibility pro- vided by airports and the entire air transportation system. It argues that when demand is high relative to capacity, demand management may be required to fulfill the commitment not to discriminate. The guidance provided to airports for accepting their designation as critical-delay airports could involve a new way to envision aviation system accountability. Summary of Chapter 6—What Was Learned, and What Are the Next Steps? Chapter 6 of the report presents a summary of major con- clusions and lessons learned from the research and also pres- ents a set of suggested directions (see Exhibit S6 for highlights and key themes included in Chapter 6), which are summa- rized and described in the following paragraphs. Concerning a multimodal planning capability, the report suggests the following: • An overarchingly intermodal approach to the analysis of long-distance trip-making and trip provision should be developed. Given the congestion at mega-region airports, a unit of capacity created on an HSR system need not be seen as a “competitor” to the aviation system, but as a complementary provider of services over a full multimodal system. • Early examples of “Corridors of the Future,” such as the I-95 Corridor Coalition, should be reviewed to find ways to help states who come together on a voluntary basis to improve their planning capabilities concerning longer dis- tance trip-making. • The integration of aviation trip flows with other modal trip flows be undertaken as a pilot project in the East and in California. • Further research should be undertaken that would help pro- vide a better understanding of the possible role of air and rail working together. The research team located an impressive amount of analytical work documenting the potential for rail to substitute for air travel. Concerning the potential role of rail to complement air travel (e.g., as a feeder mode to 17 The scale of the capacity problem: • Analysis should continue on the questions of airport choice, schedule-based delay, and whether alternative forms of hub- bing could relieve key mega-region airports. Making the process more multimodal: • The aviation system is not well equipped to undertake the kind of multimodal analysis associated with the present wider choice of options for long distance trip making; both the tools and the structure could be improved. • The potential role of rail complementarity in the United States should be documented further. Making the process more multijurisdictional: • Regional solutions could gain optimized capacity from a “family of airports” concept. • Regional organizations could be crafted based on unique local requirements and (at least partially) on a passenger-centric basis. • Multimodal tools and procedures could be developed to support integration with the comprehensive planning process. Dealing with airport management, the report explores a variety of approaches including the following: • Giving individual airport operators the primary responsibility for developing demand management programs appro- priate for their local circumstances, within broad national guidelines; • Enhancing the ability of airports to manage demand through a variety of operational pricing-related options; and • Outlining an example of a potential framework for demand management that would define a set of critical-delay air- ports, along with the establishment of delay standards, and an accepted method of predicting delay. Exhibit S6. Highlights and key themes included in Chapter 6.

longer distance flights), the research did not reveal much solid analytical work. Concerning alterations in the planning process, the report suggests the following: • An expanded version of system planning could be made available throughout the congested mega-regions on the East and West coasts. This has been done in NERASP, which helped to identify unused capacity at secondary airports that could be used to relieve congestion at BOS. Similarly, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Airport System Plan (MTC RASP) is now underway in the Bay area, involving the cooperation of several major airports and look- ing into alternatives to meet the long-term travel demand, including the potential role of HSR passenger service. • As multi-airport planning processes are established, the separate airports could be encouraged to undertake data collection efforts on as close to a simultaneous basis as pos- sible, following the example set in both NERASP and MTC RASP. Standardization of data collection format and of period of acquisition allows for the creation of a meaning- ful, useful regional data resource that includes both long- distance segments and local ground access data. • Even without new supra-regional studies, existing metro- politan planning organizations (MPOs) could become more involved in the collection, analysis, and support of data collection and management in the aviation sector, following the example of the Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, among several other advanced examples of MPO participation in aviation planning. Concerning the potential for demand management at air- ports, the report explores a variety of approaches including the following: • Giving individual airport operators the primary responsi- bility for developing demand management programs that are appropriate for their local circumstances. These pro- grams would follow broad guidelines that allow for a diver- sity of approaches. • Enhancing the ability of airports to manage demand through a variety of operational and pricing-related initiatives. • Outlining and giving examples of a potential framework for demand management that would define a set of critical-delay airports for which controlling delay is considered to be essen- tial. Such airports could be provided with guidance on creat- ing a demand management program, with demand man- agement to be one of a wide range of strategies—including capacity expansion, development of alternative airports, and investments in alternative modes—to reduce delay. References 1. MITRE Corporation, Capacity Needs in the National Airspace 2007–2025, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, May 2007. 2. Airport Cooperative Research Program, Project Statement, ACRP 03-10 [RFP], Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capac- ity Issues in Coastal Mega-Regions, Posted Date: 7/5/2007. 3. Map, Microsoft Streets and Trips, 2007, copyright Microsoft Cor- poration and its Suppliers. 4. ACRP 3-10 Database, derived from the DB1B and T-100 data of the BTS. 5. Performance data accessed from Research and Innovative Technol- ogy Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, http:// www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp 6. Adler, T., C. Falzarano and G. Spitz, “Modeling Service Trade- offs in Air Itinerary Choices,” Transportation Research Record 1915, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2005. 7. Steer Davies Gleave, Air and Rail Competition and Complementar- ity Final Report. Prepared for the EU’s Directorate General for Energy and Transportation, August 2006. 8. Cambridge Systematics, Bay Area/California High Speed Rail Rid- ership and Revenue Forecasting Study. Prepared for the Metropoli- tan Transportation Commission and California High Speed Rail Authority, July 2007. 9. Maren Outwater, Cambridge Systematics, “Bay Area/California High Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study” presented to the California High Speed Rail Authority Board, March 2, 2007. 10. U.S. Department of Transportation, “Analysis of the Benefits of High-Speed Rail on the Northeast Corridor,” Office of the Inspec- tor General, Office of the Secretary, Information Memorandum, June 16, 2008. Ridership forecasts by CRA International. 11. U.S. Federal Railroad Administration, High Speed Ground Trans- portation for America.1997. Ridership forecasts by CRA Inter- national, for the Volpe Transportation Systems Center. 12. New York State Senate High Speed Rail Task Force Action Pro- gram, 2008; Chapter Three, pp. 3–8. Ridership forecasts by CRA International. 13. Strata Consulting, 2008 for ACRP 3-10. 14. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. DOT, American Travel Survey, 1995. 15. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration-New England Region, The New England Regional Airport System Plan, 2008. 16. “Strategic Initiatives at Logan International Airport,” presentation by Flavio Lee, Manager of Aviation Planning, Massport, June 23, 2007. 17. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, 2006–2010 FAA Flight Plans. 18. Hansen, M. M., et al. “Influence of Capacity Constraints on Airline Fleet Mix. Research Report,” UCB-ITS-RR-2001-6, August 2001. 19. U.S. Government Accountability Office, National Airspace System: DOT and FAA Actions Will Likely Have a Limited Effect on Reduc- ing Delays during Summer 2008 Travel Season. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Sen- ate. GAO-08-934T, 2008. 18