Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
21 nomic and environmental cost of doing nothing is signifi- vides the three-letter codes, as set by the International Air cant. The chapter concludes that a new approach is needed. Transport Association (IATA), for most airports referred to 2. To gain access to alternative forms of short-distance trip- in this report. The base year for this analysis is 2007, which making capacity, the aviation capacity planning system was a critical year for aviation in the mega-regions (as dis- could benefit from becoming more multimodal. Chapter 2 cussed in Section 1.4.3). The research team is aware that since reviews the extent to which aviation planning is inherently that time, air passenger volumes have decreased by varying intertwined with the planning and analysis of capacity levels. This report, however, is based on a consistent use of increases in other longer distance modes, specifically high- one base-year assumption; most industry analysts believe that speed rail (HSR) and highway planning. growth over the next 20-year planning period will indeed 3. To gain better utilization of existing underused capacity at reappear at some point. smaller airports in the region, the aviation capacity planning system could benefit from becoming more multijurisdic- 1.2.2 Geographic Scale of the tional. Chapter 3 analyzes the market potential of some Mega-regions smaller scale regional airports to provide additional capac- ity to the systems in the mega-regions, provided that the The East Coast study area generally includes the states from operating carriers decided to take advantage of their pres- New England to Virginia. The West Coast study area includes ence. The chapter examines the importance of gathering all of California and Clark County, NV. In Chapter 4 of this and analyzing data on a multi-airport, super-regional basis, report, flows are examined on a finer geographic scale, which and shows examples of how such new regional aviation emphasizes actual market areas. In general, when data are pre- planning tools could be used. sented at a high level of aggregation, entire states are included; 4. No one has the authority and accountability for the manage- when data are presented on an airport-by-airport basis, only ment of congestion at mega-region airports. Chapter 5 sug- the catchment areas of those specific airports are included. gests that capacity in the mega-regions will be significantly Thus, the term East Coast study area includes all of the increased only when the managers are empowered to solve geography contained in the states between Maine and Virginia. the problem. The chapter concludes that the management The term Eastern Mega-region refers to the areas covered by of existing resources could be improved, and that this rep- the Boston region airports to the north and to the areas of resents the single most important element in a larger strat- Richmond and Norfolk, VA, to the south. The western edge egy to deal with potential aviation capacity issues in the of the Eastern Mega-region incorporates Syracuse, NY, and coastal mega-regions. Harrisburg, PA. The term West Coast study area includes all of the state of California and Clark County (Las Vegas) NV. The term North- 1.2 Understanding the Scale of the ern California Mega-region refers to the Bay Area region and Mega-regions and the Sacramento region. The term Southern California Mega- Their Airports region refers to the Los Angeles Basin area, the San Diego 1.2.1 Range of Scale of the region, and Clark County (NV) together. Study Area Airports Distances. The two maps (Figures 1.1 and 1.2) are pre- Table 1.1 illustrates that the two coastal study areas contain sented at similar scale: in the East Coast study area, the north- some of the biggest airports in the United States, including ernmost mega-region airport, MHT (Manchester, NH), is Los Angeles (LAX) and New York (JFK). The two study areas about 487 miles from the farthest airport, RIC (Richmond, also contain airports of concern and interest to multimodal VA). In the West Coast study area, the distance from the planning that are currently very small and possibly under- Sacramento airport to the San Diego airport is 480 airline utilized, such as Allentown, PA. The reader should be aware miles. that the passenger summaries used in the Airports Council InternationalNorth America (ACI-NA) surveys (2) are com- Population. In terms of population, the two study areas prehensive and include more passengers than are included in are not so similar. The East Coast study area has about 69 mil- the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Airline Ori- lion inhabitants; the West Coast study area has about 38 mil- gin and Destination Survey, from the Office of Airline Infor- lion. This difference will become far more dramatic later in mation of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (DB1B) (3), this chapter, where the numbers of internal aviation trips which forms the backbone of most of the analysis contained within each study area are compared. The results are startling in this report. The uses, and limitations, of various databases and point to real differences in the transportation behavior of are discussed in Section 4.6 of this report. Table 1.1 also pro- the two coastal regions.
OCR for page 22
22 Table 1.1. Airport codes and passenger activity summary from ACI-NA 2007 survey (2). Rank in ACI-NA Survey Airport Name and Code Total Passengers 2007 3 LOS ANGELES (LAX) 61,896,075 6 NEW YORK (JFK) 47,716,941 7 LAS VEGAS (LAS) 46,961,011 11 NEWARK (EWR) 36,367,240 13 SAN FRANCISCO (SFO) 35,792,707 17 PHILADELPHIA (PHL) 32,211,439 20 BOSTON (BOS) 28,102,455 21 NEW YORK (LGA) 25,026,267 22 WASHINGTON DULLES (IAD) 24,525,487 25 BALTIMORE/WASHINGTON (BWI) 21,498,091 28 WASHINGTON REAGAN (DCA) 18,670,924 29 SAN DIEGO (SAN) 18,336,761 33 OAKLAND (OAK) 14,846,832 40 SACRAMENTO (SMF) 10,748,982 41 SAN JOSE (SJC) 10,658,389 43 SANTA ANA (SNA) 9,979,699 55 ONTARIO (ONT) 7,207,150 58 HARTFORD/SPRINGFIELD (BDL) 6,519,181 61 BURBANK (BUR) 5,921,336 68 MANCHESTER (MHT) 3,892,630 71 NORFOLK (ORF) 3,718,399 72 RICHMOND (RIC) 3,634,544 80 ALBANY (ALB) 2,874,277 82 LONG BEACH (LGB) 2,758,362 83 SYRACUSE (SYR) 2,360,878 121 ALLENTOWN (ABE) 847,526 180 PALMDALE (PMD) 12,022 Figures 1.1. and 1.2. The geographic extent of the East Coast study area and the West Coast study area (scale is constant) (3 ).