National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Aviation Capacity and the Needfor a Multimodal Context
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Multijurisdictional Issues inAviation Capacity Planning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14363.
×
Page 71

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.

57 3.1 Purpose In Chapter 3, the research team suggests options for enhanc- ing the capacity of the airport systems in the East and West Coast Mega-regions to more effectively serve customer needs through multijurisdictional planning processes, including data sharing and cooperative and collaborative decision-making on airport planning and operations. 3.2 Background Beginning in the early 1970s, the availability of technical guidance and new federal aid resulted in greatly increased levels of airport planning activity. At that time, the FAA developed the procedures and principles for comprehen- sive airport planning in a series of advisory circulars that addressed master planning, regional planning, and state- wide system planning. An airport’s receipt of certain federal aid grants depended largely on its willingness to conduct planning studies that conformed to the advisory circulars. By the early 1980s, almost every state had adopted a state aviation plan, and a variety of metropolitan areas were involved in system planning studies. The FAA encouraged large commercial service airports to develop master plan reports to explain the basis for development shown on air- port layout plans. During this same period, the rapid growth in air travel war- ranted significant improvements to all commercial service airports. The federal government would provide a large part of the funds for those improvements, and it wanted them to be compatible with other aspects of regional development. Government actions encouraged state DOTs to develop state aviation system plans, but those plans left off at the bound- aries of major metropolitan areas. The operators of the largest commercial service airports retained authority over detailed planning and development decisions, subject only to review C H A P T E R 3 Multijurisdictional Issues in Aviation Capacity Planning • 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 potential contribution of under-utilized 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 3.0. Highlights and key themes included in Chapter 3.

by regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)27 of applications for federal aid for specific development proj- ects. However, formal MPO approval was not necessary (1). Regional planning focused initially on the details of reliever airports and general aviation airports that were located and equipped to attract small personal use and corporate aircraft away from the congested commercial service airports. 3.2.1 Gaps in the Current System Planning Process The interviews28 with airport managers undertaken in this project revealed that, with rare exceptions, the present system planning process does not fill the gap between airport- based planning and national planning. Most airport executives reported that they are not significantly affected by regional planning. This reflects the limited role of system planning since the FAA first prepared guidance29 and began to provide aid in the early 1970s. The FAA guidance focused the scope of work on simple forecasting procedures and did not include market research and complex statistical forecasting techniques if they added to project cost.30 In short, a robust, consumer-oriented data collection program was not historically part of the regional aviation systems planning effort. Currently, no public agency is tasked with analyzing and pre- senting the needs and expectations of the longer distance trav- elers 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 accessibil- ity and reliability. The lack of attention to these topics leaves the traveler as the missing person when development deci- sions are made. These topics are the logical starting point for a revitalized metropolitan (or a possible supra-metropolitan) system planning process that would monitor traveler expec- tations and document certain benchmark levels of measured performance. Passenger expectations are now expressed only through mathematical projections of demand and engineer- ing analyses of how to accommodate them, typically through development at a single airport. At present, the examination of alternatives beyond the airport perimeter is required for large projects that are subject to impact analysis, but these usually address travelers only in the broadest terms, such as projected volume of passengers sorted by ZIP codes. A passenger-centric planning process could provide ana- lytic support to airport planning and empower those officials who are interested in maximizing the satisfaction of travelers from the surrounding region. It would also equip them with tools to measure and compare airport performance. Logically, some of the efforts to better track the experience of the passen- ger would be located at the airport level; others, with regional implications, could be tracked on a multi-airport basis. Given that many airports already have aggressive programs to mon- itor customer satisfaction, this report will focus on those mea- sures with regional or multi-airport ramifications. Such a multijurisdictional planning process could address such issues as benchmarking airport capacity, tracking projec- tions for capacity enhancement, and raising issues of perform- ance in the air traffic control arena. A recent example of such a joint, multijurisdictional effort is the program of the PANYNJ to take the lead in explaining the need for FAA’s NextGen pro- gram to the civic and political leaders of the NYC region. 3.3 Examples of Existing Multijurisdictional Airport Planning Processes To illustrate the potential for a multijurisdictional airport planning approach, the research team examined several such existing processes in detail. One of these is a joint federal/ multistate effort, and others are at least partially managed by an MPO. 3.3.1 New England Regional Airport System Plan The 2006 New England Regional Airport System Plan (NERASP) is the most recent product of more than a decade of work by the New England Airport Coalition, a collabora- tion which includes 11 of the region’s major airports (see Figure 3.1), the six New England state aviation agencies, the Massachusetts Port Authority, the New England Council, and the FAA (2). In 1994, a coalition of the six New England state aviation agencies, all of the scheduled jet passenger service airports, and the New England Council was formed, and it initiated the first “New England Regional Air Service Study.” In 1996, the regional coalition held a “Fly New England” workshop with airline representatives to present the findings of this study and to outline collaborative marketing programs. In 1998, the coalition conducted Phase 2 of the regional air service study, which provided updated data on air service opportunities in the region. About 4 years later, Phase 1 of the FAA-led NERASP was initiated. Phase 2 was conducted between 2004 and 2006. 58 27 An MPO is a transportation policy-making organization made up of represen- tatives from local government and transportation authorities. In the early 1970s, the U.S. Congress passed legislation that required the formation of an MPO for any urbanized area (UZA) with a population greater than 50,000. Congress cre- ated MPOs to ensure that existing and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, cooperative, and comprehen- sive (“3-C”) planning process. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. As of 2009, there are 385 MPOs in the United States. 28 See Appendix A for the summary of the airport interviews. 29 Planning the Metropolitan Airport System, FAA AC150/5070-5, May 1970. 30 FAA Order 5100.5c, paragraph 405.c

The coalition intended for both phases of the NERASP study to examine travel patterns in the region and make the best pre- dictions possible about how future travel demand can be accommodated using all the facilities available in New England. Oneofthekeyfeaturesofthestudy is its multimodal approach— it examined air travel combined with rail and other ground accessmodestoproduceacomprehensive picture for the region. The NERASP project describes the foundations of a regional strategy for the air carrier airport system to support the needs of air passengers through 2020. Its underlying theme is to develop an airport system based on the location of passengers and with adequate facilities to allow airlines to evolve the range of services that provide the best mix of efficiency, con- venience, and reliability. The NERASP effort also found that New England’s airport system does have the ability to meet passenger demand through 2020. However, this will require continued efforts to enhance the performance of each airport in the system. This is essential to achieve the level of efficiency and resiliency the system must have for a region so dependent on the services of a constantly evolving airline industry. Phase II of NERASP found that New England has an unusu- ally high reliance on air transportation. The region generates 2.5 air passenger trips per year per capita, almost 80% higher than the national rate of 1.4. Most of the region’s passengers will con- tinue to fly through BOS. Therefore, the system will rely on BOS to continue to improve its efficiency in handling aircraft oper- ations and passengers. This study also identifies several airports that could improve the performance of the regional system if they can overcome the challenges they face in developing the services required by their communities. For example, PVD lacks sufficient runway length to efficiently serve its communities’ needs for West Coast and international markets. Worcester and New Haven have the potential to serve a total of 3.8 million pas- sengers, drawing almost 1 million of these passengers away from congested airports in New England and New York. The forecast models also reveal an emerging market for a jet service from Cape Cod to major domestic markets. 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 3.2 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 the airport markets. The FAA included the NERASP initiative as a strategy for increasing system capacity in its 2006–2010 Flight Plan (4). Importantly, NERASP is somewhat unique in its multistate orientation. Leadership can also come from existing, regional institutions. The following sections provide two examples of existing situations in which MPOs have assumed a significant or leading role in planning for airport systems at the metro- politan or regional level. 3.3.2 Regional Airport System Plan— San Francisco Bay Area, California The San Francisco Bay Area is home to some 23 airports (Figure 3.3) that serve commercial and general aviation users. 59 Figure 3.1. Airports included in the NERASP (2). 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 1980 1990 Year 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 2000 2005 Figure 3.2. Restructuring of volumes in the Boston family of airports (3).

and the three key agencies in relationship to development of the RASP (5). The RAPC’s responsibilities include the following: • Serving as a public forum for regional aviation issues, including aircraft flight noise; • Preparing updates to the RASP for consideration by the ABAG, the BCDC, and the MTC; • Reviewing and commenting on airport master plans, layout plans, and environmental documents and local land-use plans affecting the regional aviation system; • Coordinating with county Airport Land Use Commissions; • Facilitating discussions between airports, cities, and coun- ties and Airport Land Use Commissions on land-use issues around airports that affect the regional aviation system; • Conducting studies related to the RASP; and • Making recommendations to the ABAG, the BCDC, and the MTC on regional aviation matters. The Bay Area airports and the FAA consider the RASP when preparing airport master plans and environmental documents for proposed airport improvements. The MTC uses the RASP to guide decisions about surface transportation investments that provide access to airports. In addition, the BCDC’s Bay Plan airport policies refer to the RASP for guidance when eval- uating proposals for airport improvements that would require Bay fill. Further, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will consider the aviation emission estimates in preparing fed- eral and state air quality plans for meeting adopted air quality standards. 3.3.3 Continuous Airport System Planning—Metropolitan Washington, D.C., Region The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB), the MPO for the Washington, D.C., metropol- itan region, has conducted a Continuous Airport System Planning (CASP) program since the FAA approved its first grant application in 1978. TPB develops, implements, and monitors the CASP program with the assistance of the Avia- tion Technical Subcommittee of the TPB Technical Com- mittee. The subcommittee is responsible for coordinating airport system planning with the regional transportation planning process, through presentation of airport system plan- ning matters to the TPB Technical Committee and the TPB. The Maryland Department of Transportation and the Metro- politan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) represent the region’s three major commercial airports (Figure 3.5)— Washington National (DCA), Washington Dulles International (IAD), and Baltimore-Washington International (BWI)—on the TPB. 60 Figure 3.3. San Francisco Bay Area airports (5). ABAG MTC Regional Airport Planning Committee Regional Airport System Plan MTC StaffRegional AviationTask Force RAPC Working Group BCDC Figure 3.4. RASP development organizational structure. This regional airport system forms an integral part of the Bay Area’s transportation network by providing links to commu- nities throughout the United States and abroad. Since 1972, the MTC and the Association of Bay Area Gov- ernments (ABAG), the principal regional planning bodies for the San Francisco Bay region, have periodically updated the Regional Airport System Plan (RASP) to provide analysis and policy-level guidance on aviation requirements for commer- cial and general aviation airports in the region. These agencies, plus the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), created the Regional Airport Planning Committee (RAPC) to advise the three agencies on regional aviation matters. Figure 3.4 shows the relationship of the RAPC

The CASP program’s goal is to provide a process that sup- ports the planning, development, and operation of airport facilities and the transportation facilities that serve the airports in a systematic framework for the Washington-Baltimore region. In October 1998, the TPB unanimously adopted the Vision for the future of transportation in the region. The Vision is a policy document with eight key goals and associated objectives and strategies to guide transportation into the 21st century. Goal 8 of the TPB’s Vision reads: “The Washington metro- politan region will support options for international and inter- regional travel and commerce. Goal 8 has the following three objectives: 1. The Washington region will be among the most accessible in the nation for international and interregional passenger and goods movements. 2. Continued growth in passenger and goods movement between the Washington region and other nearby regions in the mid-Atlantic area. 3. Connectivity to and between Washington Dulles Inter- national, Ronald Reagan Washington National, and Baltimore-Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airports” (6). The first strategy for implementing Goal 8 is to maintain convenient access to all of the region’s major airports for both people and goods. The CASP process consists of a continuous cycle that begins with a regional air passenger survey. This survey is followed by forecasts of future air passenger travel and the ground travel of these air passengers to and from the region’s three commercial airports. These forecasts in turn lead to the development of a revised ground access plan for the region. The aviation group within the TPB Technical Committee is responsible for the coordination of airport system planning with the regional transportation planning process. The sub- committee provides technical review for projects and reports stemming from the CASP program. Presentations regarding such projects are made to the subcommittee, and comments and suggestions are solicited. Then, presentations are made to the TPB Technical Committee and the TPB. All CASP program products follow this technical review process, prior to submis- sion to the funding agencies, which include the FAA, the MWAA, and the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA). The aviation subcommittee includes representatives from the MAA, the MWAA, the D.C. Government, the Virginia Department of Aviation, and the FAA, as well as representa- tives of local jurisdictions within the Council of Govern- ments’ membership. In addition, other regional agencies with aviation interests, airport sponsors, and aviation interest groups and associations are encouraged to participate. 3.4 Mega-region Framework Approach to Airport Planning Chapters 1 and 2 of this report have documented that capac- ity problems at airports in the coastal mega-regions are driven significantly by a mismatch of travel demand with travel options, in both air and ground modes. Addressing these issues effectively requires the ability to understand the nature and scale of demand for air service in each mega-region. The fol- lowing subsections present examples of how data could be ana- lyzed to more effectively explain air traveler behavior in the context of complete trips. By taking a complete-trip perspective, airport planners and managers would be able to manage air- port capacity at a more regional level and potentially strike a balance between service frequency and capacity (using the mega-region as the geographic unit of analysis). 3.4.1 Applying County-to-County Trip Tables in the West Coast Mega-region To facilitate regional analysis of travel within the Califor- nia Corridor, the research team developed regional trip tables that encompass complete trips. This task involved collecting air traveler surveys from five airports in two regions. In the first region (the San Francisco Bay Area), the team collected data from the MTC derived from air traveler surveys at SJC, OAK, and SFO. For the second region 61 Figure 3.5. Washington–Baltimore air system planning region (6).

(Southern California), the team collected surveys from Los Angeles World Airports for LAX and Ontario International Airport (ONT). Subsequently, the managers at the South- ern California Association of Governments (SCAG) con- tributed calculations of origins and modes for airports in the entire region. Each air traveler survey included a passenger’s true origin, such as a ZIP code or a county code for the county where the trip to the origin airport started. These surveys were used to understand the distribution of true origins and true destina- tions for air travel on the California Corridor. Using statisti- cal methods, the research team used the air traveler survey data sets as well as BTS data to develop datasets reflecting the following travel progression: true origin (by county) to origin airport to destination airport to true destination (by county). Figure 3.6 displays the airport pairs for which the research team developed these county-to-county trip tables. The end result is 12 county-to-county trip tables, one for each airport OD pair shown. A county-to-county trip table can reveal the details of traveler origins and destinations for passengers passing through two airports in question. For exam- ple, by reviewing such a trip table, one could tell the number and percentage of total passengers traveling between ONT and SFO who originated in a particular county. It could also show a breakdown of destination counties for such passen- gers. As transportation is a “derived demand,” such trip tables expose the underlying county-to-county demand that an air- port-to-airport trip table obscures. As discussed in this study, major (or hub) airports such as those shown in Figure 3.6 are at or are near operating capac- ity. Innovative ways to move a growing number of passengers through airports while reducing delay are therefore welcome. Chapter 5 will examine the potential of reducing delay at a hub airport by eliminating short-haul flights and diverting very small aircraft. The county-to-county trip tables allow for a regional analysis to understand whether traveler patterns could facilitate shifting traffic to non-hub airports to reduce hub delay and pressure. Passengers may divert away from a major hub on just one link, one end substitution, or on both links, two end substitutions. 3.4.2 The Need to Go Beyond Airport-to-Airport Data Sources The previous section illustrates the potential for using trip tables based on the complete trip concept to help airport managers better understand passenger travel patterns and needs. Notably, if such trip tables were available for all airports within each mega-region, there would be great potential for focusing airport planning on passenger demand rather than flight demand. Use of mega-region–level data can pinpoint whether pas- sengers would willingly divert from hub airports to smaller non-hub airports based on their true origins and destinations. Such diversions could alleviate pressure on the hub airports. For example, the county-to-county trip table from travel between the ONT and SJC airports shows that demand exists between Monterey and Orange County. Smaller aircraft could serve these two regions directly, reducing pressure on ONT and SJC and also serving passengers with less surface access. True origin to true destination trip tables could also provide important insights into the potential of intermodal substitu- tion. For example, the trip tables show demand between Fresno and San Bernardino Counties. The California HSR line is slated for service between Fresno and ONT; the number of passengers traveling between the SJC and ONT airports could greatly decrease with the introduction of rail. Furthermore, these pas- sengers would have their access time and costs significantly reduced. Without HSR, the region could be also be served with air traffic if there were a need to reduce pressure on SJC. Another application of these county-to-county trip tables is the consolidation of flights across hub airports. The 12 county-to-county trip tables can help determine the poten- tial volume of passengers to divert from one hub airport to another. For example, there may be two flights within a few minutes of one another traveling to LAX but departing from SFO and OAK. With a county-to-county trip table, one may be able to discover that the majority of passengers flying from OAK are within a reasonable ground travel distance of SFO. With this information, it might be possible to up-gauge the flight from SFO to LAX, thus accommodating passengers origi- nally traveling from OAK. A flight might be added between a nearby airport to the remaining true passenger origins, such as Hayward, to LAX. While the number of operations is preserved at the destination (LAX), an operation was eliminated at OAK, allowing OAK the capacity to serve another non-redundant operation. 3.4.3 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 62 SFO LAX ONT OAK SJC Figure 3.6. West Coast Mega-region airport pairs.

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 convenience associated with a particular one-time study, standards and protocols for data collection, management, and reporting could be developed. Unless “true” OD data on airport pas- sengers are collected in a standardized way and on an appro- priate geographic scale (as pioneered in NERASP), the usefulness of such data for improving mega-region scale air- port 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 multi- jurisdictional airport planning that seeks to share and take advantage of regional data is a critical element of improving overall air system capacity in the coastal mega-regions and nationally. 3.5 Underused Airports in the East Coast Mega-region: Examples As a pilot project, the research team first created a county-to-county trip table to support the analysis of flows affecting key airports in California. On a more ambitious scale, the team has developed a multi-state county-to- county trip table of aviation trip-making in the East Coast Mega-region using data from the NERASP study and other sources. The following sections include a series of charts and trip tables developed through application of the county-to- county database that depict the air passenger OD patterns for seven airports in the East Coast Mega-region. These analyses could provide support to larger, more comprehen- sive studies to determining if smaller, under-capacity airports could take flights to common destinations away from large over-capacity hubs, potentially facilitating improvements in on-time performance, ground access congestion, and pas- senger choice. 3.5.1 Applying County-to-County Trip Tables in the East Coast Mega-region: Delaware River Valley To lay the foundations for a contribution to the full-scale study of the potential of underused airports to be under- taken by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commis- sion, the research team has applied the results of new meth- ods of data organization and data presentation developed for this study, based on the county-to-county database assembled. This section summarizes what was learned about three airports in close proximity to the highly con- gested PHL. In this exercise, the research team developed “natural geo- graphic market areas” that illustrate the theoretical market potential of presently underused smaller airports in the greater Philadelphia region. By way of example, Figure 3.7 shows the counties in which Allentown, Trenton, and Philadelphia rep- resent the closest airports measured only by highway travel times. Such definitions will allow the analysis of air travel- ers in the region in terms of both their demographics and their airline trips. Each of the three airports is examined in terms of their air-trip destination, and the airport they use at present in the charts and tables is presented in the follow- ing section. 3.5.1.1 Lehigh Valley International Airport As Figure 3.8 shows, only 23% of those passengers for whom Lehigh Valley International (Allentown/Bethlehem/ Easton, PA) Airport is the closest airport select the local option. Most use EWR, PHL, LGA, or JFK. More than 400,000 passengers per year fly to the Southeast (i.e., the Florida area). Of these travelers, about two thirds select a dif- ferent airport. There are more than twice as many passengers flying to this region than to the next most popular region, the Upper Midwest. In short, more than 75% of the population for whom Lehigh Valley International is the “closest” airport do not use it, choosing instead to travel to adjacent, congested airports. 3.5.1.2 Atlantic City International Airport Figure 3.9 shows that almost half of the flights for travelers in the Atlantic City area originate at Atlantic City Interna- tional. When flying to the U.S. Southeast, almost 75% of the flights originate from this airport. By contrast, travelers pri- marily use PHL when flying to other destinations in the United States. Those flying internationally travel either to EWR or JFK rather than use Atlantic City International or PHL. Thus, the addition of flights to new southeastern desti- nations would be unlikely to help the current conditions at Atlantic City International, as almost all passengers use this airport when traveling to the Southeast, which garners a dis- proportionate amount of destinations. In contrast with the pattern seen at other local airports in the study area, a surprisingly high number of air travelers in 63

the natural market area do choose to fly out of this relatively small airport. 3.5.2 Application of the Tools to Other Underused Airports: NYC Area These tools to create quick summary descriptions of the travel patterns of those who might logically benefit from using a smaller, closer airport can now be applied to virtually any airport in the project study areas. Because much of this information was included (and was pioneered by) the NERASP project, airports in New England have not been included in this chapter, with the exception of New Haven, CT, which is now shown in the context of NYC airports. The researchers have merged NERASP data with similar, but different, data collected in the NYC region to develop these unique market description summaries of smaller airports relevant to the New York capacity debate. 3.5.2.1 Long Island-Macarthur Airport Long Island-Macarthur Airport (Islip, NY) provides another example of the potential benefits of approaching airport plan- ning and operations from a regional perspective. Figure 3.10 shows that the airport captures a healthy share of trips to the Southeast—some 63%. Of the 254,000 air trips taken in 2007 to the U.S. Upper Midwest by passengers whose closest airport is Islip, about 47% flew from LGA. Similarly, of 32,000 air trips to New England, about 73% also flew from LGA. In short, about 55% of the natural geographic market “leaks” out of the area to the larger airports that offer more direct serv- ices to more locations. That Long Island-Macarthur Airport captures the remaining 45%, however, reflects the strong attrac- tion of the services of Southwest Airlines. 3.5.2.2 Stewart Airport Figure 3.11 shows, quite dramatically, that although 57% of travelers in the Newburgh/Poughkeepsie area flying to the Southeast begin their trips from Stewart Airport, the airport otherwise captures barely one third of its natural geographic market. JFK is the primary airport used when flying to an international destination or to California; LGA is used when flying to Mid-Atlanticand New England destinations and to Alaska or Canada. In short, about two thirds of those for whom Stewart would be the closest local airport are attracted to the greater range of air services in the adjacent, larger airports. 64 Figure 3.7. “Natural geographic market” areas for Allentown, Trenton, and Philadelphia airports.

3.5.2.3 Westchester County Airport As Figure 3.12 shows, of the few trips in the White Plains area that originate from the Westchester County Airport, most are for flights going to the Southeast and Midwest. Passengers traveling to California and overseas prefer JFK. In general, air- port destinations which require some transfer/hubbing could be served by connections from White Plains, while destinations with direct service from competing local airports will be harder to attract market share. In short, of those travelers for whom Westchester County would be the closest local airport, about 85% of them choose to go to adjacent, larger airports. 3.5.2.4 Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport, in New Haven, CT, exemplifies an underused airport situated in the core of a geographic area that generates millions of air passenger trips. 65 Destination Zone EWR (%) PHL (%) Lehigh Valley Intl. (%) JFK (%) LGA (%) 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 Southern California 34 30 18 16 1 South-Central America 44 23 4 28 1 Northern California 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 Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton, PA: Lehigh Valley International 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 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 an sa tla nt ic Lo w er M id dl e W es t So ut he rn C al ifo rn ia So ut h- Ce nt ra l A m er ica N or th er n Ca lifo rn ia N or th w es t Z on e N ew E ng la nd Tr an sp ac ific Al as ka /C an ad a N Y/ NJ /P A M id -A tla nt ic 0 Figure 3.8. Present airport of departure for Lehigh Valley International natural market area, by trip destination.

Figure 3.13 shows that, of the 5.8 million flights taken in 2007 by passengers whose closest airport is Tweed-New Haven Regional, only about 30,000 of these were from that airport. Nearly 1.4 million of these passenger trips were to the Southeast. The vast majority of fliers traveled 60–90 min to reach their outbound airport, mainly JFK, LGA and Bradley (Hartford, CT). In short, of those travelers for whom Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport is the closest local airport, 99% choose to go elsewhere—primarily to JFK. 3.6 Reviewing the Potential Roles of the MPOs and the Need for Larger Geographic Coverage 3.6.1 Background 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. 66 Destination Zone Atlantic City Intl. (%) PHL (%) EWR (%) JFK (%) Southeast U.S. 74 16 7 2 Southern California 40 31 15 14 Upper Midwest 23 55 18 4 Transatlantic 1 21 36 42 South-Central America 20 27 24 28 Lower Midwest 3 62 27 7 New England 0 83 8 7 Northern California 8 45 23 23 Northwest Zone 3 55 28 14 Transpacific 2 25 31 42 NY, NJ, PA 0 68 8 24 Alaska–Canada 0 52 35 12 Mid-Atlantic 0 45 24 30 Grand Total 48 28 14 10 Atlantic City, NJ: Atlantic City International 300,000 200,000 250,000 150,000 100,000 Atlantic City JFK Lehigh Valley Philadelphia Newark Liberty50,000 So ut he as t U S Up pe r M id we st Tr an sa tla nt ic Lo w er M id dl e W es t So ut he rn C al ifo rn ia So ut h- Ce nt ra l A m er ica N or th er n Ca lifo rn ia N or th w es t Z on e N ew E ng la nd Tr an sp ac ific Al as ka /C an ad a N Y/ NJ /P A M id -A tla nt ic 0 Figure 3.9. Present airport of departure for Atlantic City International natural market area, by trip destination.

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 California, numerous studies have been under- taken, including airspace utilization and potential sites for new airports. The ongoing program of SCAG (the MPO for South- ern California) in regional aviation system planning includes multi-airport demand allocation modeling and airport capac- ity analysis using an advanced discrete choice model (RADAM) that replicates air passenger choice behavior based on airport passenger surveys collected since 1992. SCAG is now plan- ning a new program to work with the airports of Southern California to address multijurisdictional issues. 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 Washington metro area MPO for passenger survey data, forecasts, and support in airport ground access analysis. The airport managers are pleased with the arrangement and rely on the data as a sound basis for planning. The more typical 67 Destination Zone Long Island- Macarthur (%) LGA (%) JFK (%) EWR (%) Southeast U.S. 63 25 10 1 Upper Midwest 45 47 6 1 Transatlantic 0 1 95 4 Southern California 50 9 39 2 Lower Midwest 39 45 14 2 Mid-Atlantic 70 25 5 0 South-Central America 1 15 80 3 Northern California 26 13 57 3 Transpacific 1 11 85 3 NY, NJ, PA 19 31 47 1 New England 1 73 25 1 Northwest Zone 34 25 37 3 Alaska–Canada 1 79 17 2 Islip, NY: Long Island-Macarthur 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 Other Logan Newark Liberty JFK LaGuardia Long Island-Macarthur 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 Grand Total 44 27 27 2 Figure 3.10. Present airport of departure for Long Island-Macarthur Airport natural market area, by trip destination.

arrangement, however, is an annual meeting of the airport and MPO staff, with briefings on current activities and sur- face transportation plans. 3.6.2 Improvements There are important opportunities to improve aviation system capacity and airport operations by embracing more collaborative and cooperative regional approaches to airport planning. Particularly in the coastal mega-regions, proactively seeking ways to use commercial airport capacity more effi- ciently will be important to maintaining the viability of air travel while accommodating forecasted growth in demand for air travel. To do so will require airport managers and govern- ing bodies to think beyond their traditional fence lines and embrace the concept of capacity-sharing with other airports in their market areas. It may not, however, be necessary to engineer an entirely new way of regional planning to make this possible. Rather, facilitat- ing such collaboration is a traditional and well-established role for MPOs. MPOs can offer airport managers truly regional perspectives on planning, data, and analyses on travel behav- 68 Destination Zone Stewart (%) JFK (%) LGA (%) EWR (%) Westchester County (%) Long Island- Macarthur (%) Bradley (%) Southeast U.S. 57 8 16 13 6 1 0 Transatlantic 0 68 1 31 0 0 0 Upper Midwest 21 7 45 18 7 1 1 South-Central America 3 61 9 27 0 0 0 Lower Midwest 24 13 34 25 2 0 1 Southern California 17 45 8 27 1 1 0 Northern California 15 48 9 25 2 0 0 Transpacific 3 65 7 25 0 0 0 Mid-Atlantic 11 15 59 6 4 2 2 Northwest Zone 18 30 16 32 3 0 1 Alaska–Canada 2 15 55 23 3 0 0 New England 1 25 59 15 0 0 0 NY, NJ, PA 12 50 26 9 1 0 0 Newburgh/Poughkeepsie, NY: Stewart 600,000 400,000 500,000 300,000 200,000 Stewart LaGuardia Newark Liberty JFK Westchester County 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 Grand Total 32 25 20 19 4 0 0 Figure 3.11. Present airport of departure for Stewart Airport natural market area, by trip destination.

ior and demand in a geographically broad area and a neutral “table” at which airport managers and other key stakeholders can sit to work through coordination options and opportuni- ties. Further, MPOs are in a logical position to lead or facilitate development of county-to-county trip tables for travel within and to mega-regions, which could assist in aviation planning in a way that serves passenger demand while acknowledging flight demand. In April 2008, a staff member of the FAA gave the follow- ing views on a possible framework for the MPO’s role in air- port planning: • Consult with the FAA, state aviation agency, and local air- ports to determine role, identify critical issues, and discuss needed study types; • Manage regional aviation studies; • Complement state aviation studies; • Advocate for aviation enhancement and preservation; and • Serve as a contact for regional surface access, air quality, and land-use planning issues (7). Consistent with this framework, the research team believes that airport planning could be regionalized by reaching out 69 Destination Zone LGA (%) JFK (%) Westchester County (%) EWR (%) Bradley (%) Stewart (%) BOS (%) Southeast U.S. 43 13 30 8 3 2 0 Upper Midwest 64 6 19 6 4 0 0 Transatlantic 2 83 0 15 0 0 0 Lower Midwest 62 14 7 11 5 1 0 South-Central America 17 68 1 12 2 0 0 Southern California 17 57 6 13 5 1 0 Mid-Atlantic 68 10 9 2 8 0 1 Alaska–Canada 70 12 9 7 2 0 0 Northern California 18 58 7 12 4 0 1 New England 76 19 0 4 0 0 0 Transpacific 12 73 2 11 2 0 0 NY, NJ, PA 41 47 3 3 3 0 2 Northwest Zone 31 35 12 15 6 1 0 Grand Total 41 30 15 9 3 1 0 White Plains, NY: Westchester County 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 200,000 Other Bradley Newark Liberty Westchester County JFK LaGuardia 600,000 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 3.12. Present airport of departure for Westchester County Airport natural market area, by trip destination.

to MPOs and engaging them in aviation system planning efforts. Joint discussions could be convened among airport managers and MPO officials, to outline the structure and content of regional planning efforts, tailored to the specific needs of each major metropolitan area. Although “official” MPO planning areas are not necessarily precisely coincident with the geographic market areas of airports, it is not uncom- mon for co-terminus MPOs to formally or informally share data and modeling tools and expertise. This has been par- ticularly true in mega-regions with multiple MPOs where formal jurisdictional boundaries do not reflect actual travel patterns (e.g., Washington, D.C.–Baltimore, the Tampa Bay Region, and the San Joaquin Valley). 3.7 Summary Observations The existing multijurisdictional projects discussed in this chapter provide examples of ways in which transportation issues that transcend airport boundaries have been addressed through regional planning approaches. Most important is that, in each case, the airport managers/operators recognized the need to cooperate and collaborate, to varying degrees, for their 70 Destination Zone JFK (%) LGA (%) Bradley (%) EWR (%) PVD (%) Westchester County (%) BOS (%) Tweed-New Haven (%) Southeast US 37 26 26 4 2 4 1 1 Transatlantic 95 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 South-Central America 85 5 7 2 0 0 0 0 Upper Midwest 19 42 30 3 2 2 1 1 Southern California 74 5 16 3 1 0 0 0 Lower Midwest 33 30 29 4 2 1 1 1 Transpacific 88 3 5 2 0 0 0 0 Northern California 76 5 14 3 1 0 1 0 Mid-Atlantic 20 28 41 1 6 1 1 2 NY, NJ, PA 68 13 12 1 4 0 2 1 Northwest Zone 56 11 25 4 2 1 1 0 Alaska–Canada 35 45 14 3 0 1 1 0 New England 53 44 0 2 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 59 17 17 3 1 1 1 1 New Haven, CT: Tweed New Haven 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 400,000 800,000 200,000 Other Bradley Newark Liberty Theodore Francis Green JFK LaGuardia 600,000 So ut he as t U S Up pe r M id we st Tr an sa tla nt ic Lo w er M id dl e W es t So ut he rn C al ifo rn ia So ut h- Ce nt ra l A m er ica N or th er n Ca lifo rn ia N or th w es t Z on e N ew E ng la nd Tr an sp ac ific Al as ka /C an ad a N Y/ NJ /P A M id -A tla nt ic 0 Figure 3.13. Present airport of departure for Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport natural market area, by trip destination.

common good. In addition, the cross section of applications of advanced planning methods for California, the Philadelphia region, and the NYC region show that data collected and ana- lyzed on a multijurisdictional basis can be directly applied to decision making on a local or case-by-case basis. In the case of NERASP, a variety of parties representing diverse interests across six states recognized the value of think- ing as a region in order to help air travelers fly to and from New England in an efficient and timely manner. The NERASP initiative has facilitated greater air service access for more peo- ple throughout the region and decreased BOS’s share of the region’s air traffic even as the number of flights overall has climbed. In the two major regions of California and the Washington/ Baltimore region, well-established MPOs have assumed major roles in facilitating a regional perspective on airport planning. In the Washington/Baltimore region, the MWCOG has col- lected, analyzed, and reported data on passengers, ground access, and other areas for all three major hubs (IAD, DCA, and BWI). This information has been used not only for air- port facility planning, but also for multimodal ground access planning that facilitates more flexibility in what airports flights may serve and in passenger choice. In the Los Angeles Basin, SCAG has developed new modeling tools for airport access. In San Francisco, the MTC leads development of the RASP and convenes stakeholders in the often-contentious airport system planning process. Importantly, the MTC’s regional perspective has helped create a willingness among airport managers to think “beyond their fence lines” about how to continue serving the region’s increasing demand for passenger air service in ways other than further overburden- ing major hubs. Content. The creation of new regional analyses would allow the collection and analysis of information not previously examined in the planning process, with a few exceptions such as NERASP and on-going work in California. As noted in Section 3.2.1, the research team believes that one of the missing elements in the process of regional analysis is a well-articulated and well-documented statement of passenger preference. This is not a simple matter, as it would encompass a variety of fac- tors typically grouped as airport level-of-service issues (aver- age delay, number of delays in excess of 15 min, number of cancellations) as well as airline service considerations (com- petition, fare structure, non-stop destinations and type of equipment). However, a thorough analysis of these factors could produce the information and the regional consensus needed to support local recommendations on how to develop strategies to deal with congestion and delay at airports. Another topic that needs regional attention is the transition to more efficient airport ground access, to offer greater convenience and lower carbon emissions.31 As noted, for a multi-airport (regional) systems planning process to work, there has to be a transition from over-reliance on airport-to-airport analysis of flows. While critically impor- tant, they must be supplemented by data to support a more fine-grained analysis. To support the policy analysis of alterna- tive roles for various airports in a super-region, it is necessary to organize the basic data on a true-origin to true-destination basis. Pioneering work undertaken by MITRE in the FATE data uses a county-to-county basis for their forecasting activ- ities. Such a focus for the data structure allows for a better integration with presently available data from non-aviation sources and potentially would support later integration with highway and rail forecasting activities. This chapter has demonstrated the application of county-based true origin data to the simple task of examining natural geographic mar- ket areas—but this is only a rudimentary example of the need to organize aviation data in this manner. Timing. Today, planning and development decisions for major commercial service airports are usually not influenced in any significant way by regional planning. The researchers believe, while this is the prevailing situation, it is far from desirable. A major finding of this research is that the regional planning process is not being used to its potential. The weak regional system planning process is an artifact of an earlier era, and today it can impede efforts to optimize the airport system. The concept of improving the regional planning approach is timely; changes would have little immediate financial impact and therefore should not confront overwhelming institu- tional obstacles. The critical parties for changing regional air- port system practices exist on the federal, metropolitan, and airport-specific levels. The research team believes that there is willingness to implement major changes at all three levels. The major obstacle is inertia, and on the basis of the inter- views, it appears that there is more than enough energy and enthusiasm to overcome such inertia. To start the process of revitalizing and empowering the regional system planning process, the research team suggests that airport operators and MPOs could be contacted to outline the structure and con- tent of regional planning efforts, tailored to the specific needs of each major metropolitan area. 71 31 The reader is referred to ACRP Report 4 for a complete discussion of these issues.

Next: Chapter 4 - Airport-Specific Implications of the Major Themes »
Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 31: Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions examines the aviation capacity issues in the two coastal mega-regions located along the East and West coasts of the United States. The report explores integrated strategic actions to that could potentially address the constrained aviation system capacity and growing travel demand in the high-density, multijurisdictional, multimodal, coastal mega-regions.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!