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 27
27 operator. Furthermore, airports with a high number of non- noted that many transit systems do not operate a schedule that business, nonresident airline passengers often have a local caters to all airport employees. Transit systems typically end economy that is dependent upon the hospitality industry, service late in the evening and begin service early the next resulting in external influences to maintain high levels of cus- morning. For airports that have a significant shift change dur- tomer service for rental car customers. Not surprisingly, deci- ing late-night hours (particularly airports hosting hubbing air- sions on where to locate employee, rental car, and public line operations) and for those airport tenants whose employees parking facilities may be made using a set of goals and objec- work during off-peak hours (e.g., janitorial and maintenance tives based on the important issues at the time. Consequently, crews), public transit may not be a viable transportation option. new strategies involving relocation of one parking product at the expense of another can be both politically challenging and costly. Depending upon the size of the local parking and rental Environmental Objectives car markets, public parking and rental car facilities can coex- Environmental objectives for the parking program pro- ist in a shared facility. In other cases, they can not. Under- vide guidance for management and operation of the parking standing the need for both types of parking operations is a program that may take into consideration the environmen- significant influencing factor when determining the goals and tal impacts of trips generated. In addition, the relationship objectives for airport parking facilities. between more efficient fuel technologies and the parking program is another important consideration, especially for HOV Modes. The relationship between decisions regard- those vehicles that the airport operator controls. For exam- ing parking and HOV modes is often considered at airports ple, the provision of shuttle service using alternative fuel with a wide selection of HOV modes or where transit con- vehicles between remote public parking areas and the termi- nections to the airport are available. In some cases, there is a nal area or between employee lots and places of employment, relationship between these modes so decisions related to one the requirement that off-airport parking operators use alter- mode may influence the use of the other mode; however, at native fuel vehicles in their shuttle bus fleets, the provision some airports, the available HOV modes may not be viable of an APM system to transport customers between parking options for airline passengers or employees because of the dif- and the terminal area or places of employment, and the bal- ferential in travel times compared to the private automobile ance between parking within walking distance of the termi- or other single-party modes, the geographic coverage of the nal area and parking in remote locations all have environmental service area, and the trip schedules in relation to the airline pas- implications. sengers' travel needs. Furthermore, research conducted for this project indicated that constrained public parking condi- tions at airports lead to a higher increase in pickup and drop- Land-Use Objectives off activity by airline passengers than to increased use of HOV Land-use objectives as they relate to the parking program modes. This result applies to airports that offer a range of provide guidance for management and operation of the park- HOV options as well as those that offer limited HOV options. ing program. These objectives may relate to the proximity Employee Parking. The cost of operating employee park- of parking for the customers served or the income-producing ing should be considered in relation to the cost of subsidizing potential of the property, or other preferences. An exam- transit. For example, if the employee cost for a monthly park- ple would be the airport operator's desire to locate public, ing pass at an airport is less than the price of a monthly tran- employee, and rental car parking in areas where it represents sit pass, it may serve as a disincentive for employee transit use. the highest and best use of the property, considering the net This disincentive not only undermines the ability of the airport revenue the property will generate. For remote parking, the net operator to reduce employee vehicle trips, but it also presents revenue calculation would include the cost to operate shuttle a financial operating loss to the airport operator if the cost for service between the parking area and the terminal area or providing employee parking is not recovered. It should be places of employment.