National Academies Press: OpenBook

Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection

« Previous: Chapter 6 - Predicting Outcomes of Selected Strategies
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Guidelines for Strategy Selection." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14435.
×
Page 76

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.

62 This chapter provides guidance on selecting strategies to manage or resolve constrained airport public or employee parking conditions. An approach for filtering, selecting, and evaluating strategies is presented and followed by examples. Strategy Selection Approach A step-by-step approach that airport operators and others can follow to select strategies to manage or resolve constrained airport parking is presented in this section. The approach consists of three phases: • Initial filtering phase—A qualitative evaluation of strategies to eliminate strategies from further consideration; • Alternatives analysis phase—A rigorous, analytic evaluation of strategies; and • Comparative analysis phase—A comparison of viable alter- natives to identify the best solution for the airport operator. In Chapter 3, the development of goals and objectives for the provision and management of an airport parking program was described in the context of the airport operator’s guiding principles for operating and managing an airport. These goals and objectives for the parking program serve as the frame- work for filtering and selecting strategies to manage or resolve constrained parking and for evaluating the performance of the strategies once adopted. For purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that the airport operator has developed goals and objectives for its parking program. If it has not, the guiding principles and other influencing factors described in Chapter 3 should be used as the framework for selecting the preferred strategy or combination of strategies. Initial Filtering Phase Multiple strategies may have the potential to resolve or help manage parking constraints at a particular airport; however, some may not be plausible based on the circumstances at the airport, the desired timeframe for achieving results, and the goals and objectives for the parking program. The purpose of the initial filtering phase is to qualitatively evaluate and elim- inate strategies from further consideration. The recommended initial filtering steps are illustrated in Figure 3 and include the following: • Step 1—Define the targeted results that an airport operator desires to resolve or manage a constrained parking situation. In many cases, implementation of an individual strategy may not allow an airport operator to achieve its targeted results. Therefore, the airport operator should consider what pro- portion of the targeted results may be acceptable to retain a strategy for further consideration as a stand-alone strategy or in combination with other strategies. This lower threshold, which represents a portion of the targeted result, is referred to as the “threshold result.” The threshold result represents the minimum level of acceptability for a strategy to remain as a viable potential solution for further consideration and evaluation. • Step 2—Evaluate strategies for consistency with goals and objectives of the parking program and the ability to implement the strategies within the airport environment (e.g., consider external influences such as local or state ordinances). Eliminate those strategies that are inconsistent with the airport operator’s goals and objectives or that are not viable for other reasons. • Step 3—Evaluate strategies for the potential to achieve the threshold results and eliminate those that do not. Strategies that have not been eliminated in Step 3 are carried forward to the alternatives analysis phase. Alternatives Analysis Phase In the alternatives analysis phase, each strategy that passed the initial filtering phase is analyzed to estimate whether its C H A P T E R 7 Guidelines for Strategy Selection

63 Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., and DMR Consulting, November 2009. Figure 3. Strategy selection—initial filtering phase.

64 implementation would achieve the threshold results. Also considered in the analysis is whether the related effects of strategy implementation are consistent with the goals and objectives for the parking program. Related effects in addition to parking demand, as discussed in Chapter 5, include potential effects on financial performance, vehicle traffic, the environ- ment (i.e., air quality), and customer service. The following steps, depicted in Figure 4, are recommended to evaluate strategies under consideration in the alternatives analysis phase. Combinations of strategies, referred to as “packages of strategies,” can be analyzed using the same steps once the analyses of individual strategies are complete. Steps in the alternatives analysis phase are as follow: • Step 4—Project parking-related outcomes of each strategy or packages of strategies using predictive tools or method- ologies. (See Chapter 6 for information on predicting the outcomes of selected strategies.) • Step 5—Evaluate the projected parking-related outcomes of each strategy (or packages of strategies) for the ability to achieve the targeted or threshold results, and eliminate those strategies that would not achieve the threshold results. • Step 6—Calculate related effects of strategies (or packages of strategies) using outputs of predictive methodologies or other information. Actual calculations in this step will depend on the objectives defined for the parking program and their prioritization. For example, projected revenues, estimated costs, vehicle traffic impacts, or environmental impacts might be of concern to the airport operator. • Step 7—Evaluate the related effects of each strategy (or package of strategies) to identify effects that are unacceptable based on the goals and objectives for the parking program and eliminate these strategies. If the strategy (or package of strategies) achieves the targeted results (defined in Step 5), and if the related effects of the strategy (or package of strategies) are consistent with the goals and objectives, carry the strategy (or package of strategies) forward to the compar- ative analysis phase. If the effects of the strategy are consistent with the goals and objectives and the strategy achieves the threshold results but not the targeted results, carry the strategy forward to Step 8. • Step 8—For strategies projected to achieve the threshold results, determine if they can be packaged with other strate- gies to potentially achieve the targeted results. If so, repeat analysis and evaluation Steps 4 through 7 for the package of strategies. If not, consider whether achievement of the threshold results is sufficient for further consideration and carry the strategy forward to the comparative analysis phase or eliminate the strategy. In Steps 4 through 8, an airport operator identifies the strategies and packages of strategies that achieve the targeted results and are consistent with the airport operator’s goals and objectives for the parking program. These strategies and packages of strategies represent the range of viable alterna- tives to manage or resolve parking constraints at an airport. The viable alternatives are carried forward to the comparative analysis phase. If only one strategy or package of strategies is identified as viable through the alternatives analysis, the airport operator does not need to conduct a comparative analysis. This viable strategy is the preferred strategy. Comparative Analysis Phase If a preferred strategy or package of strategies was not iden- tified in the alternatives analysis phase, the remaining viable alternatives are analyzed for comparison in this phase, as shown in Figure 5, to identify the best solution for the airport oper- ator given the environment in which the airport operates, as well as the goals and objectives for the parking program. The following steps will assist an airport operator in comparing viable alternatives and identifying a preferred alternative: • Step 9—Rank each alternative based on how well it meets the primary objective(s) of the parking program. • Step 10—Develop a subordinate ranking based on how well each alternative meets the secondary objectives of the parking program. • Step 11—Compare implementation requirements (such as financial resources, level of effort, timeframe) and related effects (such as financial performance) among alternatives. Consider other factors unique to the airport that are relevant to selection of an alternative, including the benefits derived and negative effects of each alternative. Steps 9 through 11 should provide sufficient differentiation among the viable alternatives for an airport operator to make a final selection of a preferred strategy or package of strategies to manage or resolve parking constraints. Strategy Selection Example An example of the strategy selection process based on a theoretical airport parking scenario follows. The subject air- port is a medium-hub airport experiencing a constrained parking situation in 2009. Table 16 summarizes the key attrib- utes of the airport’s parking program and constrained park- ing situation for the theoretical scenario. Nature and Causes of Constraints When the garage, located in the terminal area, reaches 90% capacity, extra personnel are assigned to assist customers in

Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., and DMR Consulting, November 2009. Figure 4. Strategy selection—alternatives analysis phase. 65

66 Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., and DMR Consulting, November 2009. Figure 5. Strategy selection—comparative analysis phase.

finding a space. Private automobiles are “stuffed and stacked” before the garage is closed. This adds another 5% capacity to the garage, but sometimes private automobiles remain in unofficial spaces for several days. Extra personnel were deployed in the garage for 48 days in the previous year (2008). Garage parking was closed on 20 days, and drivers of private auto- mobiles were diverted to remote parking, or they chose to use privately operated off-airport parking. The number of private automobiles denied access to the garage is difficult to quantify because a computerized “Lot Full” sign board is activated when designated spaces are 100% full. The airport’s website pro- vides information on whether the two parking facilities have space available or are full. Vehicle traffic counts conducted at various locations within the terminal area indicate that terminal area vehicle traffic also increased during the con- strained periods. The increase in vehicle traffic may indicate that (1) long-term parkers shifted to single-party drop-off modes in anticipation of busy periods, (2) short-term parkers used the terminal curbside rather than parking, or (3) long- term parkers dropped off members of their travel party at the terminal curbside before parking. During these periods, the airport operator received customer complaints, primarily from business travelers with trip durations of 2 days or less who had difficulty finding an available parking space within the garage. Data from the revenue control system indicates the average distribution of exits by length of stay in the public parking facilities during constrained periods in spring 2009, as shown in Table 17. Data from the O&D airline passenger survey conducted in spring 2008 indicated that the majority of customers using remote parking are traveling for nonbusiness purposes. Attribute Description Objectives of Parking Program Primary: Maintain or enhance net revenue. Secondary: Consider customer service implications and minimize excess vehicle traffic caused by constraints. Additional Information Relevant to Provision and Management of Parking Program No land is available to expand terminal area parking. Fifty percent of employees using terminal area parking work for employers who have the right to terminal area employee parking through lease agreements with the airport operator. Parking revenue control system is 2 years old. It is capable of processing differential rates, but not variable rates. Airport management will not approve the investment for system upgrades. Airport-Operated Parking Supply Public parking supply = Y Terminal area garage parking is 40% of airport-operated parking supply (0.4Y) Daily rate = X Hourly rate = 0.2X Remote surface parking with shuttle bus is 60% of airport-operated parking supply (0.6Y) Daily rate = 0.75X Privately Operated Parking Supply Multiple facilities with shuttle service Supply is 30% of airport-operated public parking supply (0.3Y) Daily rates vary by facility from 0.6X to 0.85X. Employee Parking Supply Remote employee lot serves some employees that work in the terminal area with a shuttle bus. Customers of Public Parking Supply Terminal area parking: short-term parkers, long-term parkers, and some employees in terminal area Remote parking: long-term parkers Constrained Parking Problem Since 2006, terminal area public parking has been full on Tuesdays through Thursdays most weeks in the spring and fall. Remote parking has excess capacity except for holiday periods. Remote employee lot has excess capacity. Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 16. Key attributes of airport parking program and parking constraints, 2009, theoretical airport. 67

68 Although the majority of long-term parkers using the garage are business travelers, the proportion of nonbusiness airline passengers increases substantially for stays of more than 3 days. This information is presented in Table 18. Potential Strategies The following strategies were identified for consideration in resolving the constrained parking problem at the theoretical airport. • Strategy A1: Adjust Rates, Traditional—Increase the maximum daily rate in the garage to make the daily rate in the remote lot more attractive to price-sensitive customers using terminal area parking. This strategy is likely to influence a high proportion of airline passengers park- ing for longer than 3 days because the proportion of non- business airline passengers increases with stays longer than 3 days. • Strategy A2: Adjust Rates, Differential—Increase the daily rate in the garage for stays of more than 3 days to make the rate in the remote lot more attractive to price-sensitive cus- tomers staying longer than 3 days. • Strategy A3: Adjust Rates, Variable—Adjust rates during the spring and fall to provide guaranteed spaces in both the garage and remote parking facilities for customers who book in advance at rates that are geared toward preserving space in the garage for customers who do not book in ad- vance. Customers who do not book in advance are more likely to be business travelers who are willing to pay more to maintain flexibility. • Strategy B: Relocate Employee Parking—Half of the employees parking in the garage can not be relocated because of lease agreements between their employers and the airport operator. The remaining employees would be required to move to the remote lot, which would free-up garage space accordingly. • Strategy C: Introduce a Premium Product—Develop a premium parking product in the garage tailored to busi- ness travelers. Allocate a certain number of parking spaces for customers who most want to park in the garage and are willing to pay a premium for the privilege. The program includes two options: either purchase of a permit or ac- cess card that can be transferred among employees for a monthly fee equivalent to the fee for parking 25 days per month in the garage, or a pay-as-you-go option provided at a daily rate equivalent to 30% more than the garage rate and with no monthly payment required. • Strategy D: Introduce Valet Parking—Offer curbside valet service at a premium over the daily rate for garage parking for customers that place the highest value on quick access to the terminal. Automobiles can be stored in the remote lot or elsewhere on airport property. The premium should be set to help resolve the parking constraint, while considering the effects of too many customers shifting to valet parking. • Strategy E: Expand the Terminal Area Parking Supply— Add spaces to the parking supply to accommodate fore- cast demand over the next 10 years. Proportion of Exits Length of Stay Garage Remote Lot 0–2 Hours 20% 0% 2–6 Hours 10% 1% 6–24 Hours 30% a 6% 1–2 Days 24% 10% 2–3 Days 4% 38% 3–5 Days 5% 21% More Than 5 Days 7% 24% Total 100% 100% Note: a Of the parking customers in the garage who park for a duration of 6–24 h, two-thirds are airline passengers and one-third are employees. Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 17. Average distribution of parking exits, Tuesday through Thursday, spring 2009, theoretical airport. Garage Remote Lot Length of Stay Business Nonbusiness Total Business Nonbusiness Total Up to 1 Day 84% 16% 100% 8% 92% 100% 1–2 Days 86% 14% 100% 12% 88% 100% 2–3 Days 78% 22% 100% 9% 91% 100% 3–5 Days 62% 38% 100% 18% 82% 100% More than 5 Days 52% 48% 100% 23% 77% 100% Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 18. Trip purpose by length of stay for long-term parkers, theoretical airport.

• Strategy F: Introduce Technology Improvements, Auto- mated Parking Guidance System (APGS)—Install APGS technology to guide customers to available spaces in the parking garage. In conjunction with the APGS, computer- ized signs will be placed along the airport entrance road- ways that indicate the number of spaces available in the parking facilities. Initial Filtering Phase Potential strategies identified in the previous section are qualitatively evaluated in the initial filtering phase. Step 1—Define Targeted and Threshold Results Targeted results for the airport are defined as (1) the elimi- nation of garage closures and (2) reduction in the number of days extra personnel are needed to manage the parking opera- tion to 10 days or less per year. This equates to an 80% reduction in the number of days extra personnel are needed compared to 2008 numbers, and a 100% reduction in garage closures. The airport operator defined threshold results for strategies based on whether a capital investment is needed to implement the strategy. For strategies that require a capital investment, the minimum threshold for the number of days extra personnel are needed is less than or equal to 10 days, and a threshold has not been specified for garage closures, but closures cannot exceed 2008 levels. For other strategies, the threshold of 40% of targeted results must be achieved, which is equivalent to no more than 33 days of extra personnel per year and no more than 12 garage closures per year. Step 2—Evaluate Strategies for Consistency with Goals and Objectives As shown in Table 19, two strategies were eliminated because they were not consistent with airport operator goals and objectives. The adjustment of rates through the use of a variable pricing strategy (A3) was eliminated because airport management was unwilling to invest in upgrades to the new parking revenue control system. The strategy to expand the terminal area parking supply (E) was eliminated because land is not available in the terminal area to accommodate an expanded garage. Step 3—Evaluate Strategies for Potential to Achieve Threshold Results As shown in Table 20, one strategy (C—the introduction of a premium parking product) was eliminated because it does not have the potential to achieve the threshold results. The initial determination was that the strategy would preserve spaces for customers who value parking in the garage the most, but it would not reduce garage closures or the need for extra personnel. Initial Filtering Phase Summary As follows, the remaining strategies will be carried through to the alternatives analysis phase to predict parking-related outcomes and assess their suitability to achieve the targeted results: • Strategy A1: Adjust Rates, Traditional; • Strategy A2: Adjust Rates, Differential; • Strategy B: Relocate Employee Parking; • Strategy D: Introduce Valet Parking; and • Strategy F: Introduce Technology Improvements, APGS. Alternatives Analysis Phase Each strategy that was not eliminated in the initial filtering phase is carried through for analysis to determine its potential to achieve the threshold and targeted results and to determine Strategy Barriers to Adoption Based on Parking Goals and Objectives or Other Reasons? Advance to Step 3? A1. Adjust Rates, Traditional No Yes A2. Adjust Rates, Differential No Yes A3. Adjust Rates, Variable Yes No B. Relocate Employee Parking No Yes C. Introduce a Premium Product No Yes D. Introduce Valet Parking No Yes E. Expand Terminal Area Supply Yes No F. Introduce Technology Improvements, APGS No Yes Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 19. Example strategy selection, Step 2 evaluation results, theoretical airport. 69

70 the compatibility of other related effects with the airport oper- ator’s goals and objectives for the parking program. Step 4—Project Outcomes of Strategies Using predictive methodologies, the following changes in parking-related activity were estimated for each of the remaining strategies. • Strategy A1: Adjust Rates, Traditional—It is estimated that a 25% increase in the daily parking rate in the garage would eliminate garage closures, but extra personnel would be needed for approximately 20 days per year. That is, there would be a 58% reduction in extra staff needed during the year. This strategy would achieve 100% of the targeted results for garage closures and 74% of the targeted results for the number of days extra personnel would be needed; thus, this strategy would achieve the threshold results. • Strategy A2: Adjust Rates, Differential—Application of this strategy would not change the daily rate for customers parking in the garage for up to 3 days. The daily rate for customers parked longer than 3 days would increase equiv- alent to a 25% increase in the average daily rate for each day parked. It is estimated that this strategy would reduce garage closures to 6 days per year, and extra personnel would be needed for approximately 28 days per year. That is, there would be a 42% reduction in extra staff needed during the year. This strategy would achieve 70% of the targeted results for garage closures (i.e., 14-day reduction in closures divided by the target reduction of 20 days) and 53% of the targeted results for reducing the number of days extra staff would be needed to manage the garage during constrained events (i.e., 20-day reduction divided by the target reduction of 38 days); thus, this strategy would achieve the threshold results. • Strategy B: Relocate Employee Parking—Through appli- cation of this strategy, 50% of employees with garage per- mits would be required to park in the remote employee parking lot. The remaining 50% would remain in the garage because of contractual agreements with airport employers. Implementation of this strategy would have approximately the same result as a 25% increase in the daily rate for garage parking. This strategy would achieve 100% of the targeted results for garage closures and 74% of the targeted results for the number of days extra person- nel would be needed; thus, this strategy would achieve the threshold results. • Strategy D: Introduce Valet Parking—Analysis indicates that curbside valet services offered at a daily rate that is 15% higher than the daily rate for parking in the garage would eliminate garage closures and reduce the number of days extra staff would be needed to approximately 6 days per year. This strategy would achieve 100% of the targeted result for both garage closures and numbers of days extra staff are needed and, therefore, would achieve the thresh- old results. • Strategy F: Introduce Technology Improvements, APGS— Through introduction of an APGS, the airport operator would be able to eliminate all days that extra personnel would be needed, but garage closures would increase from 20 to 38 days per year, as the extra 5% of capacity achieved in terms of spaces not typically available to the public would not be possible without management by extra per- sonnel. Although 100% of the targeted result for extra staff would be achieved, this strategy would fail for the number of garage closures per year. Therefore, it would not achieve the targeted or threshold results established for strategies involving capital projects. Step 5—Evaluate Strategies for Ability to Achieve Targeted or Threshold Results Based on the analysis conducted in Step 4, Table 21 pre- sents the recommendations on which to advance to Step 6, which were determined by evaluating whether the strategies would achieve the targeted or threshold results. Strategy F (Introduce Technology Improvements, APGS) is eliminated Strategy Potential to Achieve Threshold Results ? Advance to Step 4? A1. Adjust Rates, Traditional Yes Yes A2. Adjust Rates, Differential Yes Yes B. Relocate Employee Parking Yes Yes C. Introduce a Premium Product No No D. Introduce Valet Parking Yes Yes F. Introduce Technology Improvements, APGS Yes Yes Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 20. Example strategy selection, Step 3 evaluation results, theoretical airport.

from further consideration as a strategy to resolve parking constraints at this time because it would not achieve the thresh- old results as discussed previously under Step 4. Step 6—Calculate Related Effects of Strategies Related effects of the strategies—such as financial, vehicle traffic, and customer service effects—were estimated based on the primary goal of maintaining or enhancing net revenue, and secondary goals of considering customer service implications and minimizing vehicle traffic impacts, with the following results: • Strategy A1: Adjust Rates, Traditional—The financial, vehicle traffic, and customer service effects resulting from this strategy were estimated, with the following results: 1. Net revenue impacts would be positive, as it is estimated that a 25% increase in the daily parking rate would result in a 7.5% increase in gross revenues, and operat- ing costs would decrease because of a reduction in extra personnel costs for from 48 days to 20 days. 2. The analysis of vehicle trips generated indicated that public parking exits would decrease by 1%. Public park- ing customers are projected to shift from parking at the airport primarily to being picked up and dropped off by private automobile or to using taxicabs and single- party limousines. A few customers are projected to shift to privately operated off-airport parking facilities and HOV modes. Shifts to single-party drop-off modes would result in additional vehicle traffic generated on the airport roadway system compared to airline passen- gers traveling by private automobile and parking for the duration of their trips. In addition, some customers who shift from garage parking to remote parking would pick up and drop off other members of their travel party at the terminal curbside prior to entering or after exit- ing the remote parking facility, which would generate additional vehicle trips. The airport operator does not have data on the number of vehicle trips generated dur- ing constrained events as the result of vehicles traveling from the closed parking facility to the terminal curb- side, remote parking, and privately operated parking, but the average net daily vehicle trips on the airport roadway system would increase 1.2%. This increase would not result in an unacceptable level of service on the airport roadway system. 3. From a customer service perspective, a 25% increase in rates is a steep increase, but rates at the airport have not been adjusted for 3 years. The airport operator believes that this rate increase is the highest increase customers would tolerate. The analysis indicates that total public parking exits would decrease 1%. These customers would shift to other modes because they are dissatisfied with the parking rate increase. • Strategy A2: Adjust Rates, Differential—The financial, vehicle traffic, and customer service effects resulting from this strategy were estimated with the following results: 1. Net revenue effects are estimated to be positive. A 25% increase in the average daily parking rate for customers parking for more than 3 days would result in a 2.5% increase in gross revenues, and operating costs would decrease as the result of a reduction in extra personnel costs from 48 days to 28 days. 2. The analysis of vehicle trips generated indicated that public parking exits would decrease by 0.5%. Public parking customers would shift primarily to being picked up and dropped off by private automobile or to using taxicabs and single-party limousines. A few customers would shift to privately operated parking facilities and HOV modes. Shifts to single-party drop-off modes would result in additional vehicle traffic generated on the airport roadway system compared to airline pas- sengers traveling by private automobile and parking for the duration of their trips. In addition, some cus- tomers shifting from the garage parking to remote parking would pick up and drop off other members of their travel party at the terminal curbside prior to Strategy Potential to Achieve Threshold Results ? Potential to Achieve Targeted Results ? Advance to Step 6? A1. Adjust Rates, Traditional Yes No Yes A2. Adjust Rates, Differential Yes No Yes B. Relocate Employee Parking Yes No Yes D. Introduce Valet Parking Yes Yes Yes F. Introduce Technology Improvements, APGS No No No Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 21. Example strategy selection, Step 5 evaluation results, theoretical airport. 71

72 entering or after exiting the remote parking facility, which would generate additional vehicle trips. The air- port operator does not have data on the number of vehicle trips generated during constrained events as the result of vehicles traveling from the closed parking facility to the terminal curbside, remote parking, or privately operated off-airport parking, but estimates that the average net daily vehicle trips on the airport roadway system would increase 0.8%. This increase would not result in an unacceptable level of service on the airport roadway system. 3. From a customer service perspective, a 25% increase in parking rates is a steep increase, but rates have not been adjusted for 3 years. The airport operator believes that this rate increase is the highest increase customers would tolerate. A differential rate has not been introduced at the airport, and customers may have difficulty understand- ing the rate or may feel it is unfair for customers who park for a longer term to be singled out for a rate increase. The analysis indicates that total public parking exits would decrease by 0.5%. These customers would shift to other modes because they are dissatisfied with the parking rate increase. • Strategy B: Relocate Employee Parking—The financial, vehicle traffic, and customer service effects resulting from this strategy were estimated with the following results: 1. Net revenue effects are estimated to be positive. Each parking space occupied by an airline passenger that was previously occupied by an airport employee will have a positive effect on net revenues, as the fee for employees to park in the garage is a small fraction of the daily rate for public parking in the garage. Although the airport operator does not have data to estimate the increase in gross revenues from implementation of this strategy, the airport operator assumed that implementation of this strategy would result in an approximate 1% increase in gross revenues. The strategy would also decrease oper- ating costs because of a reduction in extra personnel costs from 48 days to 28 days. 2. In this theoretical example, the airport operator does not have data on the number of vehicle trips generated dur- ing constrained events as the result of vehicles traveling from the closed parking facility to the terminal curbside, remote parking, or privately operated parking facilities, but estimates that the average net daily vehicle trips on the airport roadway system would decrease 0.2%. 3. From a customer service perspective, implementation of this strategy would be an improvement for airline pas- sengers using the parking garage, and would have neg- ative customer service implications for airport employ- ees working in the terminal area who would lose their ability to park in the garage. Employees and their employers may be dissatisfied. • Strategy D: Introduce Valet Parking—The financial, vehi- cle traffic, and customer service effects resulting from this strategy were estimated with the following results: 1. Gross revenues would increase about 2% and operating costs would decrease as a result of a reduction in extra personnel costs from 48 days to 6 days. Factoring these changes in with the estimated costs to operate the valet service, implementation of this strategy would have a negative effect on the net revenues generated by public parking. 2. Vehicle trips generated by customers using valet park- ing would increase because of the shuttling activity required for the parking staff to transport the vehicle from the terminal curbside to the valet parking area and to transport the valet parking employee back to the terminal area (and vice versa on the airline passen- ger’s return trip). The airport operator does not have data on the number of vehicle trips generated during constrained events as a result of vehicles traveling from the closed parking facility to the terminal curbside, remote parking, and privately operated parking facili- ties, but estimates that the average daily net vehicle trips on the airport roadway system would increase 0.5%. This increase would not result in an unacceptable level of service on the airport roadway system. 3. Implementation of this strategy would be a customer service improvement for airline passengers who prefer terminal area parking. Step 7—Evaluate Related Effects in Context of Goals and Objectives Based on the analysis in Step 6, Table 22 presents the recom- mendations on which strategies to advance to Step 8, which was determined by evaluating whether the strategies were compatible with the airport operator’s goals and objectives for the parking program. All strategies were carried forward to Step 8, except for Strategy D (Introduce Valet Parking), because it did not meet the financial objectives of preserving or enhancing net revenues. Step 8—Identify Packages of Strategies The strategies that would achieve the threshold results but not the targeted results—Strategies A1, A2, and B—were

reviewed to determine if the strategies could be packaged to improve results. Two strategy packages were identified: • Strategy Package 1—Adjust Rates, Traditional (Strategy A1) plus Relocate Employee Parking (Strategy B); and • Strategy Package 2—Adjust Rates, Differential (Strategy A2) plus Relocate Employee Parking (Strategy B). In addition to the two strategy packages, the airport operator decided to retain Strategies A1 and B as stand-alone strategies because both would almost achieve the targeted results. Table 23 summarizes the strategies and packages of strategies retained at this step. The Step 4 through 7 analyses of the two strategy packages defined in Step 8 are discussed below. Return to Step 4 for Strategy Packages— Project Outcomes of Strategies • Strategy Package 1 (Strategy A1: Adjust Rates, Traditional plus Strategy B: Relocate Employee Parking)—By combin- ing a traditional rate increase with elimination of half of the employee parking permits for the parking garage, this strat- egy package is estimated to eliminate garage closures and the need for extra personnel to manage the garage because implementation of the strategy package would resolve the constraint. Therefore, this strategy package would achieve the targeted results. • Strategy Package 2 (Strategy A2: Adjust Rates, Differential plus Strategy B: Relocate Employee Parking)—By combin- ing a differential rate increase with elimination of half of the employee parking permits for the parking garage, this strategy package is estimated to achieve 100% of the tar- geted results for garage closures, and extra personnel would be needed on 10 days to manage the garage during con- strained periods. Therefore, this strategy package would achieve the targeted results. Return to Step 5 for Strategy Packages— Evaluate Strategies for Ability to Achieve Results Based on the analysis conducted in Step 4, both packages of strategies are projected to achieve the targeted results. Table 24 presents recommendation on which strategy packages to advance to Step 6 based on the results of the evaluation of the ability of the strategy packages to achieve either the targeted results or the threshold results. Return to Step 6 for Strategy Packages— Calculate Related Effects of Strategies Related effects of the strategy packages, such as financial, vehicle traffic, and customer service effects, were estimated based on the primary goal of preserving net revenues and secondary goals of considering customer service implications and minimizing vehicle traffic impacts. • Strategy Package 1 (Strategy A1: Adjust Rates, Traditional plus Strategy B: Relocate Employee Parking)—The finan- cial, vehicle traffic, and customer service impacts were esti- mated with the following results: 1. It is estimated that implementation of Strategy Package 1 would have approximately the same gross revenue effects as implementation of the 25% traditional rate increase Strategy Potential to Achieve Threshold Results ? Potential to Achieve Targeted Results ? Compatibility of Related Effects to Goals and Objectives for Parking Progra m? Advance to Step 8? A1. Adjust Rates, Traditional Rates Yes No Yes Yes A2. Adjust Rates, Differential Rates Yes No Yes Yes B. Relocate Employee Parking Yes No Yes Yes D. Introduce Valet Parking Yes Yes No No Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 22. Example strategy selection, Step 7 evaluation results, theoretical airport. Strategy Achieves Targeted Results ? Advance to Next Step of Analy sis? A1. Adjust Rates, Traditional No a Yes—Step 9 A2. Adjust Rates, Differential No No B. Relocate Employee Parking No a Yes—Step 9 Strategy Package 1 (A1 + B) To be determined Yes—Step 4 Strategy Package 2 (A2 + B) To be determined Yes—Step 4 Note: a Strategy almost achieves targeted and threshold results, so airport operator decided to advance the strategy. Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 23. Example strategy selection, Step 8 summary of strategies retained, theoretical airport. 73

74 (i.e., a 7.5% increase in gross revenues). Operating costs would decrease with the elimination of the need for the 48 days of extra personnel costs to manage the con- strained parking conditions. 2. The analysis indicated that public parking exits would decrease 1%. Public parking customers are projected to shift primarily to being picked up and dropped off by private automobile or to using taxicabs and single-party limousines. A few customers are projected to shift to privately operated parking facilities and HOV modes. Shifts to single-party drop-off modes would result in additional vehicle traffic generated on the airport road- way system compared to airline passengers traveling by private automobile and parking for the duration of their trips. In addition, some customers shifting from the garage to remote parking will pick up and drop off other members of their travel party at the terminal curbside prior to entering or after exiting the remote parking facility, which would generate additional vehicle trips. In this theoretical example, the airport operator does not have data on the number of vehicle trips generated dur- ing constrained parking events as the result of vehicles traveling from the closed parking facility to the terminal curbside, remote parking, and privately operated park- ing, but estimates that the average net daily vehicle trips on the airport roadway system would increase 1.2%, but the level of service on the airport roadway system would not decrease. 3. From a customer service perspective, although a 25% increase in the parking rate is a steep increase, rates have not been adjusted for 3 years. The airport opera- tor believes that this is the highest rate increase customers would tolerate. The analysis indicated that total public parking exits would decrease 1%. These customers would shift to other modes because they are dissatisfied with the parking rate increase. Combined with the additional capacity from relocating employees, customers using the garage would be able to find a parking space without assistance from personnel and would not be diverted to remote parking, which is a customer service improve- ment. There would be negative customer service impli- cations for airport employees working in the terminal area who have lost the ability to park in the garage. The employees and their employers may be dissatisfied. • Strategy Package 2 (Strategy A2: Adjust Rates, Differential plus Strategy B: Relocate Employee Parking)—The finan- cial, vehicle traffic, and customer service impacts were esti- mated with the following results: 1. It is estimated that implementation of Strategy Pack- age 2 would have approximately the same gross revenue impacts as implementation of the differential rate struc- ture for the parking garage (i.e., a 2.5% increase in gross revenues). Operating costs would decrease with the reduction from 48 days to 10 days of excess personnel needed to manage the constrained parking conditions. 2. The analysis indicated that public parking exits would decrease by 0.5%. Public parking customers are pro- jected to shift primarily to being picked up and dropped off by private automobile or to using taxicabs and single- party limousines. A few customers are projected to shift to privately operated parking and HOV modes. Shifts to single-party drop-off modes would result in additional vehicle traffic generated on the airport roadway system compared to airline passengers who travel by private automobiles and park for the duration of their trips. In addition, some customers shifting from the garage to remote parking would pick up and drop off other mem- bers of their travel party at the terminal curbside prior to entering or after exiting the remote parking facility, which would generate additional vehicle trips. In this theoretical example, the airport operator does not have data on the number of vehicle trips generated during constrained events as a result of vehicles traveling from the closed parking facility to the terminal curbside, remote parking, and privately operated parking, but estimates that the average net daily vehicle trips on the airport roadway system would increase 0.8%, but the level of service on the airport roadway system would not decrease. 3. From a customer service perspective, although a 25% rate increase is a steep increase, rates have not been adjusted for 3 years. The airport operator believes that Strategy Potential to Achieve Threshold Results ? Potential to Achieve Targeted Results ? Advance to Step 6? Strategy Package 1 (A1 + B) Yes Yes Yes Strategy Package 2 (A2 + B) Yes Yes Yes Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 24. Example strategy selection, Step 5 evaluation results for strategy packages, theoretical airport.

this is the highest rate increase customers would toler- ate. A differential rate has not been introduced at the airport, and customers may have difficulty under- standing the rate or may feel it is unfair for customers parking for a longer duration to be singled out for a rate increase. The analysis indicated that total public parking exits would decrease by 0.5%. These customers would shift to other modes because they are dissatisfied with the parking rate increase. Combined with the additional capacity from relocating employees, customers using the garage would be able to find a space without assistance from personnel and would not be diverted to remote parking, which is a customer service improvement. There would be negative customer service implications for airport employees working in the terminal area who have lost the ability to park in the garage. The employees and their employers may be dissatisfied. Return to Step 7—Evaluate Related Effects in Context of Goals and Objectives The related effects of the two strategy packages were con- sidered to be compatible with the airport operator’s goals and objectives for the parking program. Alternatives Analysis Phase Summary Table 25 summarizes the results of the analysis of the strategies and strategy packages that are to be carried forward into the comparative analysis phase. Comparative Analysis Phase and Strategy Selection The comparative analysis phase consists of three steps (Steps 9 through 11) that may be conducted simultaneously. These steps are discussed together in this section. In this theoretical example, the airport operator ranks each strategy and strategy package from 1 (best) to 4 (worst) based on the primary and secondary goals of the parking program, as shown in Table 26. Net revenues and excess vehicle trips can be ranked based on quantitative data, but the ranking for customer service is subjective. Strategy B, Relocate Employee Parking, was ranked as the most desirable strategy from a cus- tomer service standpoint, because management has ranked customer service for airline passengers as more important than customer service for employees. The airport operator ranked Strategy Package 2 as the worst for customer service because, even though fewer customers would be subject Strategy Achieves Targeted Results ? Airport Operator Decision to Carry Forward ? Advance to Step 9? A1. Adjust Rates, Traditional No Yes 1 Yes A2. Adjust Rates, Differential No No No B. Relocate Employee Parking No Ye s 1 Yes Strategy Package 1 (A1 + B) Yes Yes Yes Strategy Package 2 (A2 + B) Yes Yes Yes Note: 1 Airport operator decided to carry forward the strategy because it almost achieves the targeted results. Source: DMR Consulting, Novem ber 2009. Table 25. Example strategy selection, alternatives analysis phase summary, theoretical airport. Strategy Preserve or Increase Net Revenues Ranking Excess Trips Generated Ranking Customer Service Ranking A1. Adjust Rates, Traditional 1 3 2 B. Relocate Employee Parking 3 1 1 Strategy P ackage 1 (A1 + B) 1 3 3 Strategy Package 2 (A2 + B) 2 2 4 Source: DMR Consulting, November 2009. Table 26. Example strategy selection, ranking of strategies based on primary and secondary goals of parking program, theoretical airport. 75

76 to a rate increase, it is believed that customers would have difficulty understanding and accepting the concept of the differential rates and that the strategy package would also inconvenience employees. Although the traditional rate adjustment (Strategy A1) and Strategy Package 1 would have the greatest effect on numbers of vehicle trips generated, air- port management determined that Strategy A1 and Strategy Package 1 would not degrade the level of service on the air- port roadway system. Based on the comparative analysis, the airport operator in this scenario selects Strategy Package 1 because it is ranked the highest for the primary goal of preserving or increasing net revenues, at a rate level that the airport operator believes the market will tolerate, given that parking rates have not been raised in 3 years. Employee parking in the terminal area is exacerbating the constrained parking situation. For several years, the airport operator has recognized that each space occu- pied by an employee vehicle represents lost revenue in the garage. The airport operator believes that, from a public rela- tions standpoint, it will be easier to relocate employees if the effects of resolving the problem are shared between employees and airline passengers. If the airport operator is concerned about customer ser- vice impacts or vehicle trip generation with the 25% rate increase, it could analyze Strategy Package 1 with a lower parking rate increase to determine if the targeted results could be achieved. If customer service were the primary goal rather than net revenues, Strategy B, the relocation of employees to remote parking, would have been selected as the preferred strategy.

Next: Chapter 8 - Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies »
Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 34: Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports explores different types of parking constraints that airports experience and highlights tools to assess the impacts of the constraints and strategies to deal with them.

The handbook includes a predictive modeling tool in a CD-ROM format designed to help determine the effects of implementing various parking strategies. The CD is also available for download from TRB’s website as an ISO image. Links to the ISO image and instructions for burning a CD-ROM from an ISO image are provided below.

Help on Burning an .ISO CD-ROM Image

Download the .ISO CD-ROM Image

(Warning: This is a large file that may take some time to download using a high-speed connection.)

An Executive Summary of ACRP Report 34: A Handbook to Assess the Impacts of Constrained Parking at Airports is available for download.

The contractor's final report on the research that was used to develop ACRP Report 34 is available for download.

CD-ROM Disclaimer - This software is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences or the Transportation Research Board (collectively "TRB") be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

  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!