Guidebook for Measuring Performance of Automated People Mover Systems at Airports (2012)

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.

52 The previous chapters of this report have established a methodology for tracking, calculating, and recording perfor- mance measures for APM systems at airports. By standard- izing the data requirements and computational methods for these measures, it is expected that measurement data prepared for different APM systems would be directly comparable. If that is so, then such data would be of great benefit to airport APM operators, airport administrators, airport APM planners, APM system manufacturers, and other interested parties, provided that a program is established for collecting and disseminating the information. Having such information widely available would advance the APM industry and make it even more effective in solving the transportation issues that will continue to exist at airports in the future as passenger traffic continues to grow. Thus it is worthwhile at this juncture to identify and discuss some of the issues that may be involved with establishing a program for collecting and disseminating airport APM performance data, which is the primary subject of this chapter. Before getting into the discussion of imple- menting a national-level program, however, the following section addresses the implementation of an airport APM performance measures program at the local level—that is, for an individual airport APM system. 7.1 Implementing an Airport APM Performance Measures Program for an Airport APM System Implementing an airport APM performance measures program at the local level—for an individual airport APM system—is straightforward and involves the collection, tracking, calculation, and reporting of performance measures and related data to interested individuals for the particu- lar airport APM system. In the context of implementing the program at the local level, data for the system and service descriptive characteristics do not necessarily need to be tracked, collected, calculated, or reported since these are largely used to provide context to the airport APM performance measures once said measures are used for comparison purposes against other airport APM systems. While the initial setup of the performance measures program may need the involvement of an IT staff member to automatically extract ATS data from the control center computer system, in many cases control center personnel will thereafter collect, track, calculate, compile, and report the performance measures in accordance with the rules and frequencies discussed in Chapter 5 and using (if needed) the tools provided as a download with this guidebook from the summary page for ACRP Report 37A at http://www.trb.org/ Main/Blurbs/166387.aspx, as well as the forms in Exhibit A. As many airport APM systems operate many hours per day, into the night, and even 24 hours per day, control center staff, who are required to be on duty whenever the system is operating, often are ideal candidates to be responsible for the performance measures program. The daily report can be prepared by the control center staff early in the morning for the previous day’s operation, reflecting all of the performance measures and associated data relevant to the organization, and be available to the organization’s general manager first thing in the morning. Performance measure reports should be posted in a conspicuous location for the entire organization to view, which provides employees with a sense of accomplishment that their contribution in the organization is ultimately recognized through stable and/or improving performance measures. The following sections discuss implementation of an airport APM performance measures program at a level that will allow multiple airport APM systems to report, share, and compare performance measures data on a regular basis. 7.2 Administrative and Funding Issues It is important to note the differences in the airport APM industry and the urban transit industry in the United States. (Note: While this discussion focuses on United States APM C h a p t e r 7 Implementing an Airport APM Performance Measures Program

53 and urban transit systems, similar jurisdictional issues exist in Canada and throughout North America.) Urban transit systems in the United States typically receive some level of federal financial support for capital construction and expansion. Because of this, the federal government is able to (and does) impose requirements on the funding recipients to collect and report system performance data on an annual basis. The result is the National Transit Database (NTD). This database contains a wealth of data and information that are collected and reported by transit operating properties throughout the United States. It is available free to the public at http://www.ntdprogram.gov. The information is substantial and comprehensive and is thus very useful to transit planners, administrators, and owner/operators. However, the information comes at a price: to the transit owners/operators, the price is the cost of collecting, organizing, and reporting the data. [In most cases, additional employee(s) are required at the transit properties to deal with this report- ing requirement. There are classes taught periodically around the United States to educate and train transit representatives in the specifics of this job.] To the federal government, the cost is the administrative organization required to process the reported data and ensure its availability to the public. In short, because of the leverage gained by funding urban transit systems, the federal government has been able to establish and perpetuate a program of urban transit performance information. This is not the case with the airport APM industry. With rare exceptions, airport APM systems are constructed and operated with local funding. Therefore, the leverage used by the federal government to establish the National Transit Database for urban transit systems does not exist in the airport APM arena. Furthermore, there is no central authority that has jurisdiction over the operational and safety issues of air- port APM systems. While the FTA, through enacted legisla- tion, mandates that individual states oversee the safety of the transit systems in their states, it is left up to the individual states to decide whether airport APM systems are included in this mandate. In cases where a state determines that air- port APMs are included, state representatives perform safety audits and other oversight activities on the airport systems in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the FTA. Some states do this, but most do not. In summary, virtually all airport APM systems in the United States are constructed, owned, and operated by local entities—airport authorities and/or cities—without federal involvement. This presents a considerable obstacle to implementing a national (or North American) program for collecting and disseminating airport APM performance data. Similar issues arise when considering the funding that would be required to implement a nationwide program. Quite simply, no central funding source is apparent. Furthermore, even if there were a central funding source, persuading legis- lators and/or administrators to allocate scarce resources to a new program of this type, in today’s financial environment, seems unlikely. For these reasons, a logical conclusion at this time is that implementation of a nationwide airport APM performance measurement program would have to begin on a voluntary basis. This conclusion serves as a basis for the following discussions in Section 7.3, Airport Participation Issues, and Section 7.4, Data Collection and Reporting Issues. 7.3 Airport Participation Issues If one accepts the previous conclusion that an airport APM performance data collection and reporting program will have to be (at least started) on a voluntary basis, then the central question that must be addressed is: Why would an airport APM operator want to participate and thereby incur the attendant costs? And the most obvious answer is that participation is perceived by the operator as in some way enlightening and/or benefitting its operational activities. The program must be organized and implemented with this goal clearly in focus. And how would participation in a performance measur- ing program benefit an airport APM operator? Perhaps by providing the operator with: • Quantitative system information to enforce internal con- tractual requirements (in cases where O&M activities are performed by contract entities), • Quantitative system information to support internal requests for funding, • Quantitative information to be used in discussions with airport airlines and tenants, • Comparative information about other systems in order to assess relative performance levels achieved, • Comparative information about other systems to establish goals for improving and/or modifying performance and costs in order to optimize system operation and service levels, or • Comparative information about other systems to persuade airlines and/or airport tenants of the efficacy of choosing (or remaining at) the airport. In short, knowledge is power and competition is motiva- tional. A voluntary program for collecting, reporting, and exchanging airport APM performance data would have to be designed and promoted on this basis. Practically speaking, such a program would have to be sold. A primary, initial task of the sponsoring agency or association would be to recruit participants. Person-power, money, and time would have to be devoted to contacting candidate airports, explaining

54 the program, and convincing the airport of the benefits of (voluntary) participation. In addition to issues related to the collection and reporting of data, there are issues surrounding the compilation and dis- semination of the data. As noted previously, there is no read- ily apparent central agency to perform this task. It is therefore reasonable to ask what other entities might exist that could assume that responsibility. (Again, with the stipulation that no funding source has yet been identified.) The following candidates might be considered: • Airport industry associations. There are several associations of airport industry firms and individuals that are active in the United States and North America. All of these asso- ciations receive dues from their members and therefore (presumably) have some (no doubt limited) funds for discretionary spending. It is possible that one of these associations might be persuaded to sponsor a program for quantifying airport APM performance. Candidate asso- ciations include: – Airports Council International–North America (ACI-NA). This group represents airport owners/operators and includes most of the largest airports in North America, many of which own and operate airport APMs. This is the largest of the associations noted here, and it has institutional funding. It is possible that ACI-NA would consider sponsoring an APM performance measuring program. – American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE). Members of this group are typically individual execu- tives working at various airports, large and small. Their involvement with airport APM systems has historically been limited. – Airport Consultants Council (ACC). ACC is an associa- tion of private firms doing business with airports and includes many of the largest architectural and engineer- ing consultants in the world. Many of these firms have intimate involvement with the planning, implementation, and operation of airport APMs and might possibly see an advantage in sponsoring an airport APM performance measuring program, at least initially. • ASCE APM Standards Committee. The ASCE APM Stan- dards Committee has become the single most influential organization in the United States with respect to standard- izing requirements for airport APM systems. A voluntary group of industry professionals, owner/operators, manu- facturers, and suppliers, this committee was established to consider and promulgate standard requirements applicable to the design, implementation, and operation of airport APM systems. The ASCE APM Standards Committee has the expertise to administer an APM data program; however, it has (at present) minimal funding and relies entirely on volunteer staffing. • University research. There are many North American universities that offer specialized education in many areas of transportation, including airports. It is possible that a university group or class, organized and sponsored by an interested faculty member, might be willing to take on this assignment, perhaps just for the start-up phase. However, funding would probably be an issue. The previous items are suggestions that might be explored further in an effort to continue the work and benefits of this guidebook. 7.4 Data Collection and Reporting Issues As with any complex undertaking, establishing an airport APM performance reporting program would require identi- fying and resolving many detailed issues associated with the data itself. Some of these issues are: • Legal agreements. The program as envisioned would involve collecting, pooling, and potentially distributing data that is owned by, and proprietary to, the APM-operating airports. Would this require a legal framework and agreements between the airports and sponsor governing the handling and use of the resulting information? This concern would especially apply to financial data. • Election of Service Availability Approach Tier A, B, or C. This guidebook envisions three levels of participation for the Service Availability measure, each progressively requir- ing more work but providing greater return. A primary consideration for an airport considering participating in the program would be which tier to implement. Consider- ation would involve assessing resources currently in place, prospects for more resources, and the airport’s assessment of the benefits attendant with each tier. It would be benefi- cial, even necessary, for a sponsoring agency representative to advise the airport on this choice. • Procedures. What form would the reporting process take? As noted elsewhere in this guidebook, many of the larger airport APM systems already collect performance infor- mation automatically, as a function of the system’s central control. Would that data simply be downloaded to disk and sent to the sponsor? Would formatting issues have to be worked out to allow aggregation by the sponsor? Would common forms be required for airports that do not collect information automatically, or would they just send in copies of their logs and records to be processed by the sponsor? • Frequency. How frequently would data be submitted for processing?

55 • Availability. To whom would the data be available? This would obviously have to be spelled out in any legal agree- ment(s) between the participants. An argument can be made that the data should only be available to the airports that participate in the program. In a broader sense, however, the industry would garner more benefits if the data were available to a larger community of professional airport planners, operators, and even system manufacturers. • Scope. What airports would be able to participate? Although this report has focused on North American airports, there are many airport APM systems not located on this continent. The industry would benefit from their inclusion—would they be allowed? • Authority and control. Contemplating the issues raised previously makes it apparent that many decisions would have to be made in the course of the program, both to ensure it was implemented in accordance with the objectives of this guidebook and to ensure that the program grows and evolves in the most expeditious and beneficial way. Who has the authority to make such decisions? Would the sponsor have complete authority, or would the sponsor answer to an industry group (like the ASCE APM Standards Committee) that would approve significant policy and operational decisions? 7.5 Conclusions The preceding sections posed many questions, not as impediments to implementing an airport APM performance measures program but as reasonable challenges. As noted throughout this report, the benefits of such a program would be myriad and worthwhile. If it were easy, it would have already been done. The APM industry is now mature and is destined to play a central role in the growth of airports for years to come. That prospect should motivate industry participants to recognize the potential benefits of an airport APM performance measures program and rise to these challenges.