Commercial Ground Transportation at Airports: Best Practices (2015)

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.

45 Examples of Best Practices This chapter presents examples of the best practices for man- aging commercial ground transportation services at airports used successfully by the operators of airports of varying types and sizes throughout the United States and Canada. Empha- sis is given to innovative and creative practices, which have been successfully implemented at U.S. airports to improve the airport customer experience, support the efficient and effec- tive operation of airport facilities, support environmental and sustainability goals of airport management, enhance airport revenues, and achieve other relevant management objectives. These best practices are presented by type of commercial ground transportation service and organized into the fol- lowing sections: • Taxicabs—both exclusive access and open access, • Limousines, • Ride-booking services, • Shared-ride vans, • Courtesy vehicles, • Scheduled buses and vans, and • Charter buses and vans. In addition, best practices are presented concerning the fol- lowing topics, which are applicable to several types of ground transportation services: • Supporting environmental goals and sustainability initiatives, • Creative passenger boarding areas, and • Selecting the appropriate solution for a particular airport. A. Taxicabs The following pages describe best practices for managing and controlling taxicabs. The initial pages provide an over- view of taxicab operations while subsequent pages describ- ing best practices are organized into the following sections, grouped according to practices applicable to all on-demand taxicabs, those operating under an open access model, or those operating under an exclusive access model. Best Practices Applicable to All On-Demand Airport Taxicab Services A1. Vehicle Standards A2. Driver Standards Best Practices Applicable to Open Access Taxicab Services A3. Fee Collection A4. Addressing Excessive Taxicabs/Long Driver Waits A5. Taxicab Rotation System A6. Addressing Insufficient Taxicabs/Long Customer Waits A7. Short Trip Procedures A8. Dispatcher/Starter Responsibilities A9. Processes for Communicating with Drivers A10. Driver’s Lounge A11. Driver Training Programs A12. Enforcement Best Practices Applicable to Exclusive Access Taxicab Services A13. Bid vs. Proposal A14. One, Two, or Three Concessionaires A15. Business Arrangements A16. Oversight/Administration of Contract Overview of Taxicab Operations at Airports Taxicabs are a primary ground transportation service found at all airports, and with a few exceptions, their appearance is typically the same—sedans, SUVs, and small vans, painted in company colors/markings with a top light indicating the vehicle is operating as a taxicab. Most have time and distance meters (e.g., taximeters) in them to calculate the fare for the customer. Almost all airports have two types of taxicab C H A P T E R 8

46 service—on-demand or walk up service and prearranged taxicab service—and charge taxicabs a fee for the privilege of picking up passengers. However, while airport taxicab services may look similar to the user, their organization, management, cost, and levels of service differ greatly from airport to airport. For example, some airports charge taxicabs to both drop off and pick up but in general, most charge only an access fee which is applied upon arriving at the taxicab holding area or exiting the airport with a customer. The most common form of airport taxicab service is the on-demand or walkup service typically found at the deplaning curb near the baggage claim area. Taxicabs wait in a single file line (nose-to-tail) at the curb, where the drivers, generally with the aid of a taxicab starter or dispatcher, load arriving passen- gers into their vehicles and quickly depart the airport. Generally airport operators attempt to locate this service as close to the baggage claim area as possible and in an area visible to airline passengers as they exit the building. The number of waiting taxicabs is typically a function of the availability of curb space, the amount and frequency of customer demand, and the time required to replenish the queue line from the taxicab hold lot. At airports having heavy demand for taxicab service or where a significant amount of time is required to replenish the curb line, airports may utilize a feeder line or “chute” located away from the terminal curb but close by so replenishment time and thus, passenger wait time, is minimized. Prearranged taxicabs at airports are taxicabs which the arriving airline passenger has either arranged for prior to their airline portion of their trip or once at their destination air- port by calling the taxicab company or requesting a specific taxicab driver. Most prearranged trips result from a customer having a preference for a particular driver (referred to as a “personal”) or a specific company with which the customer or their employer has a pre-established relationship. Today, many taxicab companies have their own apps which the arriv- ing airline passenger can use to request a taxicab. When the call or app reservation is arranged through a taxicab company dispatch system, these trips are offered to the closest taxicab on their system or the one who has been in the airport hold lot or surrounding zone the longest The objective of most airport staff with respect to on-demand taxicabs is that quick, clean, and professional service always be available at times when passengers are arriving. Common problems airport staff encounter with taxicab operations are: • Short trip refusals—drivers refusing to transport custom- ers requesting low-fare trips • Insufficient number of waiting taxicabs to serve customers during late night hours, when there are irregular airline operations, or periods of inclement weather • Excessive numbers of waiting taxicabs leading to drivers having long wait times for arriving customers • Drivers charging customers excessive fares by taking longer routes, improperly adding surcharges, or tampering with the meter • Drivers exhibiting reckless driving or rude behavior to customers or airport personnel • Use of vehicles which are dirty, have torn seats, dents, or are not properly maintained • Drivers refusing to transport service animals or charging excessive fees for baggage handling • Drivers seeking preferential, higher value trips, attempting to bribe or “tip” airport personnel or others To eliminate these problems, airport management seek to control both the quality and quantity of on-demand taxicab services at their airport. More information about standards for taxicab vehicles and drivers is presented in Sections A1 and A2 of this chapter. Best Taxicab Practices in General Airports have varying degrees of authority in dealing with the arrangement of on-demand taxicab services as some may be limited to what their local government feels is best for the airport and the community. Independent airport authorities typically have the greatest flexibility in designing their taxicab services. Airports not under the direct control of a city or county government have the ability to (1) require higher stan- dards for taxicab vehicles and drivers than may be required by local jurisdictions, (2) determine which taxicabs and/or taxicab companies may pick up on-demand passengers at the airport, and (3) determine whether their on-demand airport taxicab service will be operated under an open, exclusive, or semi-exclusive access model. Open Access Taxicab Model As described in earlier sections of this guidebook, an open access taxicab system is one in which any taxicab properly registered in the city (or another local regulatory author- ity accepted by the airport operator) can enter the airport and wait for and transport arriving airline passengers who are seeking on-demand taxicab service as long as the taxicab operator complies with the airport’s rules and regulations regarding on-demand taxicab vehicles and services. Exclusive Access Taxicab Model An exclusive access taxicab model is considered an oper- ating model where the airport operator has awarded a con- cession contract to one or more taxicab companies and only allows the taxicabs of these companies to provide on-demand taxicab service at the airport. Exclusive systems are normally

47 wish to ensure there are sufficient numbers of taxicabs wait- ing at the curbside to serve all arriving airline passengers, even during periods of peak demand. However, airport managers recognize that having too many waiting taxicabs increases the length of time drivers must wait for fares, reduces the num- ber of trips per day each driver serves, and thus reduces the driver’s income. Drivers receiving insufficient revenue are more likely to defer maintenance expenses, seek to avoid pay- ing for insurance and other costs, and potentially engage in improper activities such as refusing low-fare trips. To balance demand with supply, airport managements analyze available data to determine the demand for on-demand taxicab ser- vice. When the peak demands occur, the driver’s waiting and travel times decrease but waiting times for passengers may increase due to the lack of available taxicabs. Key inputs to these analyses include the number of taxi- cabs departing the terminal during peak and off-peak hours, the range of round-trip travel times between the airport and customers’ destinations, and the number of customers seeking service by hour of the day during peak and off-peak periods. Using an analytical model, typically simulation, it is possible to test alternative numbers of taxicabs until there is minimal wait time for arriving customers. With these data, airport manage- ment can see the minimum number of taxicabs needed to serve the airport under normal conditions and during busy periods. If data are available from a GTM system, it can be down- loaded for analysis purposes. From this data, one can typically determine the number of taxicabs serving the airport; their frequency; waiting times and service times; and trips per day. If GTM data are not available, data may be obtained through a variety of sources. If time-stamped tickets are issued to drivers as they enter the airport hold lot, a sample of these tickets may be analyzed to obtain the required data. If no other data are available, traffic surveys can be conducted at the exit of the hold lot. This data analysis provides airport staff with an estimate of the number of taxicabs required to serve the airport now and in the future. With this information, airport management can balance the supply and demand of taxicabs, determine arranged through a concession contract awarded through a competitive bid or RFP process. Exclusive or semi-exclusive concessions contracts for airport on-demand services are sometimes referred to as “closed” taxicab service. While only the company(ies) awarded the concession contract may pick up on-demand customers, other taxicab companies licensed by local regulatory officials may also pick up airline passengers by prearrangement. The bid or RFP will typically set the minimum standards of service regarding vehicle age, condition, and appearance, driver qualifications and attire, insurance, and operating rules and regulations while on airport property. Often an airport operator requires that the selected concessionaire pay the higher of a minimum annual guarantee (MAG) amount or a fee calculated based on a taxicab concessionaire’s annual rev- enue or other indicator of the volume of business conducted (e.g., a fee per outbound taxicab trip or per deplaned airline passenger). For example, in 2014 the taxicab concession con- tract at Palm Beach International Airport included a MAG of $266,000 per year while the taxicab concessionaire at Seattle- Tacoma International Airport paid a MAG of $3,600,000. Air- ports frequently reserve the right to adjust the MAG amount when the number of deplaning passengers changes or to reflect the activity based fee paid by the concessionaire during the prior year (e.g., the higher of the prior year’s MAG or 85% of the per-trip fees paid during the year). Table 8-1 summarizes the key differences between an open access and exclusive access taxicab system. While difficult to say these key differences appear in all cases, it is generally felt by industry representatives that these are the key attributes of both open and closed taxicab systems. Determining the Number of Vehicles Required to Serve the Airport Airport management frequently seek to determine how many taxicab vehicles are required to serve the airport in order to balance customer demand for taxicab service with the number of waiting vehicles. Typically airport managers Exclusive Access Operating System Open Access Operating System Only contracted taxicab companies Open to all Easier to manage More difficult for airport staff to manage More trips per driver Fewer trips per driver Higher revenue to drivers and airport Lower revenue to drivers and airport Higher quality service Lower quality service More political issues over contract awards Fewer curb management issues Fewer short trip refusals Fewer customer complaints Less likely to run out of taxicabs Less likely to have holding lot issues Fewer political issues about who can serve the airport More short trip refusals More likely to run out of taxicabs Greater number of customer complaints Greater number of holding lot issues Table 8-1. Comparison of open and exclusive access taxicab systems.

48 limitation typically means that automobiles used as taxi- cabs will have considerably fewer miles on them before they are retired. • Vehicle capacity. The vehicle must provide capacity for at least five but not more than eight passengers and for the secure storage of their baggage. Airport officials have also found it necessary to specify what vehicles can be registered as taxicabs. Most common regulations for airport taxicabs specify that the vehicle be a four-door sedan, a six or fewer passenger van, an SUV, or similar vehicle. This eliminates both the ultra-small vehicle and the stretch limousine from being placed into service as a taxicab. • Alternative fuels. Airport officials wishing to improve air quality in the region have encouraged the use of alterna- tive fuels by taxicabs in several ways. These include reduced airport fees and/or head-of-the line privileges for taxicabs using alternative fuels such as natural gas, propane, elec- tric, or hybrid vehicles. – Reduced fees. Airports have used both a reduction in (1) airport permit fees for vehicles utilizing alterna- tive fuels and/or (2) their per-trip charges as the two primary methods of encouraging the use of alternative fuels. Denver International Airport provides at 10% fee discount for taxicabs using alternative fuel. – Head-of-the-line privileges. A more dramatic impact can be had by granting head-of-the-line-privileges to taxicabs that use alternative fuels. This procedure allows a taxicab to bypass the long waits in the taxicab hold lot and proceed to a much shorter line of alternative fuel vehicles or, in some cases, directly to the airport curbside for passenger pickup. If only a small number of taxicabs out of the fleet opt for alternative fuels, the impact on the total number of trips they make in a day from the airport can be dramatic. When SFO initiated head-of-line privileges, alter- native fuel taxicabs were making 7 to 10 more trips per day than they had been under the prior system. On the other hand, non-alternative fuel taxicabs were waiting much longer in line—some obtaining only one trip per driver shift. Such disparity in trips prompted protests and a lawsuit by the operators of the standard-fueled taxicabs affected by the system. Thus, consideration should be given to the use of encouragements that reward those taxicab operators that switch to alternative fuels but do not penalize those that do not. Boston Logan International Airport allows alternative fuel taxicabs to proceed to the head of the line between noon and 8:00 PM but limits this incentive to once per day for each vehicle. With the increased price of gasoline in recent years, a political push for alternative fuels has been unnecessary due to the voluntary use of alternative fuels. Taxicab drivers, of their own accord, are finding it cheaper to switch to the appropriate size of the hold lot, or use the data for other purposes, such as to support the development of an RFP for an on-demand taxicab concession or methods to manage the number of taxicabs serving the airport each day. A1. Vehicle Standards Description These are recommended standards, including minimum age and physical requirements, for all vehicles providing on- demand airport taxicab service. These are considered mini- mal standards for serving arriving customers and may exceed local regulatory standards. Purpose Standards are established to ensure vehicles are mechani- cally safe and all amenities of the vehicles such as heating and cooling are in good working order. Additionally, airport officials wish to present the traveling public with acceptable vehicles that are clean inside and out. Thus, standards may also be set for the size and type of vehicle that may be used as a taxicab, the cleanliness of the vehicle, markings and signage permitted on the vehicle, and operation of the vehicle when on airport property and roadways. Vehicle Age, Size, and Type Taxicab vehicles typically operate over 200 or more miles per day or between 50,000 to 60,000 miles per year—assuming time out for repairs and a 6-day work week. This is four to five times the mileage driven by a typical personal vehicle, and this driving is often in highly congested urban areas with many stops and starts in a single trip. Thus, vehicle age and proper maintenance are important considerations for airport man- agement. The recommended minimum standards for a vehi- cle used to provide on-demand airport service are: • Vehicle age. A vehicle that is less than 7 model years old and preferably less than 5 model years old. When the vehicle is introduced into service it may not have accumulated more than 40,000 miles. Setting a maximum mileage for the vehicles such as 350,000 or 400,000 miles is problematic because it depends upon either a self-report by the vehicle owner or a reading of the vehicle’s odometer which may have been tampered with. Thus, a common practice by airport staff is to set a maximum number of model years that a vehicle may be used in airport service, typically around 5 to 6 model years. At 50,000 miles per year, this would mean that few vehicles would be driven more than 350,000 miles. However, since few taxicab fleet operators purchase new vehicles, this age

49 is often referred to as “100/500/100” coverage. The airport must also be protected and be named as a co-insured on the taxicab vehicle insurance and ensure that it is informed immediately should the insurance on any taxicab serving the airport lapse. • Technologies. The use of a taxicab concession agreement typically permits the airport to specify additional technolo- gies such as the use of the latest in-vehicle GPS for deter- mining the shortest and/or fastest route for the passenger; in-vehicle cameras for protection of driver and passenger; credit card acceptance and a credit card system with a back seat card swipe; and mobile data terminals for checking air- line flight status for passengers coming to the airport. Applicability Taxicab vehicle standards and minimum insurance require- ments help ensure safe, efficient, and effective on-demand taxi- cab service for airline passengers. In an open airport situation, the airport must use its permitting process to set these mini- mum standards. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The benefits of adopting minimum standards and airport operating rules and procedures for taxicab vehicles are that these regulations provide for a better level of customer ser- vice and a level playing field for all taxicab drivers serving the airport. The operating costs for all permitted taxicabs are the same; the vehicle technologies are the same; and the result can be fewer short trip refusals and fewer circuitous paths from the airport. Airport passengers also benefit from minimum rules for airport taxi operations through improved safety and professionalism of the service. The challenges in enforcing these minimum standards are considerable when one considers the many individual indepen- dent contractor taxicab drivers wishing to serve an airport. These drivers are not employees working for a company with its own operating rules and procedures so it is up to the airport to inspect the cleanliness of the vehicles, ensure the drivers follow the rules of how to use the taxicab hold lot, stay in their proper place in the taxicab queue, and treat the customer with courtesy. With an open access system, there are few incentives that airport staff can offer the individual driver in the form of additional business if they follow the standards and pro- cedures. Therefore, penalties such as days not permitted at the airport or total disbarment from the airport hold lot are often the only levers that an airport may have to bring about compliance with these standards. One exception is Winnipeg International Airport, which uses a multi-criteria dispatch procedure to provide incentives to drivers. This technology based procedure is described in further detail in Chapter 9. vehicles using alternative fuels or hybrid vehicles. Vehi- cles such as the Prius or other hybrid often achieve 40 to 50 miles per gallon rather than the 12 to 13 miles per gallon that a used Crown Victoria may achieve. Even with today’s lower gasoline prices, taxi drivers are opting for alternative fueled vehicles even when airports do not provide incentives to do so. • In-vehicle technologies. The taxicab vehicle should have (1) a mobile data terminal providing for the secure process- ing of credit cards, Global Positioning System (GPS)-based driving directions, a digital dispatch, a smart printer, and the ability to convert text into speech, (2) video cameras recording both the forward view of the driver and the passenger compartment, and (3) potentially a passenger information monitor displaying current location, accumu- lated fare, news and weather updates, location directories, advertising/special promotions, and other information. • Secure credit card acceptance. Credit card acceptance by taxicabs was a struggle for many airport operators due to resistance from taxicab drivers who prefer to be paid in cash. Today, as a condition of obtaining an airport permit, most airports require that taxicabs include a technology allowing the secure acceptance of all major credit cards. For example, Palm Beach International Airport requires that all taxicabs be equipped with backseat accessible credit card readers as part of their concession contract. Without having to hand the card to the driver, passengers have more freedom to choose their payment method. The airport also reported a reduction in trip rejections since the rule was enforced. • Vehicle inspections. Most airports do not perform physi- cal inspections of taxicabs, preferring to leave this task to the local regulatory agency, but there are notable excep- tions to this general policy. San Francisco International and Salt Lake City International have complete regular vehicle inspection programs for all permitted vehicles at the airport including taxicabs. Most airports do visual inspections of taxicabs on a ran- dom basis to ensure that vehicles are clean on the outside and inside, that all hubcaps are in place, and that there are no obvious dents, rust, or damage to the outside of the vehicle and/or rips or tears in the interior of the vehicle. Trunks are also checked to see that they are free of unnecessary debris and clean so as to not soil passenger luggage. This inspection is performed either in the taxicab hold lot before the vehicle arrives at the terminal curbside or at the curb as starters assist passengers to their taxicab. • Types and amounts of insurance. The minimum level of insurance that individual taxicab vehicles should be required to carry at an airport is $100,000 per person bodily injury/$500,000 per incident (for all injuries caused to the other party), and $100,000 in property damage. This

50 year to implement. If an RFP process is utilized to implement these improvements (for example, through a new concession agreement and/or if new software is required to be installed to provide the automated AVI record and billing), then the time and cost of the project can range from $25,000 for a small airport to $100,000 or more for a larger airport. Examples Examples of vehicle standards are referenced in the previ- ous paragraphs. A2. Driver Standards Description Many airports have established supplementary standards for taxicab drivers in order to qualify for an airport taxicab permit. These supplemental standards may be greater than those required by the local municipality. Purpose The purpose of these additional requirements is to ensure only individuals meeting airport standards are permitted to access and wait at the airport curb. The Transportation Secu- rity Administration requires that all taxicab drivers allowed to access the airport curb have a complete criminal background check which may exceed the local regulatory requirements. In addition taxicab drivers must know how to obtain their airport security permits, if required, and how they are to use the air- port’s roadways and facilities. This requires specific training in the airport taxicab operating rules and procedures. Additional requirements include: • Experience. Taxicab drivers should be at least 21 years old, depending upon local insurance requirements. Most insur- ance companies recognize the accident rates for 21 year old drivers is significantly less than that of an 18 year old, so for passenger safety, the minimum age should be 21 years old. Prior to receiving a license or permit to operate a taxicab on the airport, the driver should have at least 6 months prior experience operating a taxicab in the community. • Appearance and attitude. Drivers should be neatly dressed and present a professional appearance and attitude. Air- port officials may wish to establish these attributes through customer service orientation training for all taxicab drivers wishing to provide service at the airport. Taxicab drivers may also be required to adopt some form of uniform dress code— either by company or as a general minimum standard for the industry. These dress requirements need not be elaborate but can be as simple as requiring a collared white shirt and dark pants or skirt, and prohibiting open toe shoes. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airport customers depend upon and expect airport officials to provide properly vetted and insured taxi- cab services at all times when they arrive at their destination airport. Thus, minimum taxicab standards are necessary to meet the expectations of the traveling public. Minimum standards and operating rules for airport taxicabs are also necessary to project the type of image and impression most local public and hospitality/tourism officials want for their community. As many will tell you, “Our local taxicab driver and vehicle often create the first and last impression a visi- tor to our city experiences.” • Commercial ground transportation operators. Many taxicab drivers are excellent representatives of the commu- nity and do everything they can to meet, and in many cases exceed, standards set by the airport. However, there are also many taxicab drivers that view each passenger as a one-time event and do not provide the quality of service the commu- nity would wish to have for its residents and visitors alike. Many independent contractor taxicab drivers may resist attempts to improve vehicle standards. The acceptance of credit cards, as previously mentioned, has been a struggle for airports. Thus, airport officials can expect considerable resistance whenever establishing or increasing the standards for airport on-demand vehicles. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Due to the per- ceived influence large numbers of taxicab drivers may play in local elections, local elected officials are usually involved in the establishment or expansion of local taxicab standards. Taxicab driver associations can be vocal in public meetings and elsewhere with concerns about their ability to make a living due to the perceived costs of any greater standards that an airport may impose. Unless they are provided accu- rate information explaining how the proposed standards benefit the traveling public—particularly visitors to the community—some elected officials (and members of the press) may view the independent taxicab owner/operators as small businesses that are subject to needless regulations by the airport. Implementation Schedule and Costs The cost of implementing taxicab vehicle standards is not significant but may take considerable time. Typically air- port officials benchmark their existing standards, rules, and operating procedures, comparing them to airports of simi- lar size and situation to see if they are adequate. An airport may set up focus groups of stakeholders and taxicab opera- tors to review current standards and make recommendations for improvement. This process may take from 6 months to a

51 Applicability Improved driver standards and minimum standards are applicable to all airports offering on-demand taxicab service. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The benefits of supplementary driver standards include improved compliance with airport taxicab rules and regula- tions and a reduction in customer complaints regarding taxi- cab service. The key challenge is the opposition from drivers who may be concerned that the new standards will increase their costs, limit their ability to pick up airline passengers, or provide an advantage to other drivers or companies. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airport customers greatly appreciate a clean taxicab and friendly, knowledgeable drivers. The impres- sion of an airport offering good customer service is often supported by a professional looking taxicab line, the pres- ence of starters, and drivers willing to assist with luggage. Therefore it is important that airport officials continually monitor the level of customer service and impressions created by their on-demand taxicab operations. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Taxicab drivers will normally resist technical training and customer service seminars which take them out of the taxicab queue and their opportunity to earn an income, so it will be necessary to make these supplemental training programs mandatory as a condition of obtaining and/or renewing an airport permit. Maintaining a prepaid self-mailer, cus- tomer comment card in each airport taxicab permitted to be in the on-demand line or an email address where customers can submit comments will also assist airport officials in identifying individual drivers that may require residual training. • Local elected officials. Generally local officials are sup- portive of measures to improve customer service, partic- ularly to visitors to a community. However they are also sensitive to the concerns of small business owners, such as taxicab drivers. Implementation Schedule and Costs The time and costs of supplemental taxicab driver training are typically not significant. Once a specific training manual has been developed, one or two airport officials can provide ori- entation training on a regular basis although at some airports (e.g., Vancouver International) the training is provided by an outside organization or community college. In some large • Airport-specific training. Prior to receiving their airport permit drivers should be required to complete a training course addressing airport rules and regulations, safe driving procedures, customer service, use of in-vehicle dispatch sys- tem and other technologies, major local landmarks, and have demonstrated their ability to clearly communicate with their customers. This is easier to achieve with an RFP in an exclu- sive airport taxicab concession, but the airport can include these minimum training requirements as part of a permit to pick up on-demand at the airport in an open system. – Airport rules and operating procedures. Drivers require training to learn which roadways of the airport to use, how to access the taxicab hold lot, pay any airport trip fees, and how to access the airport passenger pickup area. Airport taxicab drivers must be trained in the proper pro- cedures to pick up and drop off passengers at the airport; where to wait; how they should interact with the taxicab starter, airport police and other airport staff; and what assistance they should be providing their passengers. For example, at some airports the taxicab starter loads a pas- senger’s bag into the vehicle while at most airports this is the responsibility of the driver. – Knowledge of region and airport rules. Many deplan- ing passengers have little knowledge of local streets and landmarks. They may have an address but most depend upon the taxicab driver to know where their destination is located and what the best, most direct way is to get there. While local city regulations may have a mapping element or test as a condition of receiving their license or permit to operate a taxicab, this local test may not cover other areas in the region that the passenger may wish to go. Thus, it is important that airport taxicab drivers have a broad knowledge of the area’s highways and destinations. The use of GPS mapping has greatly alleviated this prob- lem, but taxicabs must be equipped with these devices and drivers must know how to use them. It is helpful for drivers to be familiar with local landmarks or points of interest, many of which cannot be discerned from a GPS device, as this knowledge will allow them to serve as bet- ter “ambassadors to the community.” Some airports (e.g., Miami International) require drivers to take refresher courses on a regular basis. – Communication with the customer. A key attribute of the customer service provided by taxicab drivers at airports is their ability to communicate clearly with cus- tomers. This is particularly true if English is the second language of a driver or if the driver has a regional accent. Some airports test a driver’s ability to clearly communicate in English. For additional examples of specific airport taxicab driver training programs, see Section A11.

52 by airports typically ranged from $1.00 to $5.50. These per-trip fees can be collected automatically or manually. Automated. Similar to a toll road tag, taxicab per-trip fees can be collected by debiting the taxicab company or individual driver’s credit card or bank account each time the automated system detects an outbound taxicab. These systems allow the amount in the account to be replenished from the driver’s credit card when the account reaches a prescribed minimum balance. These systems also need specific software that reads the information from a taxicab’s RFID tag, determines the fee, and automatically debits the account. Various RFID and software companies have systems developed for airports that perform these functions. Figure 8-1 shows an example of an RFID reader provided by Nashville International Airport (BNA). A challenge with an automated methodology is that the fees are charged to the vehicle but more than one driver may share the use of this taxicab. Some form of sorting must be performed by the taxicab company or drivers themselves to determine how many trips each driver made from the airport during the billing period. A second automated method, which overcomes the com- mon or shared driver, is to require each individual taxicab driver to maintain a minimum account balance in their bank account and to allow the airport to debit their personal bank account each time they enter the taxicab hold lot. In such cases, the access to the hold lot is controlled by a gate or access arm that prevents a taxicab from entering the area until the driver has swiped his or her valid credit card or access device (Figure 8-2). Manual. Another method for charging each taxicab driver as opposed to the taxicab vehicle is to sell access gate tickets or tokens in the amount of the per-trip fee. In this way airports such training will be more frequent (e.g., weekly), but smaller airports may wish to offer the training only once per month or quarterly if their operating rules and procedures are clearly spelled out in the orientation manual provided to all new ground transportation providers. Examples Airports such as Miami, Savannah, and Minneapolis have specific training programs for drivers. Section A11 provides further information on driver training programs. A3. Fee Collection Description On-demand taxicab fees at an open access airport can be charged by each individual trip, referred to as the trip fee, or by a monthly or annual flat fee. Both of these types of fees are discussed herein. Purpose Airport management charge taxicab operators a fee for the right to conduct business at the airport and to contribute their share of the costs of the ground transportation facilities which benefit their business including the costs of taxicab dis- patchers, the hold lot, supporting technologies, and a portion of the costs of the airport roadways, police, and other airport staff who enforce and maintain the facilities used by taxicabs. Airports incur the cost of providing the personnel required to manage the taxicab hold lot and the curbside pickup area, process taxicab and driver permits, enforce airport rules, and resolve disputes with taxicab drivers. While airports collect fees from taxicab operators or drivers, these fees may not allow the airport to fully recover the costs it incurs in provid- ing, maintaining, operating, and enforcing the facilities used by on-demand taxicab services. Per-Trip Fees In all but a few airports, taxicab per-trip fees are levied on outbound trips only. These per-trip fees for airport taxicabs are typically calculated in one of two ways. One method is to (a) total the fixed and variable annual airport costs associated with the provision of the on-demand airport taxicab services, and then (b) divide these costs by the estimated number of annual taxicab trips departing the airport with a passenger to determine the fee each departing taxicab must pay, if the airport seeks to fully recover its costs. Another method is to compare current taxicab per-trip fees to those charged at other airports of similar size and circumstances. At the time this guidebook was written, the taxicab per-trip fee charged Figure 8-1. An RFID reader at Nashville International Airport.

53 ing reimbursement, credit, or a ticket/token for another entry into the taxicab hold lot. Monthly/annual permit fees. Smaller airports are less likely to have purchased automated vehicle identification sys- tems for the automated collection of ground transportation fees. Many smaller airports charge a flat annual fee for each taxicab but require companies to pay this charge monthly. A few airports charge individual taxicab owner/operators a flat monthly or annual fee for the right to wait at the airport. Some examples of smaller open access airports and their annual indi- vidual taxicab fees include Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport with a fee of $50 per year per taxi; Asheville Regional Airport with a $300 annual taxicab fee; and Daytona Beach International Airport with a $200 per year annual taxicab fee. Applicability The practices described in the previous paragraphs are applicable at any airport that charges taxicab companies or drivers an annual or monthly permit fee, or a cost-recovery or other fee charged per vehicle trip. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The key benefits to this practice are the ability of the air- port operator to recover a portion of the expenses it incurs in providing, maintaining, operating, and enforcing the facili- ties used by taxicab companies and drivers. The key challenge is the resistance of the taxicab companies and drivers to pay the required fees, particularly if the drivers are unable to pass the per-trip fees onto their customers. Drivers are typically less opposed to the fees if they may include the fees in the fares they charge their customers, which typically increases the total cost and thus the amount of their tips. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. While it varies from airport to airport, most airports permit the taxicab driver to recover some if not all of the airport per-trip fee from the passenger. This is done by registering the fee as an “extra” on their taximeter and then either showing the extra separately on the taximeter or including the extra in the initial flag drop (e.g., if the first per-fraction of a mile charge is $1.00 and the airport trip fee is $1.00, the passenger would see a fare of $2.00 before the taxicab left the airport curb). In either case the airport fee is included in the total fare shown on the meter and represents the amount which the customer is expected to pay. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Almost all North American taxicab operators pay some form of the individual taxicab drivers use cash or credit cards to pur- chase tokens or coins to be used at the mechanical gate system to access the taxicab hold lot. However, the manual process requires airport staff to handle cash or process credit cards from the drivers—something that requires oversight and financial audits. This issue has been addressed by technology based systems in a number of ways. One approach that is gaining in popu- larity is to assign each driver and each vehicle an RFID tag. The vehicle tag tracks/controls vehicle permits, inspections, insurance, and access control. The driver tag is used to man- age the account balance, replenishments, and charges. This allows multiple drivers to use a single vehicle, but drivers each pay for their own charges. Philadelphia International Airport is an example of an airport where this approach is being used. Reimbursement for early exits from hold lot. A com- mon problem which affects both automated and manual airport taxicab fee collection systems is the issue of reim- bursement to the taxicab driver that leaves the taxicab hold lot without going to the pickup curb for a paying passenger. This may be due to a driver getting a call to pick someone up at a location other than the airport; leaving because it is the end of his/her shift; leaving due to family emergency; or leaving late at night when no more flights are expected. The automated system can be configured in several ways to handle this situation including creating an exit gate that reverses the per-trip fee charge, identifying an alternate loca- tion to impose the trip charge, or using a mobile RFID tag reader to capture the identification of vehicles that are not to be charged. With manual systems there will typically be additional paperwork to be filled out by the driver request- Figure 8-2. A gate controls access to the taxicab holding area at Nashville International Airport.

54 road authorities charge a “processing fee” which may repre- sent over six percent of the fees collected (unlike an airport operated and maintained RFID system), (2) customers may exceed the balance on their credit/debit cards, and (3) toll road authorities may not be sensitive to the unique needs of airport commercial ground transportation providers since they represent a small percentage of their customer base. Examples Airport fee collection systems used in open access airports are referenced in the previous paragraphs. A4. Addressing Excessive Taxicabs/ Long Driver Waits Description In an open access taxicab system there is typically a greater supply of taxicabs than customer demand for these services. As a result, taxicab drivers may be forced to wait 2, 3, 4, or more hours before picking up a passenger. This creates a lack of revenue opportunities for taxicab drivers working the airport. If sufficient revenues are not available for a driver, both the quality of the vehicle and the driver’s attitude may deteriorate, resulting in poor customer service. Airports use several strategies to either make the wait more comfortable, lessen the wait time, or both. Purpose Reducing airport taxicab driver wait time or making the wait more bearable has the benefit of improving the economic situation for the taxicab driver and/or creating a better work- ing environment for drivers. There are several methods for reducing the excessive wait time and improving the work envi- ronment for airport taxicab drivers which are the following: • Allocating physical positions. By assigning each driver a sequential number when they enter the taxicab hold lot, air- port management can remove the need for drivers to remain close to their vehicles and to continuously move them up in line, as is the case with a nose-to-tail system. Instead, the driver can park anywhere in the hold lot and if available, wait in the driver’s lounge until their number is displayed on an electronic reader board indicating that they may soon be called up to the airport terminal (Figure 8-3). A more sophisticated approach using this technique is to make this information available to the driver electronically so that drivers can leave the hold lot and serve other (i.e., non-airport) customers while retaining their position in the dispatch queue as long as they return to the hold lot prior to their vehicle being dispatched to the pickup area. airport trip fee or annual permit fee for the right to serve the airport. Many taxicab drivers and owners consider the taxicab to be a public service and believe that there should be no fee for making this service available to airline passen- gers. However, the countervailing view that taxicabs, like all other forms of airport commercial ground transportation, must pay their fair share of the cost of the airport and its facilities is the predominating view in most communities. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Most elected officials and regulatory bodies recognize the need for air- ports to be self-sufficient and typically work with their airports to set reasonable and responsible per-trip fees for taxicab companies and drivers. Implementation Schedule and Costs The costs associated with collecting per-trip fees with an open access taxicab system are generally higher than the costs of collecting fees with an exclusive access taxicab system, based on the assumption that the airport will collect the fee from the driver in the open system and the company will pay the fee in an exclusive system. While this assumption is gener- ally correct, there are variations. An automated system is desir- able if the airport plans to collect fees from the drivers. The cost of automated GTM systems is generally proportional to the size of the airport and complexity of the roadway system (from less than $100,000 to several million). The decision by an airport to implement an automated system will include a num- ber of criteria including cost, magnitude of the problems to be solved, and specific benefits to be achieved. In most but not all cases, an automated system will pay for its cost within 2 years. See Chapter 9 for additional discussion of automated systems. Many airports are attempting to cooperate with local toll road authorities by using tag and reader technologies which are compatible with those used by the toll road operators. Con- siderable cost savings can be achieved based on economies of scale if not only taxicabs but all other ground transportation vehicles use the same type of RFID tags. Currently Boston Logan International Airport has connected their GTM system to the individual taxicab and limousine drivers’ FASTLANE toll system account. The driver pays their FASTLANE balance each month by credit card and the total includes all of their airport fees. The FASTLANE system operator makes a regular payment (i.e., transfers the funds) to the airport of all the airport taxi- cab and limousine fees collected. This greatly simplifies the work load for the airport staff and minimizes any unpaid fees. The key to making this arrangement work is the relationship between the Airport Authority and the toll road authority. These arrangements take significant effort to negotiate due to the amount of money involved and the effort required by the toll road organization. Some airports prefer not to accept the regional toll road transponders or tags because (1) the toll

55 wait times associated with an open access system is to allow all taxicab companies licensed by local authorities recog- nized by the airport to provide on-demand service at the airport but limit each company to a fixed number of taxi- cabs that can serve the airport each day. The number of taxi- cabs required to serve the airport can be calculated based on past usage data. This vehicle count can then be divided among the taxicab companies. The most common way of allocating airport taxicab permits is to allocate them based upon the percentage of taxicab permits controlled by a com- pany out of the total number of taxicab permits authorized by the city. If this percentage is 20%, for example, then the taxicab company would be allotted 20% of the airport taxi- cabs actually needed by the airport (or 20% of the airport taxicab permits, assuming there was a cap on the number of airport permits). The introduction to Section 8A provides more information on determining the number of taxicabs needed to serve an airport. An example of a large airport that utilizes this approach is Denver International Airport. • Use of supplementary peak period taxicabs. Some airports issue two types of taxicab permits, with some taxicabs per- mitted to operate on a full-time basis, while others have per- mits allowing them to only operate during the peak periods. Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is an example of an airport that uses this approach with 130 full-time taxi- cabs and 30 peak taxicabs. • Electronic sequencing. Another approach to limit the size of the airport hold lot is implementing a virtual cab lot. With a virtual cab lot, a dispatch system is used by the airport to indicate that it has empty taxicab slot or slots to be filled in at the airport. Each licensed taxicab company is allocated a number of taxicab hold lot slots and it is up to the taxicab company’s dispatcher to fill these slots as they become avail- able. Thus, as these slots become open, the taxicab company dispatch authorizes one or a number of their company taxi- cabs to go to the airport hold lot. Nashville International Airport is able to keep their taxicab hold lot to a minimum size by using this system—avoiding long driver wait times and allowing drivers to potentially be more productive throughout the day. Applicability Applicable at most airports where the average wait time in the hold lot for taxicab drivers exceeds 2 hours. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The key benefits are improvements to driver income and customer service resulting from the reduced driver wait time. The key challenges are to gain the support of the taxicab com- panies and drivers who are likely to be concerned about any See Chapter 9 for a discussion of technology advancements to aid in operation of this function. Such a system is used at Washington Dulles International Airport. • Rotation systems. A rotation system is an effective way to limit the number of taxicabs that may pick up on-demand passengers at the airport on a given day, thereby reduc- ing driver wait times in the hold lot. Detailed information regarding rotation systems is included in the next section. • Limiting hold lot capacity. Another solution to long waits by taxicab drivers at the airport is to severely limit, or not expand, the size of the airport taxicab hold lot and to encour- age taxicab companies to set up their own nearby holding and sequencing scheme to allow their taxicabs to go to the hold lot when there is an empty space. While this approach solves the issue for the airport, it may not address concerns with the total wait times of drivers and their reduced income opportunities, and thus their lack of cooperation and cus- tomer courtesy on short haul trips from the airport. When a significantly smaller taxicab hold lot was introduced at one airport, taxicab drivers set up temporary secondary hold- ing areas off the airport property from which to access the airport hold lot. At other airports, the drivers—on their own initiative—simply began a second queue line along the shoulder of a roadway near the airport or in the parking lot of a nearby restaurant. • Limiting number of taxicabs but all companies partici- pate. A variant of the program to reduce excessive driver Figure 8-3. Reader board at Washington Dulles International Airport.

56 Examples Airport taxicab driver wait time reduction systems used in open access airports are referenced in the above paragraphs. A5. Taxicab Rotation System Description The open airport taxicab rotation system is a process for lim- iting the number of days when authorized taxicabs may pick up on-demand airline passengers. A rotation system is some- times referred to as an “odd-even system” as taxicabs with odd number permits, decals, or licenses can only pick up airport passengers on odd days while those with even numbers can do so only on even days (Figure 8-4). At some airports taxicabs may only pick up customers every third, fourth, or fifth day. The rotation system may also be established by colored permits rather than odd-even numbers, allowing for more than two groups of taxicabs. Purpose Such a system reduces the number of taxicabs eligible to pick up passengers at the airport on a given day and thus the length of time each taxicab driver must spend waiting for a fare, while allowing the driver to serve the same number of customers and receive the same fares on a monthly or annual basis. It also allows drivers to serve other portions of the community on the days when they cannot pick up on-demand airport custom- ers, thereby increasing their potential revenues and improving service to the entire community. Applicability Applicable at airports that (1) have a supply of taxicabs which greatly exceeds the demand for on-demand taxicab service as evidenced by drivers waiting excessively long times between fares (e.g., over 3 to 4 hours) and thereby earning less revenue, (2) have an open taxicab system, and (3) have dispatchers or starters to inspect taxicabs to ensure compliance with the rotation system and deter short trip refusals. changes being imposed by the airport which they perceive may affect their income and working hours. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airport customers are likely to be unaware of any specific steps the airport may take to limit the amount of time taxicab drivers wait in line to pick them up, but they may experience drivers less concerned about short trips and likely with an improved demeanor because they are getting more airport trips on the days or times they are permitted to work at the airport. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Taxicab drivers can be expected to object to any change in their abil- ity to choose when and how often they work at the airport, but objections are quickly overcome when drivers realize that their weekly income is increased due to the new programs implemented by the airport. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local elected officials are likely to be wary of approving new programs if they are not supported by the drivers. Thus, through educa- tion and positive examples, local elected officials should be informed of any proposed modifications well in advance of discussions with airport taxicab drivers. Even though there are benefits to the taxicab drivers, the airline passengers, the perception of the community towards the quality of taxicab service available at the airport, and to the airport itself in terms of reducing the costs and size of the hold lot area to be maintained and allowing better, more productive use of some of the hold lot property, there may be a lack of cooperation due to past encounters which make it politi- cally difficult to restrict the access of permitted taxicabs in any way. It thus may take time and further discussion with elected officials before any actions may be taken. Implementation Schedule and Costs The cost associated with reducing taxicab driver wait times depends upon the methods employed. The use of alternative odd/even license plate numbers or other methods to rotate entry into the taxicab hold lot to every other day is relatively inexpensive and can be implemented in a matter of days once the decision is made to move ahead. The use of electronic sign boards and assigning each taxicab a number when it enters the hold lot is more complex but still relatively inexpensive compared to utilizing a GTM system to assign taxicabs to the hold lot or developing a virtual hold lot. For these more com- plex systems, the lead time could be as long as a year as they need to be decided upon, budgeted, and constructed. More information on these systems is included in Chapter 9. Source: Salt Lake City Department of Airports. Figure 8-4. Examples of Salt Lake City International Airport’s colored, odd-even day rotation decals.

57 resulting from improved availability of taxicab service in other portions of the community. Implementation Schedule and Costs Ongoing and initial costs are minimal. The implemen- tation schedule will depend on the extent of cooperation obtained from the taxicab community. The political process of deciding to do so may take months or more but it may take as little as one week to implement. Examples Los Angeles International Airport allows its taxicabs to only serve the airport on-demand line one in every 5 days. The other 4 days these taxicabs serve a specific area of Los Angeles, as each of the nine franchise taxicab companies that serve the airport has a specific geographic area they serve. The one in 5 days approach severely limits the number of Los Angeles taxicabs that can work the airport that day so that each taxicab may spend 30 or less minutes in the hold lot before being called to a terminal. Drivers indicate that their day at the airport is by far their best revenue day and a privilege they do not want to lose. As a result, compliance with airport taxicab dispatch and air- port regulations is not an issue, including problems with short trip refusals since drivers know they will be back in the air- port pickup line in a matter of minutes. If additional taxicabs are needed, a call is sent out to the dispatch operations of the nine franchise taxicab companies that the airport is now open to any available taxicab. The demand is typically met within 15 minutes due to the large number of off-airport-day cab drivers willing to go to the airport when there is a call. Close cooperation between the City of Los Angeles and the Airport is a key factor in the success of the LAX taxicab rotation system. Other examples include the airports serving Birmingham, Salt Lake City, and San Diego. A6. Addressing Insufficient Taxicabs/ Long Customer Waits Description The ability of any taxicab to access the airport hold lot at any time under an open system also permits these taxicabs to not serve the airport. Late at night, early in the morning, on religious holidays, snowy days/evenings, when there are irregular operations (e.g., a diverted flight or unexpected late night aircraft arrivals), or when there is more taxicab business within the community than normal such as during a festival or sporting event, there may be customers waiting at the airport and no taxicabs available to pick them up. Insufficient taxicab service can be a significant problem at smaller airports, in part due to the lack of taxicab service in the community. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges A rotation system reduces taxicab driver wait times and the required hold lot size, while enabling drivers to maintain or potentially increase their number of annual fares and their income. Airports can benefit as drivers who stay in a hold lot for a short period of time require less oversight and fewer ame- nities and services than do drivers waiting for longer periods. Airport operators may also benefit from the savings in main- tenance costs due to having a smaller hold lot and potentially from new revenues if the excess hold area site is developed for another use. The key challenge occurs during the initial implementa- tion of a rotation system when overcoming driver resistance to change and concerns about a loss of revenue or income. Once implemented, the only on-going operating costs and manage- ment efforts are those associated with issuing the permits/ decals and providing a dispatcher/starter to verify them. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers should not notice any significant change in service. Customer service may improve if drivers, less concerned about excessive waits in the hold area, are less likely to refuse or complain about short trips. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Taxicab drivers have been shown to serve approximately the same volume of monthly or annual customers, yet initially drivers may be fearful that their earnings will suffer if the days they can work at the airport are limited. Other benefits for and concerns from drivers may include: – While drivers may have an opportunity to serve custom- ers in other areas of the community and earn additional income on the days when they cannot pick up passen- gers at the airport, in some areas drivers may be con- cerned that there is little non-airport business and an abundance of taxicabs seeking these non-airport trips. – Drivers may express concerns about the fairness of a rota- tion system claiming that the odd (or the even) days are more lucrative (e.g., when the 31st is followed by the 1st). However, because the distribution of busy weekdays and weekends does not regularly fall on either odd or even days, over the course of a month or year, all drivers have equal opportunities at the airport. – Drivers may not realize that with a rotation system their vehicle fuel and operating costs are reduced as they spend less time idling in the hold lot. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Unless they are lobbied by taxicab drivers or company owners, typically local officials have little or no concerns with the implemen- tation of a rotation system and may recognize the benefits

58 • Call taxicabs without an airport permit. Should there be an inadequate response to a dispatch call for taxicabs registered and permitted to provide on-demand taxicab service at the airport, airport officials can open the airport hold lot to any properly licensed taxicab. If these taxicabs are registered to only provide prearranged taxicab service at the airport, they typically continue to pay a pickup fee even though they are now serving on-demand customers. If they are not permit- ted to provide prearranged service, then any airport pickup fees may be forgone in the view that it is better to serve the traveling public than worry about processing these taxicabs and collecting a pickup fee. Tucson International Airport is an example of an airport that uses this process. • Invite local limousines. In addition to all taxicabs as noted above, airport officials can also invite all limousine oper- ators to provide on-demand service. This is easily done where there is a flat fee system for a taxicab to most major destinations, as limousines can be required to charge only that fee for their services. In other instances, airports allow limousines to charge their standard fares. • Requiring a minimum number of trips per month. Requir- ing a minimum number of taxicab trips per month from each taxicab forces the drivers to work at the airport at times when they might otherwise not be working or be work- ing some other venue. The rationale here is that in order to operate during the busy, high-demand periods at the airport, they also have to work some low-demand periods such as late at night, weekends, or holidays. Savannah/Hilton Head International and Vancouver International require a mini- mum of 50 (60 during busy months) and 45 trips per month, respectively. • Require the use of shared-ride taxicabs. Some airports require peak period customers to share a taxicab with other airline passengers when there is an unusual event occur- ring in the community. For example, airline passengers at Piedmont Triad International Airport are required to share a taxicab during the annual Furniture Mart which attracts many visitors to the area. Applicability These programs are applicable at airports that regularly have insufficient taxicabs to accommodate arriving airline passengers. Excess demands may occur at large airports (e.g., Boston Logan International Airport) and frequently occur at small and non-hub airports. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The key benefits to the above programs are the reduced customer wait time and improved customer experience. The key challenges are balancing the demands between licensed This section describes the methods that airport staff use to increase the number of taxicabs available. Purpose The obvious reason for having methods—established in advance—for increasing the number of taxicabs at the air- port is to minimize periods where customers must wait for a taxicab and minimize the wait time itself, as airport customer expectations are that a taxicab should be immediately avail- able at all times. The following are methods that airport staff use to increase the number of taxicab services available: • Dispatcher calls. The most common method for an airport to secure additional taxicabs quickly is for airport staff (or their representatives) to call taxicab company dispatchers and let them know that additional taxicabs are needed and that the wait time will be minimal if they come to the airport immediately. In many cases this is sufficient because airport taxicab drivers (1) normally prefer to accept an airport trip rather than other lower fare trips in the community, (2) have paid a monthly or annual fee to be at the airport and they want to protect that investment lest the airport operator expand the number of taxicabs it permits at the airport or allow non-registered taxicabs to serve the airport. Should an airport want to contact taxicab drivers directly this can be done using a Twitter account or other form of social media that would send a text message directly to every taxicab per- mitted to work at the airport who has signed up to follow the Twitter account. This process of using social media to notify other drivers of the need for service at the airport is used at Boston Logan International Airport (Figure 8-5). Figure 8-5. Sample tweets from Boston Logan International Airport’s Taxicab Dispatcher.

59 the open access system have the same “luck-of-the-draw” for a passenger traveling a short or long distance. Drivers could pick up passengers going downtown or to other destinations that represent very good taxicab trips and driver revenue or passengers only going to a nearby hotel or residence. Not hav- ing a short trip procedure is considered to be a best practice. However, given the resistance by taxicab drivers to waiting in the hold lot for extended periods and then only getting a short trip, some airports with open access systems have devel- oped procedures to address this issue. These procedures are discussed herein. Purpose The purpose of short trip procedures is to encourage drivers to accept short trips by reducing their wait time for the next customer upon their return to the airport. There are several procedures that airports have employed to solve this issue such as time, distance, or special short trip lanes only. Other options increase the compensation drivers receive for short trips, thereby reducing short trip refusals. These procedures are discussed below: • Time. Time procedures typically permit the taxicab driver a certain number of minutes to complete the short trip and return to the hold lot. A mechanical time procedure would involve the taxicab curbside dispatcher providing the driver with a time-stamped ticket indicating when the taxicab left the curb. Upon re-entering the hold lot the driver shows the lot manager his/her time stamp and if it falls within the established short trip time, the driver is allowed to enter the next line of taxicabs to be dispatched to the curb or, in some cases, be permitted to go to the head of the line. With the use of electronic GTM systems, it is possible that this procedure can be managed by a computer that reads the taxicab RFID tag upon leaving the airport and then reads it again as the driver checks back into the taxicab hold lot. If the taxicab qualifies for the short trip exemption, it can be placed ahead in the taxicab line via the computer in assign- ing waiting numbers to the taxicabs or be permitted to go directly to the airport curb. The shortcomings of using travel time for a procedure to eliminate the issues associated with short trips is that taxi- cab drivers may speed excessively in both directions if they feel their time will be close to the limit (i.e., so called “white knuckle trips”). Thus, customer complaints about “white knuckle” taxicab trips and public safety are often a partial result of time-based solutions to this problem. There is also the issue of airport traffic which may impede the taxicab driver from making it back to the taxicab hold lot in a rea- sonable amount of time. Conversely, during late night hours when there is less roadway congestion, a taxicab driver may taxicab companies that may be alerted to the need for addi- tional taxicabs so as not to show favoritism, and to limousines or non-licensed taxicabs. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airport taxicab customers may not realize that steps were taken to reduce their wait time and to ensure there was no shortage of waiting taxicabs. Customers may dislike or not understand the reasons for having to share a taxicab, therefore, starters should ensure customers are willing to share and explain that the unusually high vol- ume of customers will result in long wait times otherwise. • Commercial ground operators. In an open access system drivers will not be in favor of attempts by the airport to, in their view, give away their business to others. These objec- tions are not typically serious or long lasting. The drivers will likely object to being required to work a minimum number of trips and during low-demand hours. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Most elected officials recognize the need to provide the arriving airport passenger with on-demand taxicab service at all times of the day or night and are typically in favor of the airport doing what it must to ensure that taxicabs are available. Implementation Schedule and Costs The cost of these backup plans is minimal, requiring mini- mal time by airport staff to set up the phone numbers and processes by which additional taxicabs and/or limousines may be called. Implementation time can be as short as 30 days or less to develop and deploy these plans. Examples Examples of airport taxicab customer wait time reduction systems used in open access airports are referenced in the previous paragraphs. A7. Short Trip Procedures Description Short trip procedures are actions airport officials may take to reduce the negative attitude or refusals some taxicab drivers exhibit when they learn that their passenger is only going a short distance and thus (1) their fare will be considerably less than other pickups from the airport, and (2) they may have another long wait after returning to the airport. Alternatively, airport management could decide that there will be no short trip procedures—that all taxicab drivers in

60 of these taxicabs available for short trips whenever the dis- patcher at the curbside determines that the passenger is only going a short distance. These airport short haul taxicabs are painted blue and are known as the blue line taxicabs. While all Miami-Dade County taxicabs can serve Miami International Airport, only a small number are chosen to serve the short trips. As a result, the taxicabs in the short line procedure, due to the limited number, make substan- tially more trips per day than regular line taxicabs, so total revenue for blue cabs is significantly greater than taxicabs in the regular line. Thus, there is a waiting list to become a blue taxicab at Miami International Airport. Should the blue line of taxicabs become exhausted, reg- ular taxicabs can take these trips and return to the starter (head-of-line privileges) to minimize their wait time for another pickup. • Minimum fares. Another method for addressing the short trip issue is to put in place a minimum taxicab fare from the airport, eliminating some of the negative impact of the short trip. By having the minimum fare, the taxicab driver will be guaranteed a minimal sum for taking the short trip. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport has a $10 minimum fare for all trips starting at the airport. Applicability The programs described in this section are applicable at any airport where management wishes to establish a program to encourage taxicab drivers to accept low-fare, short trips rather than using the “luck-of-the-draw” procedures. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The key benefits are improved customer service result- ing from drivers being less likely to refuse a short trip. The key challenges are the time and costs of establishing these be able to go downtown, drop off their customer, and return to the airport with the allotted time. (This was the case in the past when San Francisco International Airport had time- based short trips.) • Distance. In order to overcome the safety and customer complaint issues associated with white knuckle trips, air- port officials may employ a distance based methodology. In this procedure, all trips taken within a pre-defined geo- graphic distance of the airport (or to certain communities) are considered short trips. If a taxicab driver is assigned one of these trips, irrespective of the time it takes, he/she is permitted to return to the airport curbside for another pickup. Traditionally, using distance required more inter- action between the taxicab curbside dispatcher, the passen- ger, and the driver. The taxicab curbside dispatcher must ask the customer where they are going, determine if the destination is within the boundaries of the defined short trip, and then give the driver a ticket or some other item to signify that this was a short trip. Implementation problems arise when either the driver or the curbside dispatcher do not know if the address is within the short trip boundaries or if there is disagree- ment between the driver and the curbside dispatcher as to whether the destination falls within the definition of a short trip. This may take considerable time to deal with, resulting in poor service for the customers who are waiting in the taxicab pickup line. There is also the potential of favoritism or bribes between the curbside dispatcher and taxicab driver. The ability to return to the front of the hold lot line is valuable to the taxi- cab driver and some drivers may be tempted to share their revenue from an increased number of trips with friendly taxicab curbside dispatchers, or perceive that other drivers are being allowed to do so. To ensure this is not happen- ing, it may be necessary to keep records of who is receiving short trip tickets and see if there is a statistically improbable likelihood that a driver or certain drivers are receiving an inordinate number of short trips. The need for the interaction between the curbside dis- patcher, passenger, and driver to determine short trip des- tinations can be eliminated by implementing an electronic GPS-based boundary that defines the limits of a short trip. When the vehicle returns to the hold lot, the system auto- matically detects whether the vehicle stayed within the short trip boundary and is thus eligible for priority dis- patching. A system containing this feature is being installed at San Francisco International Airport. • Dedicated short trip fleet. A short trip procedure that requires neither time nor distance is a dedicated short trip line such as that of Miami International Airport, referred to as the blue line (Figure 8-6). A special line of taxicabs are designated short trip cabs only. There are a small number Source: Dade County Aviation Department. Figure 8-6. A blue line taxicab at Miami International Airport.

61 Examples Examples of airports with time-based short trip procedures include Boston Logan International Airport (20 minutes), Toronto Pearson International Airport (20 minutes), and Wash- ington Dulles International Airport (15 minutes). Hartsfield- Jackson Atlanta International Airport and Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport operate with distance based short trip procedures. A8. Dispatcher/Starter Responsibilities Description Dispatchers or starters are individuals assigned to man- age the on-demand queue of taxicabs, or taxicab line, at the airport. Their primary station is at the taxicab pickup curb where their primary duty is to direct passengers to their assigned taxi; call for more taxicabs or special taxicabs such as large vans or wheelchair accessible vehicles when they are needed; assist taxicab passengers with information and lug- gage; and ensure the proper sequencing of taxicabs (prevent line jumping). Secondary duties include managing the taxicab hold lot and authorizing taxicabs to proceed to the terminal curbside(s). Purpose The purpose of the taxicab starter is to facilitate the on- demand pickup of taxicab customers in an expedited manner and to ensure all taxicab drivers follow the airport rules and regulations regarding the pickup of passengers and use of air- port facilities. This section discusses who provides the taxicab starter services, their training, and how the procedures used vary from airport to airport. Airport officials have two basic options for performing dis- patcher duties under an open taxicab system. They can either manage the function themselves using airport personnel or they can engage the services of a third-party contractor or service company. In an exclusive airport system, an airport may have the opportunity to have the taxicab concessionaire perform these tasks. Use airport staff. The majority of the airports with open access taxicab systems use airport staff to dispatch taxi- cabs. Airport staff are tasked with maintaining order on the airport curb as customers queue for taxicabs. They typically are responsible for assigning passengers to a taxicab or assisting the passenger with special needs or with finding their prearranged taxicab if one has been requested. The benefits associated with the use of airport personnel are greater control over the day-to- day operations of on-demand taxicab operations. The use of airport staff with normal public employment overhead and procedures, none of which are perfect and all of which are subject to abuse (e.g., white knuckle trips, tips to dispatch- ers, and other improper activities), and which require airport staff time to administer and oversee. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airport customers may be hesitant to provide taxicab curbside dispatchers with their intended destinations such as their personal residence address and may receive poor service through unsafe speeds, credit card refusal, or rushed help with baggage if a taxicab driver is attempting to beat a short trip time and return to the airport. Customers generally do not support paying a $15 or more minimum airport taxicab fare to a destination just off the airport, as it may seem like the airport taxicab system is unfairly charging them for the short trip. Therefore, airport officials may wish to adopt short trip procedures which are the least noticeable by customers. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Airport taxicab drivers in an open access system often wait several hours for a trip. When a driver may only get four or five air- port trips per shift, the imposition of a short trip will have a significant impact on his/her total income for the day. At airports with longer wait times, the need for some proce- dure to address the impact of the short trip becomes more of an issue. These drivers will push for the airport operator to address the issue through higher minimum fares, new short trip procedures, and/or all of the above. • Local elected officials/regulatory. Local elected officials are often the source of pressure to do something about the airport short trip problem. This may come from customer complaints or the drivers who complain about their lost revenue due to short trips. Implementation Schedule and Costs Short trip procedures are not costly to install if the airport already has a taxicab starter system operating at the curb. Some hardware in the form of a time clock, time stamps, or other method of recording time may be necessary but these costs are minimal. The time to implement these procedures, however, may differ widely. Establishing a minimum fare from the airport will typically take political backing by both city and airport officials. Thus, drafting an ordinance change, bring- ing it to a vote, and implementing the new procedures may take several months. Thus, a reasonable time for implementa- tion of any of these recommended procedures is between 3 to 6 months. Overseeing the operation of the program, once implemented, and attempting to control drivers who may be abusing the regulations may require significant staff time.

62 Rotating taxicab dispatch starters among other jobs in traffic control, parking, and maintenance are also ways to reduce the opportunity for collusion. Technology based GTM sys- tems have proven to be successful in addressing the favoritism issue by automating the dispatch decision process. Applicability This section is applicable to any airport employing a dis- patcher to control the flow of taxicabs from a waiting area to a passenger pickup area and assign customers to the next waiting taxicab (Figure 8-7). Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Benefits include improved control of waiting taxicabs and the ability to inspect waiting vehicles and drivers. Challenges include ensuring that dispatch services are provided fairly and in a manner that enhances the customer experience. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airport customers will probably not notice professionally run, efficient, and helpful taxicab starter ser- vice, but they will complain about the lack of good service. Any prolonged time at the taxicab stand or unnecessary discussions between the driver and starter may be per- ceived as poorly managed services and will reflect poorly on the airport and community. • Commercial ground transportation operators. For the most part airport taxicab drivers appreciate a well-run curbside dispatch system but are generally suspicious of benefits can be costly, however, so to minimize costs other approaches may be sought. Use a third-party management contractor. Retaining a third-party management contractor to provide taxicab starter tasks, and selecting this company through competitive bids is one method of lowering taxicab starter costs. A third-party contractor may also have experience in developing procedures, methods, and even technology to perform these tasks more efficiently and effectively. At some airports the third-party con- tractor may have other responsibilities including oversight of limousines, or the selected contractor may also be responsible for operating the airport’s public parking facilities. Airports using third-party management contractors to provide taxi- cab dispatch service and oversee on-demand taxicab services on a day-to-day basis include those airports serving Denver, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Training programs for dispatchers. The use of either airport or third-party taxicab dispatchers requires the staff to be trained in customer service, how the airport taxicab system operates, the technologies employed, and a detailed knowledge of the airport’s taxicab operating rules and regu- lations. Dispatchers also need formal training in customer service and how to interact with customers. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport has developed a specific taxicab dispatch system training program that involves 2 weeks of training with new dispatchers (referred to as guest assistants) working in the field with experienced staff. Methods to call up special vehicles and special requests. Airport taxicab dispatchers are often called upon to fulfill specific passenger requests such as wheelchair accessible vehicles, large vehicles, and/or taxicabs from a specific com- pany. The airport needs to have a detailed process in place for how these requests are to be met. This requires some form of communication between the curbside dispatcher and the hold lot personnel. Typically this is voice communications for special requests, although text messages are also used to request special vehicles. Some airports such as Las Vegas McCarran International and Reno-Tahoe International Airports have a designated space reserved for special request taxicabs at the curbside. Addressing collusion/favoritism between drivers and dispatchers. As previously mentioned, the use of statisti- cal tools can be helpful in determining if there is collusion between the taxicab dispatcher and certain taxicab drivers. However in the absence of any data trail such as short line tickets issued to taxicab X, this is difficult. Regular taxicab driver meetings and a suggestion drop box can be employed to enlist the help of other drivers should they feel they are being discriminated against by the dispatcher. Source: Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board. Figure 8-7. A taxicab starter at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

63 Applicability Applicable at any airport that needs to communicate with airport taxicab drivers either directly or indirectly. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Key benefits include the ability to quickly and efficiently share information with taxicab companies and drivers. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airport customers would likely be unaware of the communications systems used by airport staff to com- municate with the airport taxicab drivers but would appre- ciate the ability of the airport to maintain taxicab services whenever passengers are present. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Airport taxicab drivers appreciate the ability to know helpful infor- mation regarding conditions at the airport. Thus, electronic signs and social media usage that keep them informed are both helpful and effective in operating an efficient open access taxicab system. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. It is likely that local officials will encourage frequent coordination between airport staff and taxicab companies and drivers but are unlikely to be aware of the communication methods or tools. Implementation Schedule and Costs Implementation costs for most communications systems with airport taxicab drivers should not be significant for most another driver being assigned a better or longer trip. Well- trained and professional taxicab starters can greatly reduce these suspicions by treating every driver with courtesy and dignity, and providing professional, friendly, and courteous service to arriving airline passengers. • Local elected/regulatory officials. Typically there will be little response by local elected or regulated officials unless there is concern of favoritism or discrimination by the air- port taxicab dispatchers. Thus, it is imperative that airport officials maintain a watchful eye on the day-to-day operation of the taxicab pickup line. Examples Examples of airports with best practices are described herein. A9. Processes for Communicating with Drivers Description At airports with an open access airport taxicab system, there is often no single taxicab dispatch office or central tele- phone number which airport staff can use to communicate with all licensed taxicab drivers serving the airport. Many airport taxicab drivers are owner/operator independent con- tractors and may not subscribe to a centralized dispatch sys- tem so it is important that the airport is able to have real-time communications with these drivers. Purpose Airport staff may also need to contact taxicab drivers if there will be road closures or other changes in operations due to construction, unusual events, or new policies or regula- tions, in addition to more typical communications for alerting drivers that additional taxicabs are needed to serve the airport (addressed in Section A6). Alerts to taxicab drivers that there are an excess of taxicabs in the hold lot can also help airport taxi- cab drivers decide if they should return to the airport or seek customers in other areas of the community. There are several methods that have proven effective in enabling airport staff to communicate with taxicab drivers and companies. Drivers can be contacted by voice, text, and/or electronic changeable mes- sage signs in the hold lot. These methods can include the use of smartphones, tablets, and mobile data terminals. Boston Logan International Airport uses social media to communicate quickly with all drivers that follow their Logan Taxi Pool Twitter account. Figure 8-8 shows sample tweets informing drivers of an airline terminal change and a maintenance event. The communica- tion tools available through the use of tablets and mobile data terminals are described more fully in Chapter 9. Figure 8-8. Sample tweets from Boston Logan International Airport’s taxicab dispatcher.

64 port for cleanliness and restocking of products such as toilet paper and paper towels or hand drying machines. From this basic structure, some airports add other ameni- ties including seating areas, vending machines, food trucks, and internet. Restroom facilities should be well maintained. A food truck can be awarded a concession through a competitive bid process (Figure 8-9). Examples of more comprehensive driver facilities are the taxicab driver lounges at Dallas/Fort Worth and Calgary Inter- national Airports. As shown in Figure 8-10, drivers have seat- ing areas where they may watch TV, use the internet, or engage in recreational ping pong or other games while waiting for their turn to go to the airport curb. Quiet rooms for prayer and meditation in driver’s lounges may be desired by drivers, but airports have encountered challenges when attempting to provide facilities accommo- dating the requests of all drivers in a manner that is fair to all users, reflects the available construction budget, and results in facilities that can be readily maintained. Reasonable accom- modations have been made by airports by setting aside physi- cal spaces for personal reflection and prayer but not for the benefit or use of any one religion or group. Applicability A taxicab and/or ground transportation driver’s lounge is applicable at all airports that have large numbers of taxicab drivers waiting between airport pickups. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges These facilities benefit waiting drivers and allow them to pro- vide better levels of service to customers. The key challenges are of the options discussed herein. Automated telephone (chain dialing) systems are available on most business phone sys- tems as well as mass texting to driver cell phones. The use of electronic changeable message signs in the hold lot or else- where however can cost several thousands of dollars depend- ing on the size and number of signs. Examples Additional examples are included in Chapter 9. A10. Driver’s Lounge Description A taxicab and/or ground transportation driver’s lounge is a facility, typically located in a hold lot, providing amenities for taxicab drivers as they wait to be instructed to proceed to the terminal passenger boarding areas. Purpose The purpose of these driver amenities is to, at a minimum, provide restroom facilities for drivers who may wait 2, 3, or 4 hours in the hold lot before they proceed to the pickup curbside. Most airports do not permit taxicab drivers to enter the airport terminal building to use restrooms, so the driver’s restroom facilities are considered a necessity for the drivers. A secondary reason for driver’s lounges is to provide a com- fortable, heated/air-conditioned building where drivers may wait before proceeding to the airport curb, allowing drivers to avoid running their engines (and burning fuel) in order to operate their heaters or air-conditioners. Airport officials may not view taxicab driver facilities as something they should be responsible for in a closed system where it is the responsibility of the successful bidder to provide these facilities as a part of their concession agreement. However, in an open access system, an increasing number of airport offi- cials have determined that, even though it is the taxicab driver’s choice to wait at the airport for extended periods, to improve the experience of the drivers and ultimately the experience of airline passengers, the airport operator should provide basic restroom facilities for these drivers. These restrooms may vary from temporary structures (e.g., port-a-john or portable toi- lets such as those found at construction sites) to more elaborate heated and air-conditioned lounges providing TV and internet services. In an open access system, taxicab driver facilities are primarily provided and maintained by the airport operator. Facilities to Provide The basic driver’s facility includes washrooms. This may be a simple concrete block facility that is maintained by the air- Figure 8-9. A food truck at Houston Intercontinental Airport.

65 Examples Airport taxicab driver lounges used in open access airports are referenced in the above paragraphs. A11. Driver Training Programs Description Driver training programs familiarize airport taxicab drivers with the rules and regulations governing the use of airport facilities and its roadways, and customer service. Purpose The purpose of this training is to ensure that taxicab drivers receive proper training prior to their receiving licenses to operate on-demand taxicabs on the airport and pick up waiting airline passengers. This training may address the use of airport roadways and curbsides, the use of airport hold lots, applicable airport rules and regulations, proper interac- tion with airport staff including payment of any airport fees, and the penalties for not obeying airport rules and regula- tions. This training may be performed either by airport staff (internally) or by others (externally). Each of these types of training is discussed below. Internal. Training for taxicab drivers is developed and conducted by airport staff. At Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, drivers undergo a 30 day training program. Training topics covered during the first 3 days include uniforms, badges, paperwork, airport rules and regulations, and a tour of the air- port. On the fourth day, drivers are assigned a peer coach with whom they work side-by-side for the next 2 weeks. The peer coach must complete a checklist, and a supervisor checks the associated with the cost of building and maintaining the facili- ties, particularly restrooms and toilets. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. The airline traveling public will be largely unaware of the presence of a taxicab driver’s lounge but will appreciate comfortable and clean drivers (as opposed to those that have been sitting in their vehicles for several hours on a hot or cold day). • Commercial ground transportation operators. Taxicab drivers appreciate the availability of the amenities described above. • Local elected and regulatory officials. Most elected offi- cials and local regulatory bodies appreciate the hard work and many hours that taxicab drivers endure. There is the general feeling that in order to have clean, comfortable taxicabs available for passengers, these amenities should be provided. Implementation Schedule and Costs Depending upon the type of driver’s facility the airport chooses, the cost and implementation time will differ consid- erably. Basic port-a-potty construction site facilities can be implemented in a matter of days and added to the airport’s annual maintenance cost under contract to a local provider. However, more elaborate facilities such as those at Dallas/Fort Worth and Calgary International require capital budgeting and construction. These facilities run into several million dollars (Calgary International Airport’s cost CAD $1.8 million) and can require over 2 years to budget and construct. Source: Calgary Airport Authority. Figure 8-10. Calgary International Airport’s taxicab driver lounge.

66 • Commercial ground transportation operators. Most air- port taxicab drivers appreciate the ability to know how to use the airport’s facility and would appreciate receiving other helpful information regarding their services at the airport. Thus, most accept this training as part of their job as an air- port taxicab driver, although they may complain about the cost and time associated with attending the training course. • Local elected and regulatory officials. Local elected officials are often the source of pressure to improve taxicab service in the community in response to customer complaints or officials themselves who received poor taxicab service going to or from the airport. Thus, there is generally support for taxicab driver training. Implementation Schedule and Costs Implementation costs for training programs for airport taxicab drivers vary depending upon methodology and per- sonnel utilized. Driver training costs should not be significant if the program is conducted by airport personnel and is devel- oped in-house. While these programs are aimed primarily to introduce the new drivers to the airport’s operating procedures and rules for operating while at the airport, some amount of customer training can also be included. Should external pro- grams and personnel be utilized to provide this training, then these costs will have to be budgeted as an on-going expense for the drivers. This budget will depend upon the type of programs selected and their anticipated costs per driver. Examples Examples of driver training programs are included herein. A12. Enforcement Description Airport taxicab enforcement procedures are processes airport officials utilize to manage the operations of taxicab drivers and their vehicles while on airport property. Purpose Due to the nature of an open access taxicab system, there is often little oversight or control of airport taxicab operations by the taxicab companies themselves. Taxicab companies are often concerned that the independent contractor status of their driver population will be compromised should they exercise significant control over how the taxicab drivers do their job. By default, airport staff must often assume responsibility for the manner in which on-demand taxicab service is provided at the airport, and the oversight of the individual taxicab driver at the end of 2 weeks. Following the completion of the 30-day training period, the driver must pass an exam to qualify as an airport taxicab driver. There is also a training program for the peer coaches. External. Often training for taxicab drivers is provided by local colleges on behalf of the airport or the region. At Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, drivers attend an 18-hour technical training class at a local college. Training may also be obtained externally from a local agency that provides training to both airport and non-airport drivers. Taxicab drivers serving Miami International Airport participate in customer service training as part of their Ambassador Cab Program. Vancouver International Airport requires all drivers to go through an in-school driver training program run by the Justice Institute of British Columbia. The airport originally developed the program; however, the surrounding cities now also require their taxicab drivers to attend the training. Topics covered include collision avoidance, how to address passengers with special needs, and English writing skills. Drivers must pass both a written and a one-on-one interview test in order to complete the training. All costs are borne by the drivers. External associations. There are also several international transportation associations that have developed specific train- ing programs for taxicab drivers. These include an online train- ing program available through the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and the Taxicab Limousine Para- transit Foundation (TLPA). Applicability Driver training programs are applicable in all airports with open access taxicab service that wish to improve the quality of taxicab service at their airport. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The benefits are improved driver training, leading to a reduc- tion in the number of customer complaints and improved compliance with airport taxicab rules and regulations. The key challenges are the costs of the program and obtaining the cooperation of taxicab drivers and taxicab companies. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airport customers would be unaware of the training programs undertaken on behalf of the airport taxi- cab drivers but would appreciate the ability to obtain safe, friendly, customer oriented on-demand taxicab service.

67 may carry a more severe penalty of a few points, and a short trip refusal may result in the maximum number of points being awarded to the driver. Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport is an example of an airport with a point system. • Suspensions. A suspension system is when a driver is barred from the airport taxicab hold lot and hence the airport’s pickup system for a set number of days. In most cases a driver is suspended only for a serious infraction of airport rules such as failure to follow the directives of a police or traffic control officer. In most cases the first suspension is for a few days but it may be 6 months or longer if the offense was extremely serious such as reckless driving. Should this behavior con- tinue the driver would be permanently suspended from the airport. At Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Air- port, the minimum suspension is 72 hours. Airport staff do not tolerate behaviors such as fighting and will give a 30-day suspension if a fight occurs. • Fines. A fine system is a series of set fines or amounts that reflect the seriousness of the offense. For minor offenses such as failure to go to the correct terminal, the fine may be minimal but for major offenses such as soliciting pas- sengers, the fine can be considerably higher. Airports prefer to impose suspensions rather than fines, as a suspension is easier to impose than attempting to collect a fine from an individual driver and is also an economic disincentive. Monterey Regional Airport is an example of an airport that uses fines as part of their enforcement process. • Appeal process. Irrespective of the system used, whether points, fines, or suspensions, there is always an appeal pro- cess for taxicab drivers. This appeal process can be a simple two-step process of first stating the case before a hearings officer such as the Manager of Landside Management at the airport and then to the director of the airport as a second- ary level of appeal. Often this means that an airport must go to some lengths to ensure each driver is getting a fair hearing. One such example is Dallas/Fort Worth Interna- tional Airport where the airport engages a firm specializ- ing in arbitration to hear appeals of taxicab drivers about their treatment from airport curb coordinators. Such a pro- cess provides an outside third party review of disciplinary actions taken by the airport staff. • Application to taxicab companies. Application of any of the suspensions or fines to the taxicab company with whom the offending driver is affiliated is possible but problem- atic, particularly if the driver is an independent contractor owner/operator rather than employee. Taxicab companies often will not take on enforcement responsibilities advis- ing the airport that the improper actions were those of an independent contractor driver—not that of the company. Or, the company may indicate that it cannot discipline the drivers. Airport staff conduct background checks on drivers during their application for airport permits, control the driv- ers’ movements while on airport property, and discipline the drivers through their enforcement procedures. Taxicab enforcement procedures are steps taken to ensure public safety and efficient utilization of the airport curbsides and roadways. These procedures are also utilized to provide fair and equitable opportunities for all taxicab drivers seek- ing to pick up airline passengers desiring on-demand taxicab service at the airport. Why active and strict enforcement is necessary. Active, consistent, and strict enforcement of airport operating rules and procedures is necessary for several reasons. Primarily, strict adherence to these rules is necessary for the public’s safety. The airport curbside roadway is a highly congested area with pri- vate and commercial vehicles all vying for available curbside space to drop off and pick up airline passengers. Portions of the curbside areas are allocated for on-demand taxicabs and all taxicab drivers must adhere to the rules for entering this area and the treatment of airline passengers. Actions such as refusing short trips to close by destinations, imposing extra charges for bags when not permitted, refusing to accept or securely process credit cards where required, or the use of dirty vehicles cannot be tolerated or ignored lest they become common practices at the airport. Most airport taxicab drivers are hardworking, honest indi- viduals that treat customers with dignity and fairness. How- ever, some do not view airline passengers as repeat customers. Airport taxicab drivers are aware that visitors to the city prob- ably do not know details of the route to their destination, permissible and non-permissible taxicab charges, and who to contact if they left something in the taxicab or have other problems. Furthermore, should a problem with the service arise, visitors would have to return to the city for a hearing. Thus, there is the opportunity for significant exploitation of the airport taxicab passenger by drivers. It is for these reasons that strict enforcement is necessary in order to stem any poor practices before they become widespread among other airport taxicab drivers. Disciplining drivers and companies. As with many dis- ciplinary systems, there is a hierarchy of actions that get pro- gressively more severe if the offense or number of offenses increases. Smaller airports usually treat violations on a case by case basis. Airports may use a point system, a suspension program, fines, or a combination of all three to discipline drivers as described in the following: • Point systems. A point system usually begins with a warn- ing for minor infractions such as a broken taillight. A fail- ure to go to the terminal assigned by the hold lot dispatcher

68 of the traveling public and help to create a level playing field for all airport taxicab drivers. • Local elected and regulatory officials. Most officials understand and appreciate the need for and the applica- tion of strict airport rules. These rules and operating pro- cedures protect the public’s interest in safety and customer service. For the most part, these officials want to see an effective appeals process that permits a fair hearing for the taxicab driver. Implementation Schedule and Costs Implementation costs for enforcement of taxicab driver and vehicle rules and regulations can be considerable in terms of time and effort if the number of warnings, citations, hear- ings, and appeals is large. This is one of the hidden costs of operating an airport with an open access taxicab system. Air- port staff should not only consider the time it takes to write a citation but also the significant time required in the processing of the citation, a hearing if requested, and an appeal process if requested. Many taxicab driver complaints and ultimate dis- ciplinary actions come from customer comment cards placed within the vehicle or personal letters sent to the airport. Each of these must be reviewed, acted upon, and answered. At a large airport, this activity may require the full-time equivalent of one or more staff members. Drafting and reviewing a taxicab driver enforcement pro- gram can take considerable time as all legal aspects have to be considered and vetted before taking the program to the local regulatory authority for approval. This process can take between 6 months to a year to obtain approval and another 3 months to properly explain the program to drivers and make sure each has had a chance to ask questions. Examples Airports with various types of taxicab driver and company enforcement procedures are referenced in the above paragraphs. A13. Bid vs. Proposal Description Airports have two primary ways to obtain on-demand taxi- cab service under an exclusive or semi-exclusive taxicab con- cession. They can issue a RFP which generally discusses the type of services desired by the airport and allows prospective providers to compose a proposal describing how they would meet and/or exceed the airport’s requirements for the service, including compensation to the airport for the business privi- lege of providing this service. Alternatively, the airport can specify in detail all the aspects of the service to be provided and ask prospective operators to bid on providing these services. driver or exercise detailed control over the driver. However, some airports do include the taxicab companies in their enforcement program and can award the company warn- ings, fines, suspensions, or other disciplinary type actions. It is common to request a senior company representative attend the hearings with airport staff. • Mystery shopping. While the most direct way of testing air- port taxicab drivers’ compliance with the airport’s rules and regulations is through personal observation by police offi- cers, traffic control officers, taxicab dispatchers, and other airport personnel stationed at the curbside, a common indirect method is the use of mystery shoppers. Mystery shoppers go through the motions of waiting in a taxicab line, boarding a waiting taxicab, and experiencing the taxi- cab ride. The shopper (or mystery rider) then writes up a complete detail of every aspect of their experience. These reports can then be used to discipline taxicab drivers that do not take the shortest route, refuse to accept credit cards, overcharge the secret shopper, or provide other unaccept- able service. Typically airport staff review the reports with both drivers and the senior management of the companies with whom these drivers are affiliated. Applicability Enforcement procedures are applicable to all airports with an open taxicab system. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Active, consistent, and strict enforcement of taxicab rules and procedures improves airport customer service and decreases customer complaints. The challenge is evenly administering these enforcement procedures and being viewed as fair to all drivers. An additional challenge is carrying out these enforcement procedures, including appeals, in a cost effective manner. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. While most airport customers will not be aware of the details of any taxicab driver enforcement program, they will appreciate a comfortable, convenient taxicab ride from the airport and being treated fairly and professionally by the taxicab drivers as a result of enforcement procedures that are actively and strictly enforced. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Taxicab drivers do not appreciate a myriad of rules and regulations that they must know and abide by. However, good taxicab drivers are aware that most of these rules are for the good

69 An important aspect of the RFP is the schedule of events taking place regarding the RFP. In addition to the due date for the proposals and permissible forms of submission, a pre- proposal conference, which may or may not be mandatory for all proposers, is typically scheduled in advance of the sub- mission date. During the time that an RFP for taxicab services is available, there are typically strict limits on who can answer questions about the RFP, and under what circumstances. All potential proposers are requested to make their intentions known and some airports require that in order to obtain a copy of the full RFP, these individuals and firms provide their con- tact information. Most airport RFPs for taxicab services require that all questions be in writing and that all responses be shared with any prospective proposers. ACRP Report 54: Resource Manual for Airport In-Terminal Concessions provides guidance on the evaluation and selection process of an RFP. An example of a competitive taxicab service RFP is that of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport which conducted an RFP for three taxicab companies to provide their on-demand services. As a result of this concession agreement, the city receives a total of $3.5 million annually in concession revenues from the three taxicab concession. Applicability Exclusive or semi-exclusive taxicab concessions for airport on-demand services are applicable to any airport which has taxicab services. These taxicab concessions, while referred to as exclusive services, are not really exclusive—they pertain only to the exclusive right to serve on-demand airline passengers at the airport. At all but a few airports, all properly licensed taxicabs may also pick up arriving airline passengers by pre- arrangement. An airport on-demand taxicab concession allows the airport to set reasonable standards for vehicles and drivers, with the ability to bring about greater control on the delivery and consistency of high quality taxicab service for the airline traveling public. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The benefits of an exclusive or semi-exclusive airport on- demand taxicab concession are considerable compared to many airports with an open taxicab system. The airport has much greater control over the quality of vehicles and the behavior of drivers since compliance with airport regulations and proce- dures is part of a contractual agreement in addition to a per- mitting process. There is much more involvement with the taxicab company and its management of the service. Airports also report significant cost savings when converting from an open airport to an exclusive airport taxicab system due to fewer personnel being assigned to taxicab management. These include the airports serving Cleveland, Fort Myers, In either case, there is typically a MAG stipulated for the suc- cessful proposer, as well as an activity based fee component (e.g., a fee per trip or per deplaned airline passenger). Purpose The purpose of an exclusive access taxicab on-demand con- cession is to allow airport management to gain greater control over the quality of vehicles and service provided in this airport concession. Airport taxicab concession contracts can include detailed specifications on vehicle standards and driver quali- fications that generally exceed those of the local regulatory authority. A secondary purpose is to have greater leverage over the behavior of drivers and to hold taxicab companies contrac- tually responsible for service. Bids Airport bids for taxicab services are not common due to the subjective nature of many aspects of providing airport taxicab services. Standards include those for vehicle age, size/capacity, and conditions; driver qualifications and training; fares; airport compensation; use of facilities; insurance; and day-to-day management and dispatching of drivers, among other details. Oversight of taxicab drivers, vehicles, services and operating rules can be complex, depending on the size of the airport, emphasizing the need for an experienced individual to oversee the day-to-day operation of an airport taxicab service. If, however, an airport has had an airport on-demand taxi- cab concession for some time and is satisfied with the service, staff may wish to use a bid process which incorporates and con- tinues the existing operating procedures, vehicle standards, and other details. Proposals By far the most common method for renewing or establish- ing an airport taxicab concession is the use of the RFP process. Airport staff develop and offer a detailed description of the service desired along with supporting information about the number of taxicab trips dispatched from the airport and other technical aspects of the airport that are deemed necessary to assist proposers in constructing their proposal. The RFP will normally specify the minimum standards for vehicles, drivers, dispatching, and customer service, and invite proposing com- panies to suggest programs that exceed these minimum stan- dards and enhance the experience of airline passengers. This RFP package will also include standard forms and information supplied by the airport’s procurement department regarding contracting with the airport. The RFP will be announced or sent to local taxicab operators and to regional/national taxicab companies that could offer these services.

70 these awards can and do often become quite controversial, as there is a hierarchical structure of approvals required. In some cases the review committee passes their recommen- dations along to the airport director and/or aviation board for review and approval and then to the mayor or city coun- cil for final approval. Such a process with so many layers of political overlay can be extremely long and tedious. Thus, it is important to establish a review committee that has a clear, quantitative evaluation process that is communicated well in the RFP and followed consistently throughout the selection process. Implementation Schedule and Costs The implementation schedule for a taxicab concession renewal can be expected to take 6 months or longer if a new operator is selected. The issuing of an RFP and the time for pro- posals to be submitted and reviewed can take several months. In addition, after the selection, the operator needs to be given time to purchase new vehicles or assemble the vehicles that were proposed for the service. Should the operator selected be a new operator for the airport concession, the time frame for implementation may take longer. Some airport taxicab concessions are contested by firms that were not selected through the RFP process, and it may take another 6 months or more to clear up any legal challenge to the award. For these reasons, the implementation costs can vary significantly. If an airport is reissuing their taxicab concession RFP for existing services, and the existing operator is the suc- cessful proposer, the time for implementation will be short and the cost minimal, consisting mostly of staff time involved in the construction of the RFP and review of proposals. For airport officials considering a change from an open access taxicab system to that of a concession system, the time and costs of implementing the initial concession can be a considerable challenge. Local taxicab firms and elected offi- cials may object to the inability of properly licensed taxicabs to continue to serve the airport, despite a long history of pro- viding excellent customer service. Airport staff may have to compare the quality of taxicab service at their airport with other peer airports as material for discussions concerning the use of a concession contract. Airport Boards may need to be convinced that the political difficulties to be overcome will be worth the efforts required to address negative criticism from the owners of unsuccessful companies claiming that they and their drivers will be adversely impacted by the air- port’s actions. Public opinion may be on the side of protest- ing taxicab drivers that feel their livelihoods are at stake with proposed changes to the airport taxicab system. The success of such proposals typically depends upon how costly and how poor the level of service of the current open taxicab system is. If the service is generally poor and customers and other and Raleigh-Durham. Finally, in addition to cost savings, these same airports report improved financial gains from the airport taxicab concession—turning a cost deficit into a financial gain. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Given the higher standards typically found in airport taxicab concessions, customers generally appreci- ate a concessionaire on-demand taxicab service over open access taxicabs. There is greater uniformity and responsi- bility in these services due to greater involvement and day- to-day management by the taxicab company operating the service. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Taxicab company operators and drivers generally prefer an exclu- sive or semi-exclusive airport taxicab concession—if they are the successful proposers. The ability to make more air- port pickups and avoid long wait times at the airport are beneficial to both drivers and company as the entire opera- tion becomes more efficient and time effective, enhancing the driver’s income and the company’s return on invest- ment. Unsuccessful companies are likely to lobby the local regulatory agency to prevent the concession from being implemented. They may express their concerns that despite being legitimate, licensed companies—perhaps with a long history in the community—are being denied access to an important source of business. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Some elected and regulatory officials feel the airport roadways are public roadways and that all taxicabs permitted to operate within the city should be able to pick up on-demand customers at the airport. Some amount of education upon the part of the airport staff is required to explain that the airport roadways are owned by the airport and, though there is public use of the roadways and other facilities, they are not public right- of-ways. There is also the need to convey that there are safety issues related to where and how taxicabs use the airport that must be considered. Staff can demonstrate the ability to improve customer service through the use of a concession contract, and that driver income will likely not be negatively affected, since as independent contractors these drivers may affiliate with the successful concessionaire if they wish. Finally, the need for the airport to be self-sufficient needs to be conveyed. Unfortunately, a significant number of air- port taxi concession awards are challenged by unsuccessful bidders that feel the award was not properly decided. Thus, it is important for airport officials to provide a clear and transparent review of all the bids/proposals of their bid or RFP process. The addition of non-airport reviewers (e.g., local taxicab regulatory personnel) is also helpful. Even so,

71 Two or more concessionaires. Often political concerns regarding the impact of the single concessionaire taxicab sys- tem at the airport limit the flexibility the airport has in estab- lishing a single concessionaire. Also, the number of taxicabs actually needed by the airport might be beyond the capacity of any single local taxicab company to provide. The capacity of local taxicab companies, however, is becoming less of a factor since there are now a number of large transportation compa- nies that can and do offer competitive proposals for taxicab services at cities and airports they are not currently serving. The major drawback with two or more taxicab concessions is the need to also provide some form of independent manage- ment of the dispatch curb so that each company and its drivers have an equal number of opportunities to pick up passengers at the airport. This would defeat the cost savings from the elimi- nation of airport dispatchers. The necessity of having an independent third party to provide the taxicab dispatching services can be overcome by assigning each company to a different terminal or, as Tampa International Airport does, assign one of their two taxicab concessionaires to each side of the terminal. Thus, each company provides its own dispatch service and no airport personnel or third-party taxicab dispatching service concession is needed. In order to ensure that each taxicab company gets an equal number of taxicab trips, the airport requires that the two taxicab companies rotate sides of the airport weekly. An example of more than two taxicab concessionaires is that of Washington Dulles International Airport. Due to political concerns and numerous legal challenges to the awarding of their on-demand taxicab concession, Dulles switched from the single taxicab concessionaire system it had originally installed when the airport opened, to a system of three taxicab compa- nies, each with 240 vehicles. Each taxicab company has its own offices at the airport and manages its third of the demand. All vehicles are required to be painted the same battleship gray indicating it is a Washington Flyer airport taxicab. Each con- cession is competitively awarded from an RFP process that is renewed according to the quality of service provided. The initial contract is for 5 years but each year a concessionaire is able to meet service goals set by the airport, they are awarded another year onto their contract. Each taxicab company can earn up to 5 additional years on their concession agreement if they consistently meet the service objectives set by the airport. Allocation among several taxicab companies/drivers. Several other alternative arrangements can be found to award a taxicab concession contract for on-demand taxicab services. An airport can specify that it desires several taxicab concessions of different sizes to provide opportunities for small and dis- advantaged contractors to also provide taxicab services. Such is the case at Phoenix Sky Harbor. Taxicab service and regula- tions at Phoenix airport are unique in that the State of Arizona stakeholders such as the local hotel and convention industry are dissatisfied with the airport taxicabs, then airport officials have a greater chance of making the shift to a taxicab conces- sionaire, but typically, it is a political struggle to achieve this objective. Examples Airports having taxicab concession contracts are refer- enced in the previous paragraphs. A14. One, Two, or Three Concessionaires Description A question often arises concerning how many taxicab companies should be awarded a concession contract. While there are demonstrated cost advantages with the single con- cessionaire, there are also numerous reasons why multiple taxicab companies may be appropriate. Purpose The purpose of implementing either a single or multiple taxicab company concessionaire system is reducing costs and improving the on-demand taxicab service. Each of these options is considered in more detail in the following sections. One concessionaire. Often the purpose of a single taxicab concessionaire is for uniformity and cost savings. With a single concessionaire, the company is typically tasked with managing all aspects of the operation such as the hold lot and any facili- ties therein, the dispatch system to call taxicabs from the hold lot to the appropriate curbside area, managing the behavior of all drivers, and processing any complaints. Thus, the greatest cost savings to the airport are when the concessionaire per- forms all these tasks, significantly reducing the number of air- port personnel that had been previously assigned these tasks under an open airport taxicab system. Another benefit of the single concessionaire is that there is but one entity to go to should there be a problem or issue with the on-demand taxicab service. Regular reports can be devel- oped and provided regarding the operation of the service and its drivers. Single taxicab concessionaires are best utilized when the airport administration has high flexibility to choose whichever type of taxicab concession it desires and there are a number of local, regional, and/or national taxicab operators that can pro- vide competitive proposals for the service. A single company may also be more appropriate at airports with relatively low demand for taxicab service.

72 and the behavior of drivers since compliance with airport reg- ulations and procedures is part of a contractual agreement in addition to a permitting process. There is much more involve- ment with the taxicab companies and their management of the taxicab services, rather than with individual drivers. Air- ports report significant cost savings when converting from an open airport to an exclusive airport taxicab system due to fewer personnel being assigned to taxicab management. Airports also report increased non-airline revenues resulting from the award of the airport taxicab concessions—turning a cost deficit into a financial gain. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Taxicab users appreciate the greater degree of uniformity and quality that either a single or multiple taxi- cab concessionaire system brings to the airport environment. There is the impression that all the taxicabs look alike which is different from the impression of the open access airport taxicab line which resembles a rainbow of colors, vehicle types, and driver appearances. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Depending upon the makeup of the local taxicab industry, the response by existing taxicab operators may vary. For the full-service taxicab operator that provides considerable contract, call, and dispatch trips for its drivers, the response is likely to be one of interest and support. If the local taxicab operator provides little in the way of support for its drivers other than an operating permit, there is likely to be little interest and even opposition to an airport developing any form of taxicab concession. This would require a change in the company’s operating model and perhaps financial invest- ment so there would be resistance to this type of change. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local officials may be more likely to be supportive of a concession with multiple companies than a single concession, as it provides opportunities for more companies to participate. There may be pressure from officials to provide opportunities for small businesses, including the independent owner-operators. Implementation Schedule and Costs The implementation schedule and costs for a concession system with one or multiple concessionaires are described in the previous section. Examples Airport examples of exclusive and semi-exclusive taxicab concessions are referenced in the previous paragraphs. restricts the right of any city to regulate taxicabs but does permit airports to do so. Due to poor airport taxicab service resulting from the deregulated environment, the airport moved to create a taxi concession agreement. The airport issued a competitive bid and set the service specifications for taxicabs and the rates they can charge. The airport awarded contracts to the top three bidders—top being defined as the one that provided the highest per vehicle amount per year to the airport. The bid also limited the total number of taxicabs serving the airport so that each taxicab is able to make approximately ten outbound airport trips per day. Phoenix Sky Harbor’s last round of competitive taxicab company bids resulted in annual revenue to the airport of approximately $5 million. The highest bid was $16,000 per taxicab per year with the others at around $15,000 per taxicab per year. This is believed to be the highest per taxicab access fee in North America. In addition, each taxicab pays a $1.00 per- trip fee via AVI to the airport. Finally, there is a requirement that each successful taxi company have their own curb person- nel, therefore, the airport experiences relatively low manage- ment costs for their taxicab system. Alternatively, an airport which has mainly independent contractor drivers who have little company affiliation serv- ing their airport may choose to develop a consortium of these drivers to form an airport concession agreement. In the past, the airports serving Seattle and Honolulu awarded exclusive taxicab concession contracts to the taxicab driver consortiums. Both airports were provided high quality on- demand taxicab service by the consortiums which managed themselves and their members. However, even if these con- sortium providers offer excellent service during their conces- sion time period, there is no guarantee that they will always have the on-demand taxi service concession. For example, Seattle-Tacoma International had one such consortium for many years, but pressure to put this service up for a com- petitive proposal resulted in the airport selecting a different company. Applicability Implementation is applicable at all airports desiring greater control over on-demand taxicab costs and service. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges As previously stated, the benefits of a semi-exclusive on- demand taxicab concession are considerable compared to the many airports with an open taxicab system. This is the case whether an airport awards an exclusive or semi-exclusive taxicab concession contract. With a contractual agreement an airport has much greater control over the quality of vehicles

73 the pickup area, an independent third party is contracted to provide the starter service for all three concessionaire companies. Basis of Payment/Fee Collection Most airport taxicab concession contracts include a MAG amount established for the concession. This is the mini- mum amount an operator is expected to pay annually (or in 12 equal payments on a monthly basis) for the conces- sion contract. Typically an airport taxicab concessionaire is required to pay the MAG (which may be specified in the RFP or included in the bid documents) plus an activity based fee. The activity based fee reflects the volume of taxicab busi- ness conducted at the airport and can be calculated based on deplaned passengers, per inbound access to the taxicab hold lot, per outbound trip, or in the form of a flat monthly or annual fee. Typically the concessionaire is required to pay the higher of the MAG or the activity based fee, with the MAG adjusted annually to equate to a percentage (e.g., 85%) of the activity based fee if the activity based fee exceeds the prior year’s MAG. Applicability These business arrangements are applicable at any airport that has or is considering a concession agreement. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The benefits and challenges are described at the beginning of Section 8A. Likely Response by Stakeholders The likely responses by stakeholders are described at the beginning of Section 8A. Implementation Schedule and Costs Implementation costs and schedules will depend on the time and effort required by staff to obtain the approval of air- port management, develop the RFP, evaluate proposals, and award the contract. Examples Examples include the airports serving Albany, Cincinnati, Phoenix, Raleigh-Durham, Seattle, Tampa, and Washing- ton (Dulles). Sample business arrangements are included in Appendix H. A15. Business Arrangements Description The business arrangement with taxicabs changes signifi- cantly with the development of an exclusive airport concession contract. The arrangement an airport has with its taxicab pro- viders is enhanced greatly through the addition of contractual arrangements for the service. In addition to local taxicab regu- lations and an airport permitting process, the airport opera- tor can add additional requirements as well as incentives and penalties to their working arrangement with the on-demand taxicab service. Purpose The purpose of these enhanced business arrangements is to improve on-demand taxicab service and enhance revenues from these operations. Depending upon the concession con- tract, these incentives and penalties can be with the individual drivers, the taxicab concessionaire, or a third-party taxicab dispatching company. Use of rewards and penalty clauses. Rewards within an airport taxicab concession can vary from simple items such as recognition for excellent performance in airport communica- tions to major rewards such as additional year(s) on the con- cession if service standards/goals are met (e.g., Washington Dulles International). Penalties can also be simple such as a warning for dirty vehicles to a fine for all passengers that are required to wait more than a set number of minutes for their taxicab to arrive at the curb. Agreements with management contractor. Airport taxi- cab concessions are primarily entered into (or signed) by a taxicab management company that utilizes independent con- tractor drivers to perform the transportation services. The contractor can either be rewarded with additional years on their contract or penalized by not being awarded additional years due to lack of expected performance. The ultimate pen- alty would be the dissolution of the concession agreement by the airport. Separate agreements with taxicab provider(s) and the dispatching company. Awarding concession contracts to more than one taxicab company usually requires that an independent third party management contractor be utilized to dispatch taxicabs. This can be airport staff or a third-party taxicab dispatch concession agreement. The best example of this situation can be found at Washington Dulles Inter- national Airport, who has concession agreement with three taxicab companies—each with an equal number of taxicabs permitted to work at the airport. However, in order to make sure no single taxicab company is favored over another at

74 Applicability Concession management and oversight applies to every airport that has a taxicab on-demand concession, whether it is an exclusive or semi-exclusive concession agreement. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The benefits of active concession management and over- sight are considerable. Active concession management results in much greater control over the quality of vehicles and the behavior of drivers since compliance with airport regula- tions and procedures is part of a contractual agreement and expected to be executed every day. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers will respond favorably to the high level of service provided by a well-run concession contract. • Commercial ground transportation operators. If administered in accord with the terms of the contract, operators will be supportive of efforts to oversee the con- cession contract. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Elected officials will respond favorably to the improved levels of service resulting from a well-run operation. Implementation Schedule and Costs The implementation schedule and costs for active man- agement and oversight of the taxicab concession agreement should be minimal and part of the daily activities of airport staff responsible for overseeing commercial ground transpor- tation at the airport. Examples Various airport administrative and oversight techniques are referenced in the previous paragraphs. B. Limousines The following pages describe best practices for managing and controlling limousines. These best practices are orga- nized into the following categories: B1. Fee Collection B2. Control of Drivers and Vehicles B3. Controlling Illegal Solicitation of Arriving Airline Passengers B4. On-Demand Limousine Services A16. Oversight/Administration of Contract Description Airport taxicab concession contracts are service agreements that cover day-to-day operations affecting hundreds if not thousands of airport customers. Therefore, airport officials must establish methods for analyzing whether a concession- aire is meeting the objectives of the concession agreement. Purpose The administration of an airport taxicab concession agreement requires regular oversight of the operation to permit airport personnel to assess the degree of compliance to contract specifications. Thus, the purpose of oversight/ administration of the taxicab concession is contract compli- ance. This compliance review can be accomplished in the following ways: • Mystery shoppers. Mystery shoppers can be used to gain an independent view of how the airport passenger is being treated by taxicab drivers. The use of mystery shop- pers will provide qualitative feedback on the airport on- demand taxicab experience. Salt Lake City International Airport contracts with a mystery shopping service that routinely assesses the airport taxicabs. The results of these shops can be used to issue citations and impose fines for any violations that occurred during the trip. Operators receive reports on any mystery shops performed on their company operated vehicles, whether or not a citation was issued. • Customer comment cards. A common method that allows customers to provide feedback on the taxicab experience is the use of a taxicab customer comment card. These are self- addressed and postage prepaid cards typically containing a short list of questions regarding their taxicab experience. There are spaces made available for both compliments and complaints. For those cards returned as a complaint, a file is usually created, and a resolution process involving the taxicab operator is activated. Such cards are increasingly being replaced with internet based surveys inviting cus- tomers to comment upon the quality of the taxicab service they were provided. • Management by observation. A more fundamental approach to contract compliance is observation—having airport staff spend time on the airport curb every day, get- ting to know and observe each taxicab starter and driver as they interact with and load passengers. As dispatchers and drivers become aware that management actually cares about the service enough to spend time with it each day, compliance with contractual obligations is more likely to be observed and practiced.

75 business for some limousine companies, and where the lim- ousine companies must obtain and pay for an airport permit for each vehicle in their fleet. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges A sliding scale can be equitable to both large and small lim- ousine companies since all companies must obtain and pay for an airport permit, but each company can determine which fee system is best for them. At an airport charging sliding fees, limousine companies must evaluate whether to pass the airport fees on to their cus- tomers. This is because a company that makes fewer airport trips may pay higher fees on a per-trip basis (but lower total monthly fees) than a competitor, and thus might charge its airport customers more than a competitor if both companies were to pass the airport fees on to their customers. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers may be confused if their limousine bill includes different amounts of airport fees depending on which company they choose. However, the differences should be small for any one trip. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Limou- sine companies and drivers are likely to be supportive of sliding fees. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local officials are not expected to have any concerns with a sliding scale and may support it if they understand it benefits smaller companies. Implementation Schedule and Costs Ongoing and initial costs are minimal as it requires only modification to the existing airport regulations and limou- sine rate schedule. Examples Airports with sliding fees include those serving Memphis and Oakland. B2. Control of Drivers and Vehicles Description Methods for controlling which drivers enter the airport and the airport terminal, and where they can meet and greet their customers. B1. Fee Collection Description This section describes efficient methods for collecting air- port fees from limousine companies and drivers, particularly in communities where some limousine companies make few airport trips. Purpose Most airport operators require that limousine companies obtain airport permits for each of their vehicles and pay the established airport fees. Airports that require limousine com- panies to obtain permits typically charge $100 to $500 per vehicle per year. Many airports also require that limousine companies pay a cost-recovery fee of $2.00 to $5.00 per trip and use a GTM system to monitor the number of airport trips made by these companies. A few airports require that limou- sine drivers park in an adjacent parking facility while waiting for their customers and pay the public parking fee (e.g., Boston Logan and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airports). Limousine companies are required to pay dwell time fees or charges at airports that have established such fees. The allowed dwell time varies based upon the size of the limousine. A typical maximum dwell time for a standard town car is less than 11 minutes (e.g., Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport). Most often only limousines that are picking up a passenger at the airport are required to obtain an airport permit and pay an airport fee, but some airports (e.g., San Francisco Interna- tional Airport) require limousines that are dropping off airline passengers to have an airport permit and pay airport fees. Some limousine companies, particularly small companies whose vehicles make few airport trips or companies located in communities where there is little limousine business, may object to the costs of obtaining an airport permit and paying for an RFID transponder for each vehicle in their fleet if these vehicles rarely travel to the airport. In response some airports have established sliding scale fees for limousines. Examples of sliding scale fees include: • A reduced fee per company which includes permits for up to six limousines (Oakland International Airport) • Allowing a limousine company to choose to pay either $125 per month or 6 percent of their airport-related gross revenues with a monthly upper limit or cap of $500 (Mem- phis International Airport). Applicability Fee collection is applicable in communities where airport- related business represents a small proportion of the total

76 the TSA using the FBI database) and pay certain fees. For example at Houston’s Intercontinental and Hobby Airports drivers who have been issued such badges may leave their vehicles unattended in designated limousine lots and wait in the meet and greet areas inside the terminal buildings. • Limousine hold lots and ground transportation coordi- nators. Some airports require that limousine drivers wait for their customers in a remote parking or limousine lot until a ground transportation coordinator, passenger service assistance, or individual with a similar title and responsibil- ity authorizes the driver to proceed to the curbside boarding area to pick up their waiting customer. Only after (1) a cus- tomer notifies the ground transportation coordinator that they have reserved a limousine and provides the coordina- tor with the name of the limousine company or driver, and (2) the coordinator has confirmed that the driver has a valid airport permit and has paid the required airport fees does the ground transportation coordinator authorize the driver to exit the lot and proceed to the terminal. At some airports (e.g., Boston Logan International) the driver pays the required per-trip fee using cash or a debit card at an office within the lot and receives a receipt. Other airports collect the fee using an RFID tag or airport-issued debit card, which the driver can replenish (e.g., San Francisco International). There are several variations on this practice depending on where the ground transportation coordinator is located (e.g., at a counter in the baggage claim area or at the curbside) and whether the coordinator is an employee of the airport or a contractor retained by the airport. Chapter 8 Section A8 provides addi- tional information about the use of contract staff to manage commercial ground transportation operations. – Ground transportation counters in baggage claim area. Some airports provide staffed ground transpor- tation counters or kiosks in or near the baggage claim areas. Counter staff can assist customers by providing accurate information about the destinations served, routes, fares, travel times, and departure schedules for all available commercial ground transportation and public transit services. At some airports, (e.g., Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood and Philadelphia International airports) cus- tomers who have made prior arrangements to be picked up by a limousine service must go to the counters and ask the counter staff to notify their limousine driver that they are ready to leave the airport. Counter staff notify the customer by announcing when a customer’s limousine has arrived at the curbside. At Newark International air- port, counter staff escort the customer to their limousine and help carry their baggage. – Ground transportation coordinator located at the curbside. Some airports (e.g., Denver International) pro- vide booths or desks on the curbside staffed by ground transportation coordinators. As with counters located Purpose At many airports limousine drivers are required to remain with their vehicles and are not allowed to enter the termi- nal to assist their customers. These restrictions help prevent (1) unattended limousines at the terminal curbside and (2) improper solicitation of airline passengers by licensed limousine drivers, unlicensed drivers, and others. (Section B3 presents examples of practices to reduce illegal solicitation of airline passengers.) Some airports require that the vehicles remain in hold lots or limousine lots until their customers have arrived at the ter- minal. These lots may be physically separated from taxicab hold lots to segregate the two services and drivers. By providing electric vehicle recharging stations in the limousine lot, such as those planned at San Francisco International Airport, an air- port operator may encourage the use of hybrid or fully electric limousine services. (To further promote “green” vehicles, San Francisco International’s website gives priority to limousine operators using alternative fueled or hybrid vehicles.) However, requiring limousine drivers to remain with their vehicles adversely affects the driver’s ability to provide their customers with the service they expect and pay for: some- one to meet and greet them and carry their baggage from the terminal to the waiting limousine. Several airports have implemented practices which allow limousine drivers to meet and greet their customers and thus improve customer service, while allowing airport staff to maintain control of limousine drivers. Examples of these practices include: • Driver meet and greet areas. Airports frequently designate locations where limousine drivers may wait for and greet arriving customers, and simultaneously prohibit drivers from waiting in other locations inside the terminal such as the baggage claim areas or international arrivals areas. Normally these “meet and greet” areas are located at or near the entrance to the baggage claim areas at a site that deplaning passengers must pass or can easily see. At some airports, stanchions and ropes are used to designate the areas where drivers may wait. Typically drivers are required to (1) display a sign with the customer’s name, (2) display in clear sight an identification badge issued by the airport operator or other approved agency, and (3) possess a dated manifest or waybill indicating the arriving passenger’s name, party size, airline flight number, and other information. Both paper manifests and electronic manifests visible on the driver’s tablet or smartphone are considered acceptable. • Driver licenses or permits. Only licensed or permitted limousine drivers are allowed to enter the terminal and wait in the designated meet and greet areas. In order to obtain an airport license, badge, or permit a driver must complete a background check (typically administered by

77 • Commercial ground transportation operators. Limou- sine companies and drivers may oppose the need to wait in the limousine lot and have their customers report to a counter, but once implemented understand that this program reduces illegal or improper solicitation. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local officials are not expected to have any concerns particularly if those passengers choosing a limousine service are offered the expected levels of service. Implementation Schedule and Costs The costs of providing a driver meet and greet area are negli- gible. The primary cost of operating a counter, whether located inside the baggage claim area or at the curbside, is the cost of staffing the counter during all hours of airline operations. A counter must have electrical power and, if located on the curb, be enclosed and heated/air-conditioned. Examples Airports with limousine lots and ground transportation counters/coordinators are referenced in the above paragraphs. B3. Controlling Illegal Solicitation of Arriving Airline Passengers Description This section includes measures to prevent or discourage illegal solicitation of airline passengers by ground transporta- tion providers, particularly limousine drivers. Purpose Illegal solicitation of arriving airline passengers by limousine drivers—both licensed and unlicensed—is a challenge faced by many airport operators, particularly at larger airports and airports serving international arriving passengers. Airports seek to prevent illegal solicitation and to discourage passengers from accepting rides from these drivers, who may be referred to as pirates, scoopers, or hustlers, to ensure that pas- sengers are transported safely and securely. These limousines may be under-insured, poorly maintained, and the drivers of these vehicles are more likely to overcharge customers— particularly those arriving from overseas who may be unfa- miliar with local transportation fares, options, and practices. Pirate operators compete unfairly with the providers of legiti- mate limousine services and other providers of airport trans- portation if these drivers improperly avoid the costs of vehicle maintenance and insurance, airport fees, and other costs of legally operating a limousine service at the airport. in the baggage claim area, limousine customers notify a ground transportation coordinator, who in turn instructs the limousine lot coordinator to release the waiting driver and allow him or her to proceed to the curbside to pick up the customer. Most airport operators accept the definition of a limousine (e.g., a recent model luxury sedan or SUV providing up to eight seats) established and enforced by local regulatory authori- ties. Compared with the effort devoted to inspecting taxicab vehicles and taxicab drivers, airport operators generally devote little effort to inspecting limousine vehicles and limousine drivers. This is because, in response to customer expectations, limousine operators typically use late-model, well-maintained vehicles that comply with established local regulations and are driven by professionally appearing, licensed drivers. Applicability These methods are applicable at airports where manage- ment wish to control limousine driver access to arriving air- line passengers in order to discourage improper solicitation of arriving passengers while enhancing the customer’s expe- rience (i.e., allowing limousine drivers to greet customers in the baggage claim area and potentially assist them with their baggage). Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Driver controls improve the level of service afforded lim- ousine customers thus benefiting both the customers and the limousine company and driver. The plan can vary from simply designating a meet and greet area where licensed drivers may wait for customers to more labor intensive plans requiring staffed counters or full-time curbside ground transportation coordinators. A ground transportation counter can benefit arriving cus- tomers not familiar with the airport or who may have difficulty comprehending the available ground transportation displays (e.g., those with language barriers, the elderly, or visually impaired). Counters can also reduce use of unlicensed vehicles or drivers, thus improving customer safety. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. These measures improve customer levels of service (e.g., assistance carrying bags from the terminal to the limousine) and safety (promote use of licensed vehicles and drivers), and aid those unfamiliar with the airport and the available transportation options.

78 be arrested by airport police, and the driver’s vehicle will be towed to the on-airport impound lot. Other airports also impose prohibitions that increase in length each time a driver is caught soliciting. • Secret shoppers. Drivers who frequently solicit airport passengers learn to spot airport police and ground trans- portation staff and avoid soliciting in the view of these individuals. As a result some airports employ secret shop- pers who may be airport staff from other departments, police officers from other divisions or stations, or contract secret shoppers. • Increasing fines. When fining offending drivers some air- ports use a sliding scale system, and impose a small fine or penalty for the first offense, a moderate penalty for the second, and increasingly large penalties for each additional offense, often leading to very large fines and long-term or permanent suspension of airport operating privileges. For example, Monterey Regional Airport charges a fine of $250 for the first offense, $500 for the second, and $1,000 for the third. Salt Lake City International Airport has a similar pen- alty system, with fines rapidly increasing for each offense. Because it may be easier to temporarily suspend an offend- ing driver than collect a fee, some airport operators (e.g., Savannah Hilton Head International Airport) penalize drivers by issuing suspensions with durations that increase dramatically with each subsequent suspension. • On-site court and vehicle impound. To avoid incurring the overtime costs and loss of active time caused by police officers having to spend a day in court waiting to be called to testify, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey established an on-site administrative court staffed by law students for the sole purpose of trying drivers caught for illegal solicitation. This court allowed for the prompt trial of pirate drivers and also allowed the court to impound the vehicles of drivers found guilty of soliciting passengers. At Washington Dulles International and Reagan National airports, trial dates are scheduled on a single date to minimize the amount of time police officers are away from the airport and potential over- time hours. At Los Angeles International, the vehicles of drivers arrested for illegal solicitation may be impounded. • Enact anti-solicitation state law. State legislatures of Cali- fornia and New York have enacted laws which specifically prohibit solicitation of airline passengers (e.g., California Assembly Bill 1885) and thus provide police officers with better tools to arrest drivers illegally picking up passengers for solicitation rather than trespassing. • Scooper mitigation strategy. To combat solicitation of airline passengers, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority has implemented the “Scooper Mitigation Strategy” which consists of the following four elements: – Educate. Airport staff attempt to educate airline pas- sengers against accepting rides from pirate drivers (or Enforcement of illegal solicitation of airport passengers can be challenging as it requires considerable staff time and the results may be limited or ineffective. This is because in many jurisdictions in order to arrest a pirate operator for illegal solic- itation it is necessary that a legal enforcement officer (rather than a traffic control officer) (1) observe the operator solicit- ing and receiving payment from a passenger, and (2) appear in court to testify against the illegal operator. Once in court a judge may view illegal solicitation as a minor or victimless crime and give the guilty driver a small fine and/or temporarily bar him or her from entering airport property. Often these drivers consider such fines part of the cost of doing business at an airport. Because of these challenges in arresting a driver for solici- tation, some airports attempt to cite the offending operator for illegally trespassing on airport property (i.e., not having an airport permit), but this too requires staff time and effort. As a result enforcement may be limited to airport staff iden- tifying illegal operators (sometimes with the aid of legitimate transportation operators), warning them, and requiring them to leave the airport. Examples of creative measures used by airport operators to address illegal solicitation by drivers include: • Control of all limousine drivers. Section B2 describes the use of driver meet and greet areas, limousine hold lots, and ground transportation coordinators to control illegal solicitation. • Public announcements to arriving international passen- gers. Several airports have prepared public information videos describing the international arrivals process which are shown on international flights before the flight lands in the U.S. In addition to explaining the immigration and customs processes and other useful information, these videos warn passengers not to accept rides from pirate lim- ousine drivers and to only use authorized transportation services. Videos such as these are shown aboard inter- national arriving flights at John F. Kennedy International and San Francisco International. • Photograph drivers caught soliciting. Airport staff at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport maintain a “hot list” of drivers who are caught soliciting rides that contains photographs of the drivers and lists the driver’s name, company he/she works for, citation number, and a descrip- tion of the violation(s). These drivers and their employer receive a formal written warning the first time they are caught and are issued a trespass notice plus a 3-month pro- hibition. The second time they are caught they are given a 6-month prohibition and a trespass notice, and the third time they are restricted indefinitely. If a driver is caught performing any type of commercial transportation work during his restriction period the airport’s procedures call for the driver to be cited again, staff will request the driver

79 77 Speed humps at the garage exit to prevent vehicles, particularly scoopers, from “tailgating” behind a pay- ing customer. – Eradicate. Airport Authority legal staff, in conjunction with government lobbyists representing the limousine drivers, worked with the Province of Ontario to estab- lish new laws or amend existing laws so they have “teeth” in the court system, enabling the Airport Authority’s enforcement officers to charge scoopers with offenses that will be upheld in court and make their ability to work at the airport undesirable, if not impossible. Applicability These measures are applicable at any airport experiencing illegal solicitation of airline passengers or wishing to discour- age drivers from attempting to initiate illegal solicitation. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Benefits include ensuring that (1) passengers are trans- ported safely and securely rather than in vehicles that may lack proper insurance and maintenance or by drivers likely to overcharge customers, and (2) all providers of airport ground transportation service do so in accord with the regulations established by the airport operator. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Without education customers may not recog- nize the difference between pirate and legitimate limousine operators, and if presented the option may accept the offer for a ride from a pirate driver. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Legitimate providers of limousine and other airport ground transpor- tation services benefit if all ground transportation operators are required to comply with the rules established by the airport and other regulatory authorities. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Without edu- cation local elected officials may not recognize that pirate operators create potential safety and security risks to airline passengers and unfairly compete with legitimate operators of airport ground transportation service. Implementation Schedule and Costs The costs of Toronto Pearson International Airport’s Scoo- per Mitigation Strategy program were originally borne by a community of limousine drivers. These drivers collaborated in 2006 and agreed to each contribute a set fee each month to scoopers as they are referred to in Toronto) through the use of the airport’s website, signs placed in prominent locations in the baggage claim area, and public announce- ments in the baggage claim area. (Other airports, includ- ing those operated by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey have similar education programs.) – Engage. Airport staff realize that combatting solicita- tion requires the assistance of many people working at the Airport, not just the ground transportation staff. As a result, this program has engaged the assistance of the Airport Authority security/police, contract ground transportation enforcement and dispatch staff, drivers of other ground transportation services, and a local tow- ing company under contract to the Airport Authority. Airport staff are educated about the Scooper Mitigation program and the adverse effect scoopers have upon guest safety and revenue loss. Those persons then serve as the eyes and ears of the Airport Authority’s contracted secu- rity company and the Airport Authority police. These supplemental observers allow the security company and Airport Authority police to be alerted on a real-time basis as to the scooper’s presence and whereabouts. – Enforce. This relates to the work done directly by the con- tracted security company, the Airport Authority’s safety/ security officers, and ultimately Peel Regional police, the on-site contracted police force who can issue charges. The contracted security company has been given the responsibility to (a) identify scoopers and notify the on- site police force of their presence, and (b) advise guests who are being scooped that they are about to take a ride with a potentially unlicensed and uninsured driver. In addition, the Airport Authority’s police have developed an “enforcement playbook” to coordinate their enforce- ment plans including changing their role from daily monitoring to ad hoc tactics inside the garage and ter- minal to catch the scoopers off guard, including towing blitzes, impounding blitzes, and other measures. The other element of enforcement relates to “Asset Utilization.” This is a more expensive effort and requires a long-term capital investment. At Toronto International Airport, this includes building barriers within the parking garages to make it more difficult for scoopers to operate. These barriers include the use of: 77 License Plate Recognition (LPR) technologies which allow the Airport Authority to identify vehicles having a license plate known to be associated with a scooper and prevent these vehicles from entering a garage. 77 Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras positioned in the garage and triggered when a scooper’s license plate is identified so their parking spot can be deter- mined and police can be waiting for the driver upon their return.

80 contract limousines) at the Airport. Airport staff report that this service serves a niche market as most airline pas- sengers do not expect to find on-demand limousine service available at the airport. For example in 2010, there were about 531,000 on-demand taxicabs that exited the airport but only 36,000 on-demand limousines. The on-demand limousine company pays the city $1.00 per outbound trip. • Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The Port of Seattle awards an exclusive concession contract for the provision of on-demand limousine service. The concessionaire is allocated a visible boarding area near that used by taxicabs. The concessionaire pays the Port a MAG ($839,000 in 2014) plus an additional $4.00 per trip if the concessionaire makes more 38,000 trips per year. On-demand limousines are popular with airline passengers going to the nearby Port of Seattle cruise ship terminal, who are willing to pay higher fees for a luxury limousine service. As a result, the con- cessionaire reports experiencing a double-digit increase in on-demand limousine trips each of the past few years. Applicability This service is applicable at airports in communities where airport passengers: • Are dissatisfied with the quality of the available taxicab ser- vice and where the airport operator is unable to improve the quality of taxicab operations. This may occur at an air- port where the standards for taxicab vehicles and drivers are established by a local regulatory authority and where the airport is unable to impose stricter standards and/or enforce the existing standards. • Have grown accustomed to the availability of on-demand limousine services, perhaps due to the unsatisfactory qual- ity of taxicab service in the past or in communities where limousines and town cars are used frequently. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Benefits include the additional revenues from the on-demand limousine concessionaire. The opposition of taxicab and pre- arranged limousine companies and drivers is the key chal- lenge to implementing this service. Other challenges include providing visible and convenient curb space that is separated from the space provided for taxicabs. The availability of ride-booking services (e.g., UberX or UberBlack) may pose a challenge to the award of an on- demand limousine concession contract and may reduce the potential MAG. This is because these ride-booking services are offering the same or similar services, seeking to attract the same customers, more familiar to the traveling public, and do not have to pay a MAG or concession fee, as currently regulated. a fund that pays for the cost of the increased police presence and the contracted security company. Examples Airports with creative or innovative measures to control illegal solicitation of arriving passengers are described herein. B4. On-Demand Limousine Services Description On-demand limousine service is offered at a few airports as an alternative to on-demand taxicab service, particularly in communities where airport passengers are dissatisfied with the quality of the available taxicab service and/or have grown accustomed to and regularly use and expect limousine service. Purpose On-demand limousine service is offered at an airport by a limousine company awarded an exclusive concession contract through a competitive process. The on-demand limousine concessionaire is allowed to have its vehicles and drivers wait at the curbside for arriving airline passengers, often at a curb- side location near the area used by waiting taxicabs. Arriving passengers can chose an on-demand taxicab or an on-demand limousine, with the limousine service typically provided in a late-model, high-quality town car or sedan at a slightly higher fare than a taxicab. Examples of airports that have awarded on-demand limousine concession contracts include: • Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD) awards an exclusive concession contract for the provision of both on- demand private car service (provided using luxury town cars) and on-demand, shared-ride services (provided using 9-passenger vans). The concessionaire is required to (1) staff a ground transportation counter in the baggage claim area, and (2) obtain BCAD’s consent of any fare increases. Unlike most airports, BCAD allows the concessionaire (1) exclusive use of a curbside area, and (2) to transport shared-ride cus- tomers in either a town car or a 9-passenger van. Under the terms of the current concession agreement the concession- aire is required to pay the higher of (1) an annual “Per-Capita Charge,” calculated as $0.0461 multiplied by the Airport’s annual deplanements (arriving passengers), or (2) a MAG amount, which was $500,000 in 2014 and is adjusted annu- ally as the higher of the initial MAG or 80% of the aggregate privilege fee due and payable for the prior contract year. • Phoenix Sky Harbor International. There is an exclusive on-demand limousine concession service (referred to as

81 experience documenting the success of the permitting pro- cesses and regulations now in place. Description This section includes methods for regulating TNCs such as UberX, Lyft, and Sidecar and enforcing these regulations. Purpose Ride-booking services offer airline passengers the equivalent of a near on-demand car service which customers can request and pay for using their smartphone. Although relatively new, these services are available in an increasing number of urban areas, and are attracting customers who might otherwise have taken another mode due to their convenience, high quality service, and competitive cost during non-peak times when compared with other transportation services available in these same communities. There are two basic categories of ride-booking services: 1. Services such as UberSUV and UberBlack which use vehi- cles and drivers with commercial licenses issued by local regulatory authorities. These vehicles are typically regulated as prearranged limousines at airports. The TNC regulations discussed in this chapter do not apply to these services. 2. Services such as UberX, Lyft, and Sidecar that are con- sidered peer-to-peer services, as drivers use their own personal vehicles to provide these services. The State of California was the first jurisdiction to establish regulations and authorize its PUC to issue permits to these services, defining this type of service as a Transportation Network Company (TNC). Airport operating rules and regulations for these TNC companies were initially difficult to develop since classifica- tion of their service, i.e., on-demand or prearranged, has led to confusion as to which category of ground transportation service they should fall under. In addition, the low-cost busi- ness model of these TNCs often conflicts with established airport regulations for existing commercial ground trans- portation carriers and fees paid by these carriers. Standard rules for obtaining background checks, vehicle inspections, and primary liability insurance as well as outfitting vehicles with AVI transponders, and registering vehicles and drivers were all issues with respect to admitting TNCs to the com- mercial airport curbside. In addition, unlike a municipality, an airport typically owns its roadways and curbsides and has greater liability on what happens on their property than city streets. However, airports have and are actively working to integrate these new types of ground transportation operators within their goals for airport ground transportation options. As a result, some airport staff believe that on-demand conces- sioned limousine services will be less common at airports in the future. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers may welcome this option if many are dissatisfied with the existing taxicab services, desire to be transported in a luxury vehicle, and the new service is competitively priced using luxury sedans. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Existing taxicab and prearranged limousine companies will state that there is no need for this service since they are already accommodating these customers, and that the on-demand service will divert their existing customers rather than attract new customers. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Lobbying by existing taxicab and prearranged limousine companies may cause local officials and airport board members to be opposed to the new service unless they have received numerous complaints about the existing taxicab service from local residents or representatives of the local visitors bureau. Implementation Schedule and Costs The costs of awarding an on-demand limousine concession are similar to the costs of developing a request for bids (RFB) and award of similar concessions. Examples Airports offering on-demand limousine service include those serving the three listed in this section. C. Transportation Network Companies At the time this guidebook was completed, state and local laws regulating the increasingly popular transportation net- work company (TNC) services were continuing to evolve. A limited number of airport sponsors had established permits or regulations governing the operation of these services, and these airports had only done so within the past year. Thus there was insufficient information to confirm that the pro- grams described in subsequent pages represent successful best practices because of (1) the continuing changes to the TNC industry and the regulation of this industry by airport operators and other agencies, and (2) the lack of long-term

82 required to provide further information (e.g., the driver name or contact information) if requested for an enforcement issue or in response to a customer complaint. Vehicle inspections and identification. Annual inspec- tions of TNC vehicles are typically required to ensure the vehicle is maintained in a safe and reliable operating condi- tion. The inspection can be conducted by a service station or mechanic approved by the airport or other regulatory agency. The companies are typically responsible for issuing a vehi- cle decal certifying that the vehicle has successfully passed inspection. Along with this decal, trade dress identifying the vehicle as operating for a specific TNC is generally required to be displayed in a visible location (e.g., on the right side of the dashboard) at all times while operating as a TNC vehicle on the airport (Figure 8-11). Insurance coverage. When creating insurance require- ments for TNCs, it is important to define when a TNC vehicle is considered to be providing TNC services. Coverage levels are typically required any time the driver has the application turned on, with a lower amount (typically $100,000 to $300,000 for death and personal injury per occurrence and $50,000 for prop- erty damage per occurrence) required when the driver is avail- able to provide a ride to a passenger but has not yet accepted a ride request. A much higher coverage amount is required when the driver is enroute to pick up a passenger or has a passenger Airport Goals With respect to ride-booking services, airport operators typically seek to: • Ensure airline passengers are provided safe, secure, and reliable transportation. • Provide airline passengers with the opportunity to select from a menu of transportation services available at a range of costs and convenience. • Maintain efficient landside operations while minimizing the staff resources required to manage these operations. • Maintain and preserve airport revenues and require all ground transportation businesses to contribute to the costs of providing and maintaining airport facilities. • Provide opportunities for new ground transportation businesses while recognizing existing agreements and regulations. Developing regulations and a permitting process for TNCs allows the airport to accomplish these goals. The main areas of focus for regulators are background checks and sharing of driver information, vehicle inspections and identification, insurance coverage, fees and reporting requirements, and accessibility. Many of these requirements may be set by local city/county ordinances or state regulations, so it is important to coordinate with state and local officials while they are develop- ing regulations for TNCs as these decisions may impact opera- tions at the airport. Specific TNC operating requirements for staging, pick up, and drop off of passengers at the airport can also be included in an airport’s rules and regulations. Driver identification and background checks. At the airports that have TNC permits in place, airport permits are typically issued to the TNC rather than to individual drivers. Under these circumstances the company is typically required to ensure that background checks are conducted on each driver prior to initiating airport service. This background check may be conducted by a third party contracted by the TNC and in some jurisdictions includes a requirement for fingerprinting at that time. Companies are reluctant to have the drivers undergo an additional background check conducted by the airport or regulatory agency to obtain a specific airport permit. Best practices require that the company certify that the background check has been conducted on every TNC driver operating at the airport. Rather than requiring the companies to provide a list of their active drivers (which are considered proprietary information by the companies), airport operators require that the company issue each driver a unique identifying number that is included in the company issued monthly trip reports and which can be displayed electronically to airport enforce- ment staff to identify a driver if requested. The company is Figure 8-11. Examples of TNC vehicle decals and trade dress.

83 preferable to establish the regulation before service is initi- ated, rather than after it is available and the ride-booking provider has begun service. Evolving Regulations Because TNCs are relatively new, it can be expected that municipal and airport rules and regulations for their opera- tions will continue to evolve. It is also expected that there will be many hybrid forms of TNC type operations using private cars and part-time drivers. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges By establishing and enforcing regulations, an airport can achieve the objectives described herein. In particular the regulations can help provide opportunities for new ground transportation businesses while recognizing existing agree- ments and regulations and assuring airline passengers are provided safe, secure, and reliable transportation. There are numerous challenges to both establishing and enforcing regulations. A key challenge to establishing regula- tions is that traditional airport ground transportation providers view ride-booking services as having an unfair cost advantage and these competitors may aggressively lobby to prevent these services from being allowed to operate in a community or at the airport. Enforcement of the regulations can also be challeng- ing due to the difficulty in identifying the TNC vehicles if trade dress and markings on the vehicle are not properly displayed and the need to obtain the ride-booking company’s coopera- tion to establish a geofence and collect trip data. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers are likely to respond favorably to the availability of ride-booking services. This is because many airline passengers prefer these services, having grown accustomed to finding these services available in down- town areas or in other communities. • Commercial ground transportation operators. As noted above, traditional transportation providers, particularly taxicab companies view ride-sharing companies as compet- itors and may oppose the establishment of regulations that allow the ride-booking companies to serve an airport. In areas where the companies are already operating, however, some existing providers may welcome the new regulations as it requires the ride-booking services to also contribute to the airport’s costs and obtain permits as they do. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. The response by local officials is likely to vary from community to in the vehicle (typically $1 million of primary commercial lia- bility coverage per occurrence). Most airport operators require that the airport also be named as an additional insured. Many airports require that the $1 million coverage be maintained at all times when the vehicle is operating on airport property, whether the passenger is in the vehicle or not. Fees. Airports typically charge TNC operators an annual permit fee to operate at the airport and cost-recovery trip fees for the use of the airport roadways and other facilities. Nashville International Airport also charges a dwell time fee if vehicles remain at the curbside for longer than 20 minutes. These types of fees are described in more detail in Chapter 5. Vehicle tracking and reporting. To track TNC vehicles using the airport, a geofence—an electronic boundary defined by GPS coordinates—can be installed around the airport. Airport staff typically develop an outline of the boundaries they wish to use as the perimeter of the geofence, which is then implemented by each company. A record of each time a TNC vehicle crosses the geofence boundary, whether entering or exiting the airport, can be recorded and transmitted to the airport. Typically a record of the number of these trips is remitted to the airport each month and is the basis upon which any per airport trip fees are calculated. Accessibility. Airport operators have not included any accessibility requirements as part of their TNC permit appli- cations, relying instead on the requirements set by the state and city regulators. These state and city requirements may require the company to have a percent of their fleet be wheel- chair accessible, pay a fee that goes towards funding accessible service in the region, or provide access to a service offering accessible vehicles. Additional information on state and city requirements can be found in the forthcoming TRB Special Report 319: Between Public and Private Mobility: Examining the Rise of Technology-Enabled Services. Operating requirements. While waiting to be connected to an arriving airport customer, TNC drivers are typically required to wait in a designated staging area such as the com- mercial vehicle hold lot or a parking area. Some airports charge the companies for lease of this space or require that parking fees are paid for the time a driver is waiting in a parking lot. Most airports allow TNCs to drop off passengers at the depar- tures level of the terminal building. Allocating specific curb space for TNCs with signage directing passengers to this area will simplify the process for passengers. Applicability Methods to regulate ride-booking services and enforce these regulations are applicable at any airport whether the service already exists or may be initiated in the future. It is

84 Purpose An open access shared-ride van system is one in which any shared-ride van licensed by the local regulatory authority is allowed to pick up on-demand customers at the airport. Measures to accommodate and regulate shared-ride van services include: • Licenses or permits. At airports with an open system, shared-ride van operators are required to obtain an airport license or permit in addition to showing proof of a license from the local regulatory authority. This allows the airport to establish rules and regulations that are more stringent than those of the local regulatory authority and to have increased oversight of these rules. Examples of vehicle and driver standards are provided in Section D3. With an open shared-ride system there are often more vehicles serving the airport than necessary. This oversupply of vehicles can lead to van drivers having long wait times in the hold lot, fewer trips for each driver, fewer passengers transported on each of these trips, and less driver income, which often results in poor customer service as drivers receiving less income are more likely to not maintain their vans, attempt to overcharge customers, or engage in other improper activities (e.g., not transporting a customer to their final destination). Some airports with an open sys- tem have a moratorium or cap limiting new companies, the number of vehicles, or the number of drivers allowed to serve the airport. • Third-party management contractor. A third party can be contracted to provide curbside management and oversight of shared-ride van operations. This third-party contractor can provide dispatching and answer customer questions, assisting the airport in coordinating the many different companies operating at the airport under an open access shared-ride van system. One challenge of a third-party dispatching company is in assuring fair treatment of all com- panies and drivers. Operators may believe the dispatchers are sending passengers to other companies when there was no request made for that specific company or are showing favoritism to one driver or group of drivers. At Bob Hope Airport the third-party contractor divides passengers into three types of calls: a “free call,” where the passenger does not have a prior reservation and did not request a specific company; a “reserved call,” where the pas- senger has made a prior reservation with a company; and “a company-preferred free call,” where the passenger does not have a reservation but has requested a specific com- pany. In the case of a reserved or company-preferred call, the next van for the requested company is called from the hold lot. For a free call, the next van in line is called to the curbside. Van drivers are not allowed to access the community depending on the officials’ experience with and opinion of ride-booking services and the extent of organized opposition from taxicab companies and drivers. The response of local elected officials may also depend on whether TNCs have already been authorized to oper- ate in the community and the process for obtaining this approval. Implementation Schedule and Costs The key costs to establishing the regulations are the staff time needed to obtain the input from and approval of airport management and the elected officials, and the staff time that must be devoted to the enforcement of these regulations. At the time this report was written, tracking software was being developed by several organizations to monitor TNC trips in real time. This software is expected to be available for any airport’s use by the time of publication. This type of software allows each airport to receive data from the TNC’s server whenever a TNC vehicle crosses the geofence bound- ary, picks up a passenger, or drops off a passenger, including the company name, driver identifier, vehicle license plate number, and which action is occurring (entry, exit, pick up, or drop off). Examples The airports serving Denver, Nashville, John Wayne (Orange County), San Diego, and San Francisco all have TNC permits in place with multiple companies that have agreed to operate under their regulations. At the time this report was prepared, numerous other airports were developing or evaluating TNC regulations but had yet to adopt them. D. Shared-Ride Vans The following pages describe best practices for managing and controlling shared-ride vans. These best practices are organized into the following categories: D1. Open Access Systems D2. Exclusive or Semi-Exclusive Access D3. Vehicle and Driver Standards D4. Customer Service Standards D1. Open Access System Description This section describes measures to accommodate and reg- ulate shared-ride van services operating under an open access system.

85 Implementation Schedule and Costs The costs of establishing an open access system are the staff time needed to develop a permit application and associated rules and regulations and to gather input from and approval of airport management and the elected officials. Awarding a contract to and overseeing a third-party management com- pany will take additional staff time and effort. Examples Airports with open access shared-ride systems include those serving Burbank, Boston, and Orange County. D2. Exclusive or Semiexclusive Access Description Measures to accommodate and regulate shared-ride van services operating under an exclusive access system. Purpose An exclusive access shared-ride system is one in which the airport limits which shared-ride companies may pick up on- demand passengers at the airport. The system may be exclu- sive, with only a single company allowed to serve the airport, or semi-exclusive, with multiple companies authorized to serve the airport. Some variations on the semi-exclusive model include award- ing different shared-ride contracts to different operators by geographic service area (e.g., Baltimore-Washington Inter- national Airport). Another practice is to provide opportunities for small businesses by awarding the shared-ride van contract to a driver collective or consortium, where multiple smaller independent owner/operators agree to work together as one group, creating a fleet large enough to serve the airport. Fees. Shared-ride operators with an exclusive or semi- exclusive concession agreement with the airport are typically required to pay a MAG, sometimes calculated as a percentage of gross revenues or percentage of the fees paid during the prior year of the contract. In addition, trip fees may be assessed, resulting in the airport receiving the greater of the trip fees or the MAG. Some airports also charge circuit fees to reduce the number of times a shared-ride van driver circulates among different terminals in an effort to maximize the number of passengers (or revenue) prior to leaving the airport. These fees are described in Chapter 5. Applicability This model is applicable to any airport that currently has or is considering an exclusive or semi-exclusive concession contract with one or more shared-ride van operator(s). curbside until called by the dispatcher, preventing solicit- ing at the curbside. • Types of fees. For an open system, airports typically charge shared-ride van operators a monthly or annual permit fee to operate at the airport and cost-recovery trip fees for the use of the airport roadways. These fees are described in more detail in Chapter 5. Applicability Any airport with an open access shared-ride van system. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges As described in the introduction to Chapter 8 Section A, there are significant benefits to awarding a contract rather than operating an open access system. With respect to a shared-ride system, an open system allows for competition among com- panies and requires less effort by airport staff to implement than an exclusive access system. Managing an open access sys- tem requires much more effort by airport staff, however, as the large number of companies and lack of a contractual agree- ment regarding standards and behavior result in the need for more oversight and strict enforcement of rules and regulations to maintain the same level of customer service. Drivers and operators also must wait longer for a fare and typically may have fewer passengers per van, resulting in lower revenues. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely response by stakeholders: • Customers. The higher level of customer service provided by a third-party dispatcher who can manage the many com- panies, reduce opportunities for improper solicitation, and answer the customer’s questions results in customers responding positively to the use of a third-party management company. • Commercial ground transportation operators. While there may initially be concerns with limiting new entrants at the airport, incumbent drivers are typically supportive of a moratorium as they can earn more revenue working fewer hours per day as wait time is reduced. A cap may also increase the value of their airport permit if the airport allows the permit to be sold or leased to other drivers (which is not recommended, since any subsequent attempt to reduce the number of authorized permits or prohibit the sale of per- mits will be opposed by drivers holding valuable permits). • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local elected official may express concern at limiting opportunities for new operators to access and conduct business at the airport.

86 continental), Miami, Phoenix, Roanoke, Sacramento, and Santa Barbara. Airports with a semi-exclusive concession contract include those serving Baltimore/Washington, Dallas/Fort Worth, Okla- homa City, and Washington (Dulles and Reagan National). D3. Vehicle and Driver Standards Description This section includes information regarding supplemen- tal standards for shared-ride vehicles and drivers that airport operators include in airport-specific regulations if not already required by the local regulatory authority. Purpose Many airport operators implement standards for vehicles and drivers that are more stringent than those required by the local regulatory authority in order to maintain a high level of customer service and efficient curbside operations. These stan- dards can be included in the requirements to receive an oper- ating permit or as part of a concession contract. Examples of these standards include the following: • Vehicle size. Vehicle size for shared-ride service is often set by a local regulatory authority, which may also have different insurance requirements depending on the number of seats in a vehicle. Airports typically require a minimum vehicle size to accommodate shared-ride passengers and their luggage. Baltimore-Washington International requires a van to seat at least 7 passengers, while Miami International requires a minimum of 10 seats per van. • Vehicle age or mileage limits. Limits on model year or vehicle mileage are often set to create a better level of cus- tomer service for the passenger who expects to travel in a late-model, well-maintained vehicle. Age and mileage limits may also be implemented as part of an environmen- tal initiative to reduce emissions and fuel consumption by requiring the use of newer, more efficient vehicles. • Vehicle maintenance and appearance. Airport opera- tors typically require companies to have a uniform paint scheme for all vehicles in their fleet serving the airport. This makes it easier for customers, airport staff, and enforce- ment personnel to identify the company. Vehicles are also required to be maintained in working order with no vis- ible dents or scratches, operable air conditioning/heating systems, and working seat belts. Vehicles may also be required to have mobile data systems allowing the driver to communicate with the dispatcher, securely process credit cards, obtain directions to a customer’s destination, and obtain customers for trips to the airport as well as from the airport. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges An exclusive access system allows the airport staff more con- trol over the standard of service that is provided at the airport than does an open access system. Driver and vehicle standards, customer service standards, and areas to be served may all be specified in the contractual agreement between the shared- ride van provider and the airport sponsor, which is easy to enforce since a concessionaire is motivated to comply with the rules and regulations set forth in the contract so as not to lose the privilege of operating at the airport. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers are generally supportive of the higher level of service that will be achieved by using a con- cession contract. They may prefer the options provided with a semi-exclusive over an exclusive contract. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Smaller companies will be concerned that they will not be able to compete with larger companies for an exclusive or semi- exclusive contract. They may not want to create a driver collective or consortium, as they want to maintain their operational independence. Licensed shared-ride compa- nies now serving the airport will be concerned about the potential loss of business if they are not one of the selected concessionaires, despite their ability to continue to transport prearranged business (or charter) customers. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local elected officials may express concern at limiting the number of operators who can access the airport, particularly if there are many existing small companies operating at the air- port. These officials may not understand that some small companies lack the financial resources needed to market their services, invest in web-based reservations systems and mobile data terminals or other technologies, or other mea- sures needed to remain competitive. Implementation Schedule and Costs An exclusive shared-ride van system may take more than 12 months to implement depending on the time needed to obtain approvals from an airport board/elected officials, pre- pare and release an RFP, allow interested operators to respond, evaluate the proposals, and award the contracts. In addition the companies not selected may contest the final award of the contract(s) using legal and political methods. Examples Airports with an exclusive concession contract include those serving Cincinnati, Houston (Hobby and Bush Inter-

87 dards for operations at the airport. Implementing require- ments for alternative fuels and vehicle age or mileage limits reduces emissions and can support local or regional environ- mental initiatives. Enforcing the stricter standards may require additional staff resources, as personnel must inspect the vehicles to spot those drivers and vehicles not in compliance. While some driver and vehicle standards can be enforced when a vehicle is permitted or during an annual inspection, more regular visual inspections will need to be conducted by curbside coordina- tors, enforcement officers, or other staff either in the hold lot or at the curbside to determine compliance with dress codes, vehicle appearance, and driver behavior standards. Mystery shoppers may also be needed to ensure credit card acceptance. There may also be political challenges to implementing stricter standards, as small companies may have fewer resources and need to make significant financial investments to imple- ment required changes to their existing fleet. This may prove to be a hardship for the company, and local officials may be sensitive to the needs of these small, locally owned businesses. Another challenge is in establishing the regulations with- out infringing on a driver’s status as an independent owner/ operator. The language used to describe driver standards generally recognizes the potential owner/operator relationship of many drivers and their companies and does not include any statements that could be perceived as control over a driver as defined in an employer-employee relationship. Chapter 4 describes the challenges of employee versus owner/operator relationships in further detail. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers are expected to respond positively, as these standards improve customer service levels by pro- viding late-model, clean vehicles, and allowing customers to easily identify company representatives and pay securely with a credit card. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Shared- ride companies and drivers may have concerns about the additional cost of the higher standards for their vehicles and the effect on their income. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Due to the con- cerns of operators, particularly those of small businesses, about costs of implementing higher standards, elected official may be sensitive to these concerns. However, regu- latory officials are typically supportive of measures and programs that improve customer service and reduce the environmental effects of shared-ride operations, so airport staff frequently work with local officials to explain the benefits of implementing these standards. • Alternative fuels. Airports may include requirements for a percent of the vehicle fleet to use alternative fuels or meet a green standard. Incentives or penalties may be imposed to encourage compliance with these environmental initiatives. Examples of airports using alternative fuel shared-ride vans include Phoenix Sky Harbor, whose fleet operates entirely on propane, and San Francisco International, whose vans all use CNG. Section H of this chapter provides more infor- mation on the use of alternative fuels. • Credit card acceptance. While many customers pay for shared-ride services in advance, either online or via the phone, best practices call for secure in-vehicle credit card readers to be available for on-demand customers who wish to pay by credit card following the completion of their ride. Some airports have counters inside the terminal building, allowing customers to pay in advance with a credit card prior to boarding a van. • Dress codes. Consistent driver attire is often required to enable customers to identify which shared-ride van com- pany a driver is working for. If company provided curbside coordinators or customer service representatives are present to represent each company, having these staff wear uni- form attire displaying the company’s logo assists customers in identifying the company representative. • Driver training and behavior. Driver training programs can be offered by airports to ensure shared-ride van drivers are aware of airport rules and regulations, airport operating procedures such as where to stage, dispatching procedures, use of pickup areas, how to provide good customer service, and safe driving programs. Often airports have specific regulations regarding driver behavior at the curbside such as requiring drivers to stay with their vehicle rather than approaching a customer. These measures reduce accusations of soliciting, whether real or perceived, by other drivers. The three airports operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Dallas/Fort Worth International, and Santa Barbara Municipal Airport all specify that shared-ride van drivers must stay with their vehicles. Baltimore-Washington International requires a minimum of 8 hours of annual cus- tomer service and driver safety training plus attendance at the airport’s shared-ride driver training program which is operated by the Maryland Tourism Council. Applicability These standards are applicable at any airport with a shared- ride van operator. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Increased customer satisfaction, improved levels of safety, and easier enforcement are all benefits of setting higher stan-

88 and receive an alert if a van shows excessive speed. This ability to monitor a vehicle’s speed reduces erratic driving, providing a more comfortable ride for passengers. It also allows the dispatch office to respond to customers question- ing the expected arrival time of a vehicle. More information on GPS vehicle tracking is included in Chapter 9. • Maximum wait time. Operators prefer to wait until a van is as full as possible in order to maximize passenger loads, thereby increasing the revenue received from one trip. To prevent excessive delays to customers, many airports set time limits on the amount of time shared-ride van operators can wait in the terminal area when picking up passengers from the airport. There are several variations on the time limit: – Shared-ride companies may be required to depart the airport within a set time frame from when the first cus- tomer boards the vehicle: e.g., Bob Hope (Burbank) and Washington Dulles International, which have maxi- mum times of 10 and 15 minutes, respectively. Dallas/ Fort Worth International, Miami International, and San Francisco International have maximum time limits of 20 minutes before a van must depart the airport. – Other airports focus on the time a customer spends wait- ing for a vehicle on the curbside, establishing maximum wait times from the time a vehicle is requested until the vehicle arrives at the curbside. Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International requires a van to arrive at the curbside within 5 minutes of a customer’s request. • Maximum enroute stops. Airports may establish a limit on the number of stops that a shared-ride van may make prior to dropping off the last passenger. This limitation reduces the duration of the trip for the customer whose destination is at the last stop. Some airports provide an exception to the maximum stop rule if the destinations are located in a dense urban area. For example, Dallas/Fort Worth International has a maximum of three stops except in designated areas such as those with many hotels in close proximity to one another. Customers also prefer to know how many stops will be made prior to arriving at their destination. If asked, best practices call for drivers to be required to inform passengers of how many stops will be made, particularly for trips to the airport when customers are more anxious about arriving late for a departing flight. • Vehicle assignment technology. Drivers may want to maximize passenger loads to increase the revenue earned from one trip, however, if the passengers’ destinations are not geographically similar, the passengers may have a much longer trip than anticipated, resulting in poor levels of customer service. Shared-ride van passengers are ideally grouped according to the geography of their destinations, with passengers with similar destinations sharing the same van. Airports can include standards to require shared-ride Implementation Schedule and Costs The airport operator’s costs of implementing improved driver and vehicle standards are limited to the staff time required to develop and enforce the standards. The shared-ride van owners and companies are typically responsible for the costs of implementing higher standards. However, some airport operators assist the van owners by helping them (1) apply for and obtain state and federal grants funding the conversion of vehicles from gasoline to CNG or alternative fuel, or (2) obtain customer service training for their drivers and other staff who may come into contact with airline passengers. Examples Examples of airports that have implemented improved standards for shared-ride vans and drivers are described in the previous section. D4. Customer Service Standards Description Customer service standards are meant to improve the cus- tomer experience when taking a shared-ride van, from the reservation process to retrieving lost items following the trip. Purpose Establishing minimum customer service requirements can increase customer satisfaction. These standards can be included in an operating permit a company is required to obtain to serve the airport or in a concession contract. Customer service standards include the following: • Web-based reservation systems. Best practices require that company computer systems have technology to enable customers to make reservations online through a company website and/or smartphone application. This includes secure storage of personal information such as customer names, addresses, and phone numbers, and the ability to pre-pay using secure credit card processing. Information regarding fares, company contact information, and lost and found are also required to be displayed on the website. • Twenty-four hour dispatch. Customers should be able to phone a company to make a reservation or have questions answered by a customer service representative 24 hours a day. • Vehicle tracking software. Vehicle tracking software allows for real-time updates on the location of shared-ride vehi- cles using GPS. Customers are able to see the current loca- tion of their arriving van on a map. Vehicle tracking also enables a company to monitor a vehicle’s location and speed

89 E. Courtesy Vehicles/Shuttles The following pages describe best practices for managing and controlling courtesy vehicles. These best practices are organized into the following categories: E1. Vehicle Permitting and Fees E2. Supporting Environmental and Sustainability Goals E1. Vehicle Permitting and Fees Description This section includes efficient methods to allow airport operators to permit businesses providing courtesy vehicle services and collect airport fees from these businesses. Purpose Rental car companies, parking businesses, hotel/motels, casinos, training centers, and other businesses located on or off an airport operate courtesy vehicles (or courtesy shuttles) to transport airline passengers between the airport and their place of business. Unlike other airport ground transportation services, courtesy vehicle service is offered at no direct charge to the airline passenger. This is because the cost of provid- ing transportation is incidental to the primary business (e.g., renting cars, providing parking spaces, or leasing hotel rooms to airline passengers) and is included in the price customers are charged for these services. Courtesy Vehicle Permitting As described in Chapter 5, most airports require that all businesses providing courtesy vehicle services obtain airport permits. Generally management and enforcement of cour- tesy vehicles requires less effort by airport staff than does the management and control of taxicabs, limousines, and shared-ride vans. This is because, compared to the owner/ operators of taxicabs, limousines, or shared-ride vans, the owner/operators of courtesy vehicles are generally larger companies with greater financial resources. Since courtesy vehicles are a part of the overall customer experience they offer, these businesses properly maintain their vehicles, familiarize their drivers with the airport rules and safe oper- ating procedures, and purchase the required insurance for their vehicles since the cost of courtesy vehicle insurance is a small portion of their total insurance needs. Furthermore the drivers are employees rather than contracted owner/ operators. Enforcement of new entrants or those without air- port permits is relatively simple as it easy to spot a courtesy vehicle (compared to limousines or ride-booking services), they use airport roadways frequently, and display the operator’s operators to use vehicle assignment software to efficiently assign customers to vans, for both trips to and from the airport. • Navigation software. Once passengers are assigned to a vehicle, navigation software is generally used to optimize the route to all destinations, minimizing trip duration and length for both the passengers and the driver, and reducing fuel use and vehicle emissions. Navigation software will also ensure that the driver does not get lost, causing concern to passengers who are anxious to reach their destinations. Applicability These customer service standards are applicable at any airport with a shared-ride operator. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Implementing customer service standards will improve the customer experience and levels of satisfaction with shared- ride services. The main challenge in implementing these stan- dards is opposition from operators who may need additional resources to develop and install new systems. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers are expected to respond positively, as these standards improve the customer experience. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Shared- ride companies, particularly smaller companies, and drivers may have concerns about the cost of implementing these standards. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local officials may have concerns over the impact on smaller operators but are generally supportive of efforts to improve customer service and safety. Implementation Schedule and Costs The airport operator’s costs of implementing improved cus- tomer service standards are limited to the staff time required to develop and enforce the standards. The shared-ride van owners and companies are typically responsible for the costs of implementing the new technologies and programs required to provide these improved customer service standards. Examples Most airports with exclusive concession contracts have established higher customer service standards.

90 port operators regularly review and modify their fees. They do so to reflect increasing costs of operations, changes in the annual number of vehicle trips, or other reasons. Conducting such reviews and modifying the fees annually or bi-annually is considered to be a best practice as it allows the airport operator to adjust the fees incrementally rather than in large amounts. Publicizing the amount of the increase at least one month in advance of its effective date is recommended, as this allows commercial ground transportation businesses to incorporate the increased costs into their business model and advertised rates (e.g., before a customer reserves a rental car or hotel room). Current airport commercial vehicle fees can be obtained from peer airports, the most recent AGTA Fees and Fares Survey, or from other sources listed in the bibliog- raphy (see Appendix C). As shown herein, courtesy vehicle fees vary based upon vehicle size, type of business served, business location, and other factors. Vehicle size. Vehicle size can be defined by a vehicle’s weight, length, or number of seats, with the number of seats being the most frequently used definition. Larger vehicles are charged higher permit and cost-recovery fees to reflect the greater wear and tear they impose on an airport’s roadways and other facilities. For example: • Vehicle length. Orlando International Airport defines vehicles by their length with Class I vehicles being those up to 21 feet in length (e.g., a sedan or small van), Class II vehi- cles being those between 22 and 30 feet (e.g., courtesy vans, small cutaway vans), and Class III vehicle being those over 31 feet in length (e.g., large cutaways, minibuses, and full- size buses), with exceptions made for Class I vehicles having a wheelchair lift which may be up to 23 feet in length. • Number of seats. Denver International Airport defines vehicles by the number of seats as designated by the vehicle manufacturer excluding the driver with Class I being those vehicles with up to 15 seats, Class II those with 16 to 31 seats, and Class III those with 32 seats or more. Class I vehicles are charged $2.15 per trip, while Class III vehicles are charged $6.45 per trip. At Houston Hobby Airport the annual permit fee charged courtesy vehicles varies by vehicle size with those having 6 seats or fewer charged $325 per vehicle per year, those having 7 to 24 seats charged $400 per vehicle per year, and those having over 25 seats charged $550 per vehicle per year. At Tucson International Airport the permit fee varies by vehicle size with hotel/motels charged $1,098 per vehicle per year for vehicles with up to 6 seats and up to $2,084 for vehicles with more than 15 seats. • Vehicle weight. While it is possible to define vehicles by their weight, there are no examples of airports having done so. This is because vehicles of different sizes or capacities name and location or contact information on the outside of their vehicles. Issuing airport permits to courtesy vehicle operators is sim- pler than issuing permits to taxicabs or limousines because the operators have much smaller fleets of vehicles, thus requiring less airport staff time to inspect the vehicle and install decals and RFID transponders (Figure 8-12). Some airport staff allow courtesy vehicle operators to affix the decals or transponders to the vehicles themselves, saving staff time. As a result businesses providing courtesy vehicles generally cooperate with airport management and abide by airport rules. While most courtesy vehicle operators abide by airport rules, there are some exceptions, which are discussed in subsequent paragraphs. Courtesy Vehicle Fees As noted, the businesses operating courtesy vehicles gen- erally cooperate with airport management. One common exception is when the airport sponsor wishes to establish new airport fees. As described in Chapter 5, commercial ground transportation operators doing business on an airport may be required to pay airport fees including permit fees, cost-recovery/per-trip fees, dwell time fees, privilege fees, or other fees. Examples of fees charged to businesses operating courtesy vehicles, their amounts, and the challenges to establishing these fees are described in the following paragraphs. The fee amounts shown are those that were in effect when this guide- book was prepared (2014) but may have changed because air- Figure 8-12. An airport permit used at Oakland International Airport.

91 • Location of passenger boarding area. At Miami Inter- national Airport, hotel/motel courtesy vehicles can pick up passengers on either the upper (ticketing) or lower (baggage claim) levels. In an effort to balance demand and encourage use of available curbside capacity, the airport charges courtesy vehicles using the lower level higher per-trip fees ($2.50 to $3.00 per trip) than those using the lower level ($1.00 to $2.00 per trip) depending on the vehicle size. Examples of the types and amounts of courtesy vehicle fees. In addition to the fees mentioned herein, the following are sample amounts for each type of fee (effective 2014): • Examples of annual permit fees. Annual permit fees range from less than $100 (e.g., Jacksonville International Air- port) to over $2,000 (e.g., Tucson International Airport). A typical permit fee is $450 to $500 per vehicle per year with airports that charge cost-recovery/per-trip fees charging lower annual permit fees. • Examples of cost-recovery fees calculated per vehicle trip. Cost-recovery fees are intended to allow an airport operator to recover the costs it incurs in providing, main- taining, and operating the facilities used by the commercial vehicle operators. They are frequently charged on a per- trip basis with the fee per trip varying based upon the vol- ume of commercial vehicle trips using airport facilities and the annual expenses an airport incurs. While such fees are intended to allow the airport operator to fully recover their costs, many airports are unable to. Per-trip fees for cour- tesy vehicles vary from less than $1.00 per trip (e.g., Dallas Love Field) to $8.70 (e.g., San Francisco International Air- port for operators of vehicles that are not in conformance with the airport’s clean vehicle policy). The typical per-trip fee for a small courtesy vehicle is $2.00 to $3.00 per trip, with larger vehicles charged higher fees. • Examples of fees calculated per hotel room. The opera- tors of hotel/motels providing courtesy vehicle service at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International are charged $10 per room per year with a cap of $2,400 to $3,600 per com- pany depending on their distance from the airport. The operators of hotel/motel courtesy vehicles at Honolulu International are charged an annual fee of $250 per com- pany plus $250 per vehicle plus $2.00 per room. A fee per room generally generates less revenue than a fee per trip and is unlikely to allow an airport operator to fully recover its costs of providing, maintaining, and operating the roadway and other facilities. • Examples of fees to promote efficient use of curbsides. Airport operators have established fees or fines to dis- courage vehicles from remaining at the curbside other than picking up waiting passengers. A courtesy vehicle operator can have similar weights depending on the manufacturer and style (e.g., a luxury sedan and a small cutaway may have similar weights). Type of business. Rental car companies and off-airport parking businesses are frequently charged higher airport fees than the operators of hotel/motels. This is because, as described in Chapter 5, rental car companies and off-airport parking businesses are required to pay privilege fees reflect- ing the business benefits they receive from the presence of the entire airport, with rental car companies required to pay this fee at most every airport and off-airport parking businesses required to pay this fee at over 40 airports. Rental car companies and off-airport parking businesses located near an airport are required to pay privilege fees because they could not exist were it not for the entire airport. By the nature of their location, marketing, service model, and business orientation, these businesses derive all their revenues from airline passengers. Motorists do not drive to an airport and rent a car or park at an off-airport lot unless there are air- line passengers, visitors accompanying an airline passenger, or employees working on an airport. Few, if any, travelers would park in an off-airport parking lot were it not for the airport. Conversely the operators of hotels/motels located near an airport are not required to pay privilege fees as they do not derive all their business from airline passengers. In addition, were hotels/motels to cease providing courtesy service it is likely their customers would use single occupancy taxicabs or limou- sines to travel between the hotel and the airport, rather than continue to use multiple occupancy courtesy vans. This would be undesirable as it would increase roadway traffic and road- way congestion. If a rental car company or off-airport parking business were to cease providing courtesy service, it is highly unlikely that their customers would hire a taxicab or limousine. Some examples of factors that influence fees include: • Business location. Some airports charge hotel/motels located near the airport higher permit and per-trip fees than hotel/motels located farther away, under the assump- tion that hotels located nearer the airport make more trips onto the airport and derive greater business benefits from the airport than do those located further away. For exam- ple, at Bradley International Airport, courtesy vehicles serving hotels located within 5 miles of the Airport are charged $3.75 to $4.75 per trip (depending on the vehicle size), while those located further away pay $3.25 to $4.25 per trip. • Business volume. Some airports have permit fees that vary based upon the number of trips. For example, at Dallas Love Field off-airport businesses making fewer than 200 trips per month are charged $0.75 per trip, while those making 201 trips or more are charged $1.25 per trip.

92 – Examples of privilege fees calculated as a percent of gross revenues. Most airports charge on-airport rental car companies a concession fee of 10% as well as ground rent and other charges, with the exception of Canadian airports, several of which charge over 13%. The privilege fees charged to off-airport rental car companies range from 4% to 10% of gross revenues with most airports charging 7% to 10% (excluding Canadian airports, sev- eral of which charge over 12%). The privilege fees charged to off-airport parking businesses range from 4% to 12% of gross revenues with most airports charging 8% to 10%. – Examples of privilege fees calculated using other metrics. Calculating a privilege fee as a fixed percentage of gross revenues is considered best industry practice and is generally accepted in the airport industry as a fair and valid measure of the overall business benefits a commercial vehicle operator receives from the presence of an airport and access to its passengers. In addition, this metric is self-indexing (i.e., fees paid to the airport increase or decrease in proportion to the volume of business conducted). However, some airports calculate privilege fees per trip, per parking space, or per rental car in the industry’s fleet. For example, at one airport, courtesy vehicles operated by off-airport parking busi- nesses are charged $10/parking space/year. Charging an annual fee per parking space is not considered a best practice because this method results in substantially less revenue to the airport operator than fees calculated per trip or as a percentage of gross revenues, is not self- indexing, and may be difficult to establish (e.g., should the fees be charged per striped space, or should the cal- culation consider unmarked spaces used to store valet- parked cars). Key Challenges Examples of the challenges associated with courtesy vehi- cle fees are described in the following paragraphs. Establishing new fees or modifying existing fees. Busi- nesses providing courtesy vehicle service frequently voice their concerns when airports establish new commercial ground transportation fees or increase existing fees. These businesses may express their concerns directly to airport board members and senior airport management (bypassing airport ground transportation staff), elected officials, representatives of the hotel/convention bureau, or to other stakeholders. They may describe the airport’s ground transportation fees as an air- port tax, which is inaccurate. They may argue that the fees will adversely affect the number of visitors or conventioneers, which is also inaccurate. Potential responses to these com- plaints include: who complies with airport rules would not pay any fee or fine. Examples of these fees include: – Examples of dwell time fees. Airports charging dwell time fees allow courtesy vehicles an initial dwell time period to load customers (e.g., 10 minutes depending on vehicle size) and then charge an additional amount for each additional minute or 10-minute period that the vehicle remains at the curbside loading area. For example, at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, hotel/motel courtesy vehicles are charged $2.00 for every 10 minute period they remain at the boarding area after the initial 10 minute period. At Nashville International Airport hotel/motel courtesy vehicles are charged double the per-trip rate for each additional 10-minute increment that the vehicle remains at the curbside boarding area. – Example of a monthly cap on vehicles. At Washington Reagan National Airport, the operators of courtesy vehi- cles are charged an annual permit fee of $500 to $750 per vehicle, depending on vehicle size, which allows them to make 300 trips per month per vehicle. However these operators are charged $1.00 per trip for every trip exceed- ing the 300 trips/month limit. (In January 2015 the free trips are to be eliminated.) In 2001 Los Angeles World Airports, operator of Los Angeles International Airport, established a cap on rental car company courtesy vehicle trips, with the number of annual trips allotted each com- pany established based on the company’s market share. Every rental car company was required to pay $5.00 for each trip exceeding their annual allotment, with the fine increasing to $10.00/trip depending on the number of excess trips. The program proved successful as it resulted in a 62% reduction in rental car courtesy vehicle trips over an 8-year period, with each rental car company achieving their goal and never incurring a fine. – Headway fees. At Raleigh-Durham International Air- port, the operators of courtesy vehicles are charged a headway fee of $4.00 each time one of their courtesy vehi- cles enters a curbside zone within 3 minutes of a previous vehicle operated by the same company. Both on- and off- airport rental car companies and off-airport parking lot businesses are required to pay these headway fees, which are in addition to dwell time fees. Hotel/motels are not required to pay headway fees since they operate their courtesy vehicles on a scheduled or demand-responsive basis and do not linger at the curbside. Prior to 2014 the headway fee was $1.00 per violation, which accord- ing to airport staff was insufficient to serve as a deter- rent to some businesses. For example, some rental car businesses paid over $1,000 per month in headway fees because they preferred to have their courtesy vehicles parked at the curbside for advertising or marketing purposes.

93 companies (e.g., AirportParkingReservations.com; greenbee parking.com, and OneStopParking.com) sell reservations for spaces which they do not own or operate and offer parking rates that are lower than those offered by either the airport or by off-airport parking businesses. These internet based reser- vation services are able to offer low rates because (according to the greenbeeparking.com website) they have “negotiated discounted rates with major hotel chains for parking spaces that are not currently occupied.” These unoccupied spaces are the spaces that hotel/motels provide for free to their overnight guests. These internet based reservation companies negotiate rates with the corporate headquarters of major hotel chains rather than individual hotel properties. As a result, the park- ing revenues received from customers using these websites are divided between the website company and the corporate headquarters of the major hotel chain, with the local hotel receiving little if any of the parking revenue. Airport opera- tors report that charging these hotels the same commercial ground transportation fees as other off-airport parking busi- nesses has caused these hotels to cease offering paid parking and no longer allow persons who are not overnight guests to park on their property (i.e., local management requested that corporate headquarters cancel the agreement with the internet based reservation company). Use of temporary vehicles. When a courtesy vehicle with a valid airport permit requires major maintenance or will be out of service for other reasons, a courtesy vehicle operator may request approval to use a temporary vehicle. The tempo- rary vehicles may be a different color than the other vehicles used by the courtesy vehicle operator, may not display the operator’s logo, and may not have a transponder or permanent airport permit. Airports may issue temporary vehicle permits allowing a courtesy vehicle operator to use a vehicle for a lim- ited time (e.g., less than 30 days) if (1) the operator requested and obtained prior approval from airport staff, (2) a vehicle without trade dress is using temporary signs approved by air- port staff, and (3) the temporary vehicle is in compliance with the airport’s safety, insurance, and other standards. To estab- lish the permit fees to be charged for the use of a temporary vehicle, airports typically prorate the annual permit fees and/ or estimate the monthly cost-recovery fees per vehicle paid by the courtesy vehicle operator for the most recent 3 months. A vehicle to be used more than 30 days may be required to have colors and markings consistent with the rest of the operator’s fleet, and to have an RFID transponder. Use of contract shuttles. Some hotel/motels do not oper- ate their own courtesy vehicles but instead use a contractor to provide shuttle service. An airport may choose to treat the shuttle like any other courtesy vehicle if the contract shuttle is used exclusively by one hotel and bears permanent mark- ings displaying the name of the hotel and its logo. However, • Many of these same companies are already paying these same fees at other airports which they serve. • The proposed fees represent a very small portion of a cus- tomer’s total costs of renting a car, paying for airport parking, or staying in a hotel room, particularly when the fees are divided among all the customers riding in each courtesy vehicle. • The authors of this guidebook are not aware of any research indicating that airport courtesy vehicle fees, if passed on to a customer, change a customer’s travel behavior or choice of destinations. • To the extent that these businesses do not pay the ground transportation fees and contribute to the airport operator’s costs, these businesses are being subsidized by other busi- nesses, including existing airport tenants and concessionaires. Courtesy vehicles serving multiple land uses. Occasion- ally a business may use the same courtesy vehicle to serve several businesses (e.g., an off-airport parking business as well as a rental car company or a hotel/motel). If the airport requires different businesses to pay different fees, normally the courtesy vehicle operator’s fees are calculated based upon the higher of the two fees. For example, if permit or per-trip fees charged to off-airport rental car companies are higher than those charged to off-airport parking businesses, then an operator using the same courtesy vehicle to service both businesses would be charged fees calculated assuming that all their trips are related to the rental car business regardless of the mix of customers. Park, sleep, and fly services. Most hotel/motels provide free parking for their overnight guests. Many hotel/motels located near an airport offer their overnight guests free parking for the duration of their trip if they stay at least one night at the hotel. This service is commonly known as “park, sleep, and fly.” Hotels consider this free parking to be a customer amenity much like free breakfasts or free newspapers. Thus air- port operators do not consider those hotels/motels offering free parking to their guests to be in the off-airport parking business or require them to pay the fees charged to an off- airport parking business if the parking is only offered to hotel guests and if there is no direct charge for this parking. How- ever if the hotel/motels advertise that parking is available for airline passengers who are not hotel guests and/or charge a fee for this parking, then these hotel/motels are considered to be operating an off-airport parking business and are required to pay the same airport fees as other off-airport parking businesses. Web-based sales of hotel parking. Numerous compa- nies sell airport parking reservations over the internet. Most companies are selling airport parking reservations for spaces located in parking facilities that they own or operate. A few

94 significant staff time to calculate and support the proposed fees, the prior approval of airport management, and assis- tance from airport legal staff and community relations staff. Increasing existing fees requires less staff time. Examples More than 90 airports have airport permits. More than 50 have cost-recovery or per-trip fees. More than 50 require off- airport rental car companies to pay fees calculated as a per- cent of gross revenues, and more than 40 require off-airport parking businesses to pay such fees. E2. Supporting Environmental and Sustainability Goals Description This section describes methods to improve air quality and support regional environmental and sustainability goals by limiting or reducing the number of courtesy vehicle trips and promoting the use of alternative fuels. Purpose Airport operators support regional environmental and sustainability goals, particularly efforts to improve air qual- ity, by reducing vehicle miles of travel and promoting use of vehicles that use alternative fuels. Airports use several programs to achieve these objectives (see Section H). These programs include the following: • Promoting efficient use of airport roadways through the use of per-trip fees. Airports seek to discourage the opera- tors of courtesy vehicles and other commercial vehicles from making unnecessary trips or continually looping around airport roadways. They do so by charging commer- cial operators for each vehicle trip made on airport road- ways, with the fee amount varying based on the vehicle size or capacity. An operator who makes unnecessary trips will be charged greater fees than one who operates efficiently. These fees are referred to as cost-recovery or per-trip fees. A typical per-trip fee for a small courtesy vehicle is $2.00 to $3.00 per trip, with larger vehicles charged higher fees. These fees are also described in Chapter 5 and Section E1 of this chapter. • Promoting efficient use of airport roadways through the use of circuit fees. A circuit fee is similar to a per-trip fee, with the difference being that the amount of the fee increases dramatically if the vehicle passes the terminal area or makes excessive “circuits” of the terminal area within an established time limit. Los Angeles International Airport is an example of an airport with circuit fees. an airport may choose to treat the shuttle as a prearranged van or scheduled (per-capita) van service, even if the service is offered for free, if the shuttle does not display the hotel’s name or transports both paying customers and hotel guests in the same vehicle. This requirement does not apply to consolidated hotel/motel courtesy vehicles (see Section E2). Applicability It is recommended that all courtesy vehicle operators wish- ing to pick up airline passengers be required to abide by airport rules and regulations, obtain an airport permit formally signi- fying their agreement to do so, and pay required airport fees. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Requiring courtesy vehicle operators to abide by airport rules promotes the safety and security of all airline passengers, including those using the courtesy vehicles, and enhances the customer experience of all airline passengers. Requiring courtesy vehicle operators to pay airport fees allows an airport sponsor to partially recover their costs of providing, main- taining, and operating the roadways and other facilities used by the courtesy vehicle operators. The fees received from rental car companies and parking represent a major source of non-airline revenues which airport operators are required to preserve and, consistent with other goals such as improving customer service, enhance. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers of rental car companies, off-airport parking businesses, and hotel/motels expect that courtesy vehicle service will be available and that it will be provided conveniently, safely, and efficiently. • Commercial ground transportation operators. As noted, the courtesy vehicle operators typically work cooperatively with airport staff but are likely to object to the imposition of new airport fees or increases to existing fees. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local officials do not typically have any concerns with courtesy vehicle permit- ting, but if lobbied by courtesy vehicle operators, they may have concerns with or not understand why airport manage- ment wish to impose some fees, particularly privilege fees. Implementation Schedule and Costs Ongoing costs are primarily the staff time required to issue and monitor airport permits, and issue and monitor monthly or annual bills. Implementing new fees may require

95 consolidated courtesy vehicles are operated by an inde- pendent bus operator under contract to the individual hotel/motel who uses a dedicated vehicle that displays the names and logos of all the hotels it serves. – Los Angeles International Airport. In March 2006, to achieve Airport management’s goal of reducing hotel/ motel courtesy vehicle trips, the airport agreed to waive trip fees for those hotels that reduced their vehicle trips compared to a 2004 base year, and converted new or replacement shuttles to an alternative fuel. In December 2006, the airport established a mandatory trip reduc- tion program with an annual allotment on the number of courtesy vehicle trips each hotel/motel could make. Each hotel/motel was required to pay $5.00 for each trip exceeding the annual allotment. Most of the major hotels along the corridor where most airport hotels are located participated in the program, and on a volun- tary basis, established a consolidated courtesy vehicle service. These programs resulted in a 66% decrease in hotel/motel courtesy vehicle trips. However not all hotels participated in the program from the start. Dur- ing the first full year of the program (July 2007 through June 2008), 7 hotels incurred a total of over $75,000 in penalties, and in the second year, 4 hotels incurred pen- alties totaling over $12,000. – Consolidated rental car programs. Numerous airports, including those serving Baltimore, Boston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Seattle, have implemented consolidated rental car busing programs as part of the development of a consolidated rental car cen- ter. These programs reduce vehicle trips by replacing the courtesy vehicles operated by each of the individual rental car companies with a single, common bus. These busing programs differ significantly from the consolidated hotel/ motel courtesy vehicle programs in that (a) all the on- airport rental car companies are located in a single build- ing rather than customers being dropped off or picked up at several hotels, (b) the programs are mandatory rather than voluntary, and (c) many are funded by the airport operator unlike the hotel/motel courtesy shuttles. • Reducing vehicle emissions though the use of alternative fuels. As noted, San Francisco and Los Angeles Interna- tional Airport have established fee structures that encour- age hotel/motels to operate courtesy vehicles that use CNG or other alternative fuels. A similar program was used at San Francisco to promote the use of CNG vehicles by the off-airport parking businesses. As a result, at San Fran- cisco International Airport all the courtesy vehicles are now fueled by CNG. Similar results have occurred at Los Angeles International in response to airport fees and the lower costs of operating CNG vehicles. Other airports have reported fewer courtesy vehicles using CNG, propane, or • Minimizing idling at curbside areas through the use of dwell time fees. Airports discourage the operators of cour- tesy vehicles and other commercial ground transportation vehicles from idling at the curbside areas for excessive peri- ods by fining the operators of vehicles that do so. Airport staff define an allowable dwell time (e.g., 10 minutes for a courtesy vehicle) and then fine operators whose vehicles remain at the curbside in excess of this time. These fines are commonly referred to as dwell time fees and are charged for each additional minute or each additional 10-minute period that a vehicle remains at the curbside loading area. Examples of these fees are provided in Section E1. • Discouraging excessive use of curbside areas through the use of headway fees. Airports discourage courtesy vehicle operators from attempting to constantly maintain one of their vehicles at a curbside area or from using “bump and run” operations by fining the operators of vehicles that do so. Airport staff define an acceptable headway (e.g., 4 min- utes) and charge operators whose vehicle(s) operate at closer intervals or lower headways. Examples of courtesy vehicle headway fees are provided in Section E1. • Reducing the number of vehicle trips by penalizing operators for excess trips. As described in Section E1, Los Angeles International Airport successfully reduced the number of rental car courtesy vehicle trips at the air- port by implementing a fee for any company that exceeded their annual allotted trips. The airport established a similar trip reduction program for hotel/motel courtesy vehicles, which led to the introduction of a consolidated courtesy vehicle program as described below. • Reducing the number of vehicle trips by requiring the use of consolidated courtesy vehicles. Hotel/motels are required to use consolidated courtesy vehicles at Los Angeles and San Francisco International airports. At these airports, one “consolidated” courtesy vehicle serves three or more hotels rather than each hotel operating its own courtesy vehicle. These programs differ at each airport: – San Francisco International Airport. To achieve the air quality goals established by the City of San Francisco’s clean vehicle program, the airport tripled its per-trip fee for courtesy vehicles not in compliance with the consoli- dated hotel/motel courtesy vehicle program (i.e., cour- tesy vehicles serving a single hotel and powered by gas or diesel fuels), while maintaining the existing per-trip fees for hotel/motels that either participate in a consolidated courtesy vehicle service or use CNG or other approved clean fuels. Currently all hotel/motels with courtesy vehi- cle service at San Francisco International use CNG-fueled consolidated courtesy vehicles that serve three or more nearby hotels. The current per-trip fee is $2.85 for hotel/ motels that have implemented the clean vehicle program and $8.55 per trip for hotel/motels that have not. The

96 airports with comprehensive environmental ground trans- portation programs (Figure 8-13). F. Scheduled Buses and Vans The following section describes best practices for manag- ing and controlling scheduled buses and vans. Because of the overlapping nature of these best practices, these modes have been merged into a single topic, addressing business arrange- ments and programs to support customer use of scheduled bus/van services. Description This section describes measures allowing airport operators to encourage, accommodate, and regulate scheduled buses and vans. Purpose Airports seek to encourage the use of transit and other high occupancy transportation services, whether privately or publicly operated. Scheduled bus/van services include fixed- route transportation services between: • An airport and the city center (e.g., between LaGuardia Airport and downtown Manhattan) or suburbs. • An airport and a popular destination resort (e.g., those avail- able at Orlando International and Tucson International airports). • An airport and a distant city, frequently located an hour or more away. Examples of such scheduled services include the service between Bangor (Maine) and Logan International Airport, Eugene (Oregon) and Portland International Airport, and Laramie (Wyoming) and Denver International Airport. • Two cities, with an intermediate stop at the airport. These are interstate routes typically operated by an established interstate bus service (e.g., Greyhound/Jefferson service between Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and other alternative fuels due to the challenges associated with (1) lack of CNG fueling stations/infrastructure, (2) costs of conversion kits which allow vehicles originally designed for gasoline to use CNG, propane, or other fuel, and (3) lack of maintenance facilities and support from vehicle manufac- turers. More information on the use of alternative fuels is provided in Section H. Applicability These goals are applicable at airports seeking to reduce vehicle emissions by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel and promoting the use of alternative fuels. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The key benefits are the improved environment, reduction in vehicle emissions, and the ability to be a greener airport and a good neighbor to the region. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers, to the extent they are aware of these programs, are likely to support them. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Courtesy vehicle operators, particularly rental car companies and hotel/motels, may resist programs with limits on headways or annual trips by complaining that the programs adversely affect their ability to provide expected levels of customer service, restrict their ability to comply with corporate wait- ing time policies, and unfairly affect larger companies or those serving higher end properties (e.g., a 5-star hotel vs. a 2-star motel). They may also express concerns about the required use of alternative fuel vehicles. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local officials are likely to support an airport’s efforts to improve air quality and support regional environmental objectives. Implementation Schedule and Costs The airport’s initial costs to implement these programs include the time required to (1) research the existing cour- tesy vehicle trip volumes and options for use of alternative fueled vehicles, (2) modify existing airport regulations, and (3) work with the courtesy vehicle operators to establish the new regulations and an implementation schedule. Minimal efforts are required to oversee and enforce these regulations. Examples Examples are mentioned in this section. Los Angeles and San Francisco International airports are good examples of Figure 8-13. A consolidated hotel courtesy vehicle at San Francisco International Airport.

97 easily recognizable as they need to advertise to and attract airline passengers. • Regulation and control of publicly operated scheduled bus services. Airports do not require local public transit agencies which operate scheduled bus services on an air- port to obtain an airport permit or pay required airport fees. This is because these transit operators are not-for- profit agencies which often are affiliated with or sponsored by the county or city government that sponsors the air- port. These agencies typically provide traditional low-fare, fixed-route, multi-stop public transit services rather than the express service or limited stop service operated by pri- vate businesses. • Convenient curbside area. Airport operators provide con- veniently located passenger drop-off and boarding areas that allow vans and full-size buses to safely maneuver into and out of curbside spaces. Public transit services fre- quently drop off and pick up passengers at the same loca- tion. Privately operated scheduled services may also use a single stop depending on the frequency of the service and the length of the routes. (Long-haul services frequently allow for a driver recovery period between the time the bus or van drops off passengers and the scheduled depar- ture time.) • A driver recovery area. During their recovery period (or break time) drivers of scheduled bus/van services are required to park their vehicles in the commercial vehicle hold lot or similar location since airport operators pre- fer that curbside areas be used only for active passenger loading and unloading. Enforcing the use of a hold lot by the drivers of scheduled services may require coordina- tion with the management of these services, particularly public transit services, since drivers often wish to use the restrooms and food/beverage concessions in the terminal. • Ticket counters in the baggage claim area. Several airports (e.g., Denver, Phoenix, and Seattle International airports) lease counter space in the baggage claim area to scheduled bus/van operators. Operators use these counters to provide customers with information about their services, including fares and departure times, and sell tickets. Waiting areas with seats may be provided, particularly for the customers of services leaving every 1 to 2 hours, or less frequently. Other airports provide similar ticket counters in ground transportation centers, as described in Section I (e.g., Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport). Key Challenges Compared to other modes of commercial ground trans- portation, there are few challenges to the control of scheduled bus/van operators. Examples of the challenges associated with accommodating scheduled buses/vans are described in the following paragraphs. North and South Dakota) or between an airport and an international destination (e.g., between Burlington Inter- national Airport and Montreal, Canada). Business arrangements for scheduled buses/vans. Gen- erally bus/van companies operate scheduled airport service on a non-exclusive basis (i.e., any properly licensed com- pany with an airport permit may provide transportation to/from the airport). In the past some airport operators awarded bus/van companies exclusive or semi-exclusive concession contracts to operate scheduled airport services. However, today few airports award exclusive concession contracts for scheduled bus/van services, as qualified com- panies are less interested in competing for such exclusive contracts. These companies indicate that the proportion of airline passengers seeking scheduled, fixed-route service has declined in the face of competition from more popu- lar shared-ride, door-to-door services and other trans- portation services. As a result, an exclusive contract offers less revenue opportunities and in many cities frequently does not warrant the required concession fees and MAG amounts. Programs to support customer use of scheduled bus/van services. Examples of the measures and programs airports have implemented to promote and accommodate scheduled bus/van services include: • Permitting privately operated scheduled/bus van ser- vices. Airports require the operators of privately owned scheduled bus services to obtain an airport permit and pay required airport fees. Before obtaining an airport permit and initiating airport service, a privately owned scheduled transportation provider must be licensed by a state DOT or other regulatory authority. Typically, as part of the licensing process the provider must submit a busi- ness plan and document the need and necessity for the proposed service. Having done so, the scheduled bus/van company can then apply for an airport permit and, once it is granted, initiate service to/from the airport. It is recom- mended that scheduled bus/van operators be charged flat annual fees or per-trip fees in order to promote the use of these services, rather than fees calculated as a percent- age of their airport-related revenues, which may be time consuming to audit. • Regulation and control of privately operated scheduled bus/van services. Airport staff are required to devote less effort to regulating, permitting, and controlling scheduled bus/van services than to taxicab, limousine, shared-ride, or other on-demand services. This is because most airports are served by few scheduled bus/van companies, and these companies are likely to be well capitalized, use drivers who are employees (rather than owner/operators), and are reg- ulated by federal, state, and local agencies. They are also

98 levels of cost and convenience, including publicly and privately operated scheduled bus/van services. Encouraging airline pas- senger and employee use of public transit and other scheduled transportation services benefits the airport sponsor’s efforts to support regional environmental and sustainability objectives, including improving air quality, reducing energy consump- tion, and reducing the airport’s carbon footprint. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airline passengers and employees will likely respond favorably to the availability of public transit and scheduled bus/van services, as these transporta- tion options provide an alternative to their use of private automobiles. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Efforts by an airport sponsor to accommodate scheduled bus/ van services will likely be viewed favorably by other com- mercial ground transportation operators, with the possible exception of the amount and location of the curb space allocated to these scheduled services. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local officials are expected to be supportive of the efforts of airport staff to (1) encourage the use of and accommodate scheduled bus/van services, whether public or privately operated, and (2) improve the customer experience of those passengers using these services. Implementation Schedule and Costs The costs of accommodating scheduled bus/van operators are minimal with the exception of the costs of developing a special purpose ground transportation courtyard or ground transportation center (described in Section I). Examples Examples of best practices include the scheduled bus/van services at the airports serving Boston, Chicago (O’Hare International) as seen in Figure 8-14, Denver, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. G. Charter Buses and Vans The following section describes best practices for manag- ing and controlling charter buses and vans. Because of the overlapping nature of these best practices, these modes are merged into a single topic, addressing permitting and reg- ulating charter buses and vans and occasional user permit programs. Ensuring compliance with published schedules. A poorly managed company may cancel or combine scheduled airport departures with few customers in order to merge the custom- ers onto a single vehicle. If this occurs regularly, airport staff may receive complaints from unhappy customers or from competing ground transportation operators. Controlling use of counter space inside the terminal. When scheduled bus/van companies have counters in baggage claim areas (or other locations inside the terminal), some counter staff may engage in improper solicitation of airline passengers or seek to attract customers who have purchased tickets on a competing company. This is primarily a concern when competing ground transportation companies lease adja- cent or nearby counter space. Remedies to this problem include: • Not providing counters in the baggage claim area • Only leasing counter space to one commercial ground trans- portation concessionaire • Only allowing a third-party management contractor to staff a ground transportation counter (e.g., the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) • Only leasing space to one concessionaire and a third-party ground transportation management contractor (e.g., Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport) • Bidding the space in such a way as to avoid leasing space to competing companies (e.g., the process used at Denver International Airport). Determining the appropriate curb space to be allocated to scheduled bus/van operators. Buses operated by a public tran- sit agency or other scheduled operator require large portions of convenient curb space. The length of curb space needed to allow these buses to maneuver into and out of the curbside may appear to be out of balance with the number of airline passengers using these scheduled bus services, particularly at small hubs or non-hubs, or at airport with a limited amount of curb space available. Airport staff must prioritize allocation of the available curb space, balancing the competing require- ments for this space and the objectives of airport management. Applicability These practices are applicable to any airport that is served by a publicly or privately operated scheduled bus/van opera- tor. It is recommended that all scheduled bus/van operators be required to abide by airport rules and regulations, obtain an airport permit, and pay required airport fees. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Airline passengers benefit by being able to choose from a menu of ground transportation services available at varying

99 of charter buses typically work cooperatively with airport staff to provide their customers with efficient and convenient transportation. Charter bus/van operators typically abide by airport rules, obtain airport permits and pay airport fees which for a bus may be $20 per trip or more. This cooperation is because (1) airport fees represent a small portion of the bus operator’s total costs and can be passed directly on to the party chartering a bus or van, (2) the operators recognize that air- ports require all charter bus companies to pay these fees, and (3) these companies are also regulated and regularly inspected by federal and state agencies. The key issue with regards to regulating charter buses is how best to permit buses and vans (and their companies) which infrequently serve the airport (i.e., occasional users). The best practice response involves the sale of company per- mits and daily permits. Company permits. Most charter bus/van companies own many buses but use only a few of them for airport transportation on a given day or month. Consequently charter bus operators prefer to avoid the expense of purchasing a separate airport per- mit for each vehicle they own. Airport operators have attempted to respond to the concerns of the charter bus companies by developing programs that reduce a company’s costs of obtaining airport permits while ensuring that these companies obtain an airport permit, as must every other commercial ground trans- portation operator. Examples of these programs include: • A permit fee per charter bus company rather than per vehicle (e.g., Dallas/Fort Worth International or Minneapolis- St. Paul International airports) • Maximum annual fee regardless of the number of charter buses permitted (e.g., Asheville Regional Airport) • A daily fee for companies with an airport permit that is much lower than the daily fee charged companies that do not have an airport permit (e.g., Tampa International Airport). These permit fees are in addition to any daily or per-trip fees that an airport may charge the operator of a charter bus or van. Occasional user permit programs for charter buses and vans. Occasional users are those companies that infre- quently drop off or pick up airline passengers at an airport. Occasional users include those companies based in distant communities as well as those local companies who, by the nature of their client base, rarely serve the airport. As noted in earlier sections of this guidebook, airport sponsors require that all companies doing business on the airport, including occa- sional users, agree to abide by the airport’s rules and regulations, and enter into a formal business relationship with the airport sponsor (i.e., obtain an airport permit) signifying their agree- ment to do so. As such, airports require that all commercial ground transportation companies obtain an airport permit, Description These measures allow airport operators to accommodate charter buses and vans, and the passengers and baggage they transport. Purpose Compared to other commercial ground transportation ser- vices the volume of charter buses dropping off or picking up passengers at most airports is very small, with these buses/ vans using airport facilities infrequently. There may be only one or two buses operating on the airport at any one time. Typically charter buses transport airline passengers going to/from athletic events (e.g., football teams and their fans), tourists traveling as part of a prearranged tour group or tour package (e.g., bus tours or cruise ship passengers), or a large convention/conference. (Chartered buses are frequently used on a temporary basis to provide scheduled transportation or shuttle service between an airport and a conference venue.) While most airports have little charter bus traffic, a few airports located near cruise ship ports (e.g., Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, Seattle, and Vancouver) serve large volumes of cruise ship passengers and corresponding large volumes of charter/ cruise ship buses during the peak cruise ship season. These airports have developed specialized programs and facilities to accommodate the large number of buses, passengers, and bag- gage associated with cruise ships, often in cooperation with the representatives of the cruise ship lines Permitting and Regulating Charter Buses Compared with the time devoted to other commercial ground transportation services, oversight of charter bus operations requires minimal airport staff effort. Operators Figure 8-14. Bus center at Chicago O’Hare International Airport.

100 • Baggage check at the airport at the passenger drop-off site. As noted above, airline representatives at Miami and Seattle- Tacoma International airports greet cruise ship bus passen- gers and accept their bags as they get off their buses at the airports rather than at the cruise ship berth. This is because of the large number of cruise ship berths in Miami, and the need for some cruise ship passengers to go through customs before arriving at Seattle International Airport because they boarded their cruise ship in Vancouver, British Columbia. • Baggage check and claim at a remote site. Hotel guests staying at the Disney resort hotels in Orlando who use Disney’s Magical Express Bus are able to skip the baggage claim at Orlando International Airport and have their bag- gage delivered directly to their hotel room. Upon return- ing to the Airport, guests can bypass the Airport check-in counters completely by giving their bags to airline repre- sentatives stationed in the hotel lobby who will check in the bags to the guests’ final destinations. The key advantages of off-site baggage handling are that it enhances the customers experience by relieving them from the need to carry their bags from the bus to the airline ticket counters and reduces congestion in the ticket lobby, which may occur when an entire bus load of passengers is dropped off. The key disadvantage is that some airlines may not partic- ipate in the program, confusing the passengers flying aboard the airline that is not represented. Key Challenges There are a few challenges to the management and control of cruise ship bus/vans. The key challenges are to (1) ensure all charter bus/vans operating on the airport have an airport per- mit, which may involve the use of company permits or occa- sional use permits, and (2) provide sufficient space within the terminal building and at the curbside boarding/alighting areas to accommodate charter bus/van passengers and their baggage. Applicability These practices are applicable to any airport experienc- ing charter bus/van traffic, and particularly at airports with larger volumes of charter bus/van traffic. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges As noted airline passengers traveling in charter buses/vans benefit by having a convenient and comfortable area where enplaning passengers can wait for their bags to be offloaded from the bus, or where deplaning passengers can remain seated until they can board the bus. Airport operators benefit by being even those that rarely serve the airport. Occasional user per- mits are typically sold per trip or allow an unlimited number of trips on a given day (e.g., a daily permit). Some airports also waive the cost of the airport permit for each occasional use charter bus/van (e.g., Bradley International Airport). Airport operators prefer that charter bus companies and other commercial ground transportation operators establish a permanent relationship with the airport (e.g., purchase an annual permit) rather than a temporary relationship (e.g., pur- chase an occasional user permit). Thus most airports either: • Limit the number of daily permits an operator can pur- chase per year (e.g., up to 12 trips per vehicle or 25 trips per company per year), or • Charge businesses that do not have an annual airport permit two to three times more per trip than permit holders. For example, Tampa International Airport charges charter bus companies with an annual permit $25.00 per trip while non- permit holders must pay $50.00/trip for the first two trips and $100.00/trip after the second trip without an airport permit. Pittsburgh International Airport charges charter buses with an airport permit (which costs $660) $2.00 per trip, while non-permit holders must pay $50/trip. Typically, a commercial vehicle operator can purchase an occasional use permit prior to their arrival at the airport. However many occasional users do not know that they need to purchase a permit until they arrive at the airport and learn from an airport police officer/ground transportation agent that they must do so. Often the driver must purchase the permit from an airport operations office or landside office located in the terminal, requiring the driver to park the vehi- cle and enter the airport terminal or the offices of the ground transportation manager or police. At Richmond Interna- tional Airport occasional use permits may be purchased from machines located in the commercial vehicle hold lot. Off-site baggage handling. Passengers alighting from charter/cruise ship buses at the airports serving Fort Lauder- dale, Miami, Seattle, and Vancouver can check their bags with airline representatives stationed near the bus unloading point. This relieves passengers from having to carry their bags from the bus to the airline ticket counters, which may be a long distance from the bus unloading point. Generally not all air- lines offer remote baggage check services, as those with lower market shares may prefer not to participate in these programs. Examples of off-site baggage check-in programs include: • Baggage check at cruise ship port. At Fort Lauderdale- Hollywood International, airline representatives greet passengers as they disembark from their ship and accept the passengers’ bags.

101 pertain to one or multiple commercial ground transporta- tion modes. Description These environmental measures may be applied to com- mercial ground transportation at the airport to support envi- ronmental and sustainability goals established by the airport or local government. Purpose Many airports and municipalities have established green initiatives or environmental goals to reduce emissions, con- serve energy, and achieve other objectives of airport manage- ment. Sustainable measures can be implemented across most types of ground transportation operations to support these initiatives. Clean and alternative fuel vehicles. One of the most common ways to promote sustainable practices in airport ground transportation is by encouraging commercial vehicle operators to use clean vehicles. Many airports with concession contracts or operating permits for various services require that a percentage of a provider’s fleet be green. Some airports such as San Francisco International require 100% of the fleet (for shared-ride vans and all taxicabs other than ADA acces- sible vehicles) to be green. The definition of a green vehicle varies by airport, but a common definition is to use the EPA’s greenhouse gas ratings, which rates vehicles based on tailpipe emissions. The green rating is on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is the cleanest. Additional information about green standards can be found on the EPA’s website. Seattle-Tacoma Interna- tional phased in their taxicab green requirement, requiring a green rating of 10 for 50% of the taxicab fleet in the first year and 100% of the fleet by the second year. Phoenix Sky Har- bor International Airport has a shared-ride fleet that operates entirely on propane. Another method of providing cleaner vehicles is to require a certain fuel type. Many airport taxicab fleets operate using hybrid vehicles, while other commercial vehicles may use CNG, or propane. At the time this guidebook was prepared, several airports were using diesel-electric hybrid buses for their rental car or parking fleets, but no airport had required their use by commercial ground transportation operators. To increase compliance with clean vehicle initiatives, airports may impose penalties such as fines or provide incentives such as reduced fees or head-of-line privileges. San Francisco Inter- national charges three times the normal trip fee for shared-ride operators not using CNG vans and only lists green limousine companies on the airport website. Boston Logan International allows hybrid taxicabs to receive head-of-line privileges once assured that all commercial ground transportation operators and the employees of these companies have agreed to abide by airport rules and regulations. The region served by an airport may benefit if the improved facilities and operations lead to increased numbers of tourists or visitors. The key challenges involve arranging for the sale of occasional use permits, pro- viding sufficient curb space on the few times when there are charter bus/vans at the airport, and allowing ample time to work with representatives of the bus operator or the charter party when a large movement of passengers is expected. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airline passengers traveling by charter bus/vans will likely respond favorably to the availability of adequate boarding/alighting areas and comfortable waiting areas with seating. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Charter bus/van companies will likely support efforts to provide adequate pickup/drop-off areas. They will also be support- ive of airport regulations that require all charter bus/van companies to pay airport fees. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local officials are expected to be supportive of the measures to improve the experience of visitors and tourists, as well as other passengers, using charter buses/vans. Implementation Schedule and Costs The costs of accommodating charter bus/van operators are minimal with the exception of the costs of developing special purpose ground transportation courtyards or ground trans- portation centers. Examples Examples of best practices include the charter bus fees established at the airports described in this section, and for those airports serving large volumes of charter buses/vans, the charter bus/van facilities at Chicago O’Hare’s Bus Shuttle Center, Miami’s south bus station, Orlando, San Francisco’s International Terminal building, and Vancouver. H. Supporting Airport and Local Environmental Goals and Initiatives The following section describes best practices for sup- porting local, regional, and airport environmental goals and initiatives. The measures described in this section may

102 an airport may bring passengers from a downtown or resi- dential area to the airport but have a deadhead trip return- ing from the airport. Deadhead trips often occur at airports that are located adjacent to multiple cities or counties, but where only vehicles licensed by specific cities or counties may serve the airport or pick up in the municipality where they are licensed. These deadhead trips add to congestion on roadways, increase vehicle miles traveled, and create unnecessary emis- sions. Controlling and minimizing deadhead trips to and from the airport can support an airport or municipality’s goals of implementing more sustainable practices and reduce the airport’s impact on the environment. Reducing deadhead trips also benefits the drivers and operators, as it provides them with an additional fare when returning to the airport. To reduce deadhead trips, some airports have worked with the local regulatory authority to change the licensing requirements for commercial vehicles. The exclusive taxicab concessionaire serving Seattle-Tacoma International previously was not autho- rized to pick up customers in Seattle, leading to a large number of deadhead trips returning to the airport. The airport worked to enable taxicabs to obtain dual licenses to serve downtown as well. Additionally, the airport included a question regarding how a company would work to reduce deadhead trips in the RFP for a new taxicab concession contract. The proposed reduc- tion goal of 2% in the first month, increasing to a 9% reduction in deadhead trips by the fourth year was incorporated into the successful company’s operating agreement. Taxicab drivers who drop off a passenger at departures receive front-of-line privi- leges in the hold lot to pick up arriving passengers. Fees. Airports may implement fees to reduce the amount of time vehicles spend at the curbside or the number of times a vehicle circulates around the airport roadway, reducing con- gestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Fees may also be used to encourage operators to convert to alternative fuels or comply with age or mileage limits on vehicles, as is the case at Oakland International Airport, where operators are charged higher fees for any vehicle older than 7 years or if less than 50% of the vehicle fleet use alternative fuel. More detailed information on fees for each type of commercial ground transportation service is included in their respective best practices sections. Trip fees. Airports discourage commercial vehicle oper- ators from making unnecessary trips or continually looping around airport roadways by charging commercial operators for each vehicle trip made on airport roadways, with the fee amount varying based on the vehicle size or capacity. An operator who makes unnecessary trips will be charged more than one who operates efficiently. Some airports such as Los Angeles International Airport charge a variation on the trip fee, where the fee increases after a number of circuits around per day between 12:00 PM and 8:00 PM, and Denver Interna- tional and San Jose International provide a discount on the per-trip fee for clean vehicles. At Orlando International, where each company’s fleet size is limited, a company is allowed 10 percent more permits if hybrid vehicles are used. Incen- tives should be re-evaluated after a trial period, as some air- ports such as Vancouver International began with an incentive program but found that, due to fuel cost savings, once drivers purchased hybrid vehicles they found significant benefit in operating a hybrid vehicle without the incentives. Similarly, Washington Dulles International does not require hybrid vehicles but found that many drivers chose to operate hybrid vehicles on their own. Encouraging the use of these vehicles by publicizing not only the environmental but also the economic benefits to drivers and operators can be an effective way of increasing the proportion of green vehicles in a fleet. One consideration when requiring a specific fuel type is access to fueling locations. Many airports of all sizes have con- structed public alternative fueling stations on airport property, including those serving Lincoln, Nebraska, Oklahoma City, and Tampa, among others. Although a fueling station may be provided at the airport, consideration should be given to the typical trip length from the airport and the fueling options in the surrounding areas, as a lack of fueling stations away from the airport in communities with a high proportion of long distance trips may preclude the use of alternative fuel. This may also vary by mode and should be considered when selecting the use of a specific fuel type. Another challenge is access to the alternative fuel vehicles. Manufacturers and mechanics for a specific type of alternative fuel vehicle may not be available in all areas. Conversion kits for vehicles may be costly to purchase and install, and maintenance requirements can differ from gasoline vehicles. At Phoenix Sky Harbor, the airport did not specify which type of fuel was required, leaving the shared-ride concessionaire to select pro- pane instead of CNG since the vehicles were more readily avail- able, and the vehicle manufacturer no longer offered engines that could be easily converted to CNG. In addition to alternative fuel vehicles, another method for implementing cleaner vehicles and reducing emissions is by requiring operators to use newer vehicles. Placing a model year limit on commercial ground transportation vehicles will increase the overall efficiency and reduce the emissions gen- erated by a gasoline fleet, as advances in technology allow for the production of more efficient and cleaner vehicles. Reduction and control of deadhead trips. Often times, commercial vehicles serving the airport will pick up passen- gers from the airport, drop off their customers at their desti- nations, and return to the airport without a passenger. This empty return trip is called a deadhead trip. Similarly, some companies who are not authorized to pick up passengers at

103 Other measures to promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable hold lot operations are (1) to eliminate single file queues or stacks, and (2) provide a drivers’ lounge. Allow- ing taxicab drivers to park randomly throughout the hold lot eliminates the need for drivers to continuously move their vehicles forward to maintain their place in line. The availability of a drivers lounge reduces the need for taxicab drivers to run their engines to stay warm or cool, thus sav- ing fuel and reducing emissions, as well as improving driver comfort. Applicability These measures are applicable at airports seeking to sup- port local or regional environmental initiatives and reduce vehicle emissions by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel, and promoting the use of alternative fuels. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The benefits of these best practices are reduced vehicle emissions, reduced congestion at curbsides and on airport roadways, and an improved environment. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers, to the extent they are aware of these programs, are likely to support them. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Commer- cial vehicle operators may resist programs which increase trip fees, limit headways, or reduce annual trips by com- plaining that the programs adversely affect their ability to provide expected levels of customer service or restrict their ability to comply with corporate waiting time policies. They may also express concerns about the required use of alter- native fuel vehicles. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local officials are likely to support an airport’s efforts to improve air qual- ity and support regional environmental objectives. Implementation Schedule and Costs The initial capital cost of implementing an alternative fuel requirement may be high, as a fueling station may need to be constructed and operators will need to purchase new alterna- tive fuel vehicles. Federal grants are available through the FAA and EPA to support environmental initiatives, however, which can significantly reduce the cost to the airport and operators. These include Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) grants, which are available through the EPA’s National Clean Diesel the airport. This circuit fee is a strong disincentive for vehi- cles such as shared-ride vans that might otherwise recirculate multiple times, as the $5.50 trip fee for the first two circuits increases to $22.00 for any additional loops around the termi- nal area prior to that vehicle exiting the airport. Dwell fees. Airports charge dwell fees to discourage air- port operators from spending excessive time waiting at the curbside, which may lead to increased congestion on the road- way. The airport defines a maximum allowable dwell time that an operator may remain at the curbside, after which time the dwell fee will be charged. Examples of airports that charge dwell fees include Minneapolis-St. Paul International, Orlando International, and Winnipeg James Armstrong Richardson International Airport. Limit on annual trips and headway fees. Section E2 describes examples of headway fees to limit the number of annual vehicle trips made by the operators of courtesy vehi- cles. It also describes fees or fines charged to courtesy vehicle operators who operate closely spaced vehicles (i.e., a bump and run operation). Consolidated vehicles. Section E2 describes the use of consolidated hotel/motel and rental car courtesy vehicles, which if implemented, reduce vehicle miles of travel and emissions. Supporting the use of scheduled buses and vans. Sec- tion F describes measures to encourage airline passenger and employee use of public transit and privately owned scheduled bus and van services. Increased use of these services reduces employee and airline passenger reliance upon private vehicles and reduces overall roadway traffic, vehicle miles of travel, and vehicle-generated emissions. Design of vehicle hold lot. Vehicle hold lots may be designed to minimize impacts on the environment and pro- mote sustainable practices. Examples of such practices include: • Control of runoff and the oil and waste that accumulate on these lots through the use of detention basins, filters, and porous pavements. • Installation of solar panels as a source of renewable energy. These solar panels can also serve as shaded areas for the parked vehicles and waiting drivers if installed on canopies. • Use of electric vehicle charging stations. No current exam- ples of airports having installed electric vehicle charging stations in the hold lot were identified at the time this report was prepared. However, with the increasing number of electrically powered taxicabs and limousines in some cities, it is likely these stations will be made available in hold lots in the future.

104 in subsequent pages are intended to accommodate a specific type of ground transportation service. The layouts that accommodate multiple types of ground transportation services or vehicle sizes include the following: • Angled boarding spaces. The courtesy vehicle boarding areas at several airports (e.g., those serving Atlanta, Cal- gary, Greensboro, Minneapolis, Orlando, and Vancouver) have angled parking spaces (e.g., the vehicles park at a 45-degree angle to the curbside sidewalk rather than par- allel). These spaces may be configured to allow vehicles to exit by pulling forward or by backing out. Passengers sim- ply board the vehicle from a raised curbside adjacent to the vehicle’s door or from street level. Access to the angled courtesy vehicle spaces is generally gate controlled to pre- vent unauthorized vehicles from entering the area and parking behind the commercial vehicles. Key advantages of angled boarding spaces include: – Passengers have shorter walking distances. This is because 50% more commercial vehicles can be parked along a given curbside length at an angle (or even more depend- ing on the angle at which the vehicles are parked) rather than parallel. Thus, for every 100 feet they walk a cus- tomer may pass six to eight vehicles rather than four or fewer vehicles. – Customers know exactly where to wait for their commer- cial vehicle when each provider is permanently assigned a specific angled parking space, as is done at several air- ports (e.g., Calgary International). This allows passengers to wait at the sidewalk area immediately adjacent to the assigned boarding space and be assured they have not missed their vehicle’s departure. – Customers can find the vehicle more easily since they can see the side of the vehicles displaying the names of the scheduled bus service, hotel/motel, parking lot, or rental car company rather than trying to read the name on the front of the vehicle. – Provides for easier prohibition of double-parked or improperly parked vehicles as vehicles must stop in an angled space and are not allowed to double park in the roadway. This improves passenger safety and service. – Each angled space can be numbered and assigned to a vehicle (e.g., a limousine or chartered bus) or opera- tor as the vehicle is released from the hold lot. Curbside enforcement officers can compare the coupon number issued at the hold lot exit and space number to ensure that the space is being used correctly and to prevent its use by unauthorized vehicles or vehicles stopping to illegally solicit passengers. For example, Vancouver and Portland International Airports contain 15 sequentially numbered, 45-degree angled parking spaces. Campaign (NCDC). Other than these initial grants that offset some of the capital costs, cost savings are typically accrued over time due to the reduced amount spent on fueling the vehicles. For example, the price of CNG is typically less than the price of gasoline, and a hybrid taxicab provides better gas mileage than a standard gasoline vehicle. Environmental initiatives may be phased in over time, starting with a small percentage of vehicles which must be green or small percentage decrease in trips during the first year. These percentages can then be increased each year to reduce the cost burden on operators. Examples Examples are included through this section. I. Creative Passenger Boarding Areas The following pages describe best practices for passen- ger boarding areas serving commercial ground transporta- tion vehicles. These best practices are organized into creative boarding areas serving: I1. Taxicabs I2. Limousines I3. Shared-Ride Vans I4. Courtesy Vehicles I5. Scheduled and Chartered Buses and Vans At most airports passengers board commercial vehicles that are parked parallel (i.e., nose-to-tail) on the arrivals roadway either at a sidewalk adjacent to the terminal or at a raised center island. Most airport operators divide the available curbside area into segments or zones, each serving a specific class of commercial vehicle (e.g., taxicabs, shared-ride vans, buses) or sub-class (e.g., separating courtesy vehicles serving hotel/motels from those serving rental cars). While such layouts are common throughout the airport industry, these layouts may result in an inefficient use of curb space and require customers to cross busy roadways to reach vehicles stopped adjacent to the center island. Waiting cus- tomers may have difficulty seeing an arriving courtesy vehicle since from afar the front of many look alike. If a customer’s vehicle stops at the opposite end of the curbside, the cus- tomer will have to carry their baggage from one end to the other, while trying to flag down the driver before their vehicle departs. Several airport operators have developed creative or non- traditional boarding area layouts to remedy these concerns which are described in the following sections. The layouts described initially can accommodate multiple types of ground transportation services or vehicle sizes while those described

105 by providing an alternate or supplemental boarding area. Often the key challenge to developing a courtyard is the lack of a potential site that is accessible to public vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not been inspected or are consid- ered non-secure). This is because at many airports the areas immediately adjacent to the ends of a terminal building— a frequent site for courtyards—are already occupied by other land uses and/or not accessible by unsecured vehicles. A key disadvantage is the lack of capacity and vehicle maneu- verability if the courtyard is undersized, or potential vehicle- pedestrian conflicts if pedestrians must cross the paths of exiting/entering vehicles. • Boarding areas located in a parking structure. At several airports a closed-in parking structure contains boarding areas for passengers using taxicabs, limousines, shared-ride vans, courtesy vehicles, scheduled van services, or some combination of these services. At these boarding areas the phy sical arrangements and the type of vehicles permitted to use these areas vary. Vehicles stop in a traditional nose- to-tail manner at the boarding areas located in the parking structures at the airports serving Indianapolis, New Orleans, and Seattle but stop in angled spaces at Boston Logan’s Terminal B parking structure. The key advantages of boarding areas located in a park- ing structure are that they (1) provide conveniently located, covered boarding areas often with benches and other amenities, (2) limit entry to authorized vehicles through the use of card- or AVI-activated gate arms, and (3) reduce curbside roadway requirements by providing an alternate or supplemental boarding area. The key challenge to using parking structures as a commercial vehicle boarding area is limited vertical clearances in the garage—typically less than 9 feet—which precludes their use by cutaways, vans with header boards, or other tall vehicles. Furthermore, if an alternative boarding area must be provided for one commercial vehicle operator because its vehicles exceed the height limit, then all competing operators (i.e., those providing the same service) must be required to use the same alternative boarding area to prevent a company from receiving a perceived competitive advantage (or disad- vantage). For example, at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport one shared-ride van company uses over-height vehicles which cannot use the Level 3 boarding area, thus requiring all shared-ride van companies to use the alter- nate boarding area. • Ground transportation counters. A ground transpor- tation counter is a desk or counter where customers can obtain information about available ground transporta- tion services (e.g., fares, schedules, destinations served), purchase a ticket or make a reservation for one of these transportation services, or gather information about the airport or the local region (Figure 8-15). These counters are Key disadvantages of angled boarding spaces include: – When backing out of the space, commercial vehicle drivers may not be able to see oncoming traffic. That is they are backing up into their “blind spot” which is a safety concern. However, where angled spaces are used this has proven not to be a concern or safety issue since the vehicles are driven by professional drivers who regu- larly drive along the same curbside roads and typically exhibit courteous driving behavior by stopping to allow other vehicles to back out of their spaces. To eliminate the concern with vehicles backing out of spaces, some airports (e.g., Minneapolis-St. Paul and Calgary Inter- national) use pull-through angled spaces. This method has its own safety concerns, however, as it requires air- line passengers to walk across exiting courtesy vehicle traffic and perhaps other traffic. – Less flexibility in how the curbside space is utilized since each space must be designed to accommodate a “design” vehicle or the largest vehicle. That is, even if only one or two operators use (or plan to use) 30-foot-long courtesy vehicles then all angled spaces may need to accommodate these larger vehicles, even though most courtesy vehicles are only 25 feet in length. In contrast, a parallel curb space can accommodate vehicles of varying length con- currently and thus offers more flexibility. Some airports, such as Vancouver International Airport, provide angled spaces of varying length such that some can be used only by vans while other spaces accommodate full-sized buses. – Increased curbside roadway depth but less curbside length is required to provide the equivalent number of boarding spaces compared to a parallel curbside board- ing area. The required depth of the boarding area (mea- sured perpendicular to the sidewalk) is approximately 60 feet, depending on the angle, which is about the same as the area required for a five lane curbside roadway. • Commercial vehicle lots or courtyards. Several airports have surface lots reserved for use by authorized commer- cial vehicles. These lots are referred to by a variety of names including ground transportation areas (GTA), ground transportation lots, or courtyards. Courtyards are distinct from curbside commercial vehicle lanes in that they often (1) have entry gates to restrict access to authorized vehi- cles, (2) allow vehicles to enter and exit while avoiding use of the curbside roadway, and (3) are located immediately adjacent to the baggage claim area. Airports with court- yards include Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Reno-Tahoe, San Francisco, and Tampa International airports. The key advantages of a courtyard are that they (1) offer a convenient boarding area immediately adjacent to the baggage claim areas, (2) separate commercial vehicles from private vehicles and thus provide safer and more efficient operations, and (3) reduce curbside roadway requirements

106 a business advantage not available to companies not awarded a concessions contract. A staffed counter in a visible location allows a concessionaire to intercept prospective customers, market and advertise their services, and sell one-way and round-trip tickets to on-demand customers. At some air- ports seating is available adjacent to the counters so that cus- tomers waiting for a scheduled service, for example, are not tempted by competitive operators. Potential disadvantages of counters relate to the hours with which they are staffed (e.g., all hours at all terminals when there are scheduled arriving flights or just peak peri- ods) and the need to ensure counter staff behave in a profes- sional manner (e.g., prohibiting hawking or yelling at passing customers or arguing/fighting with drivers/representatives of competing companies). When one concessionaire is awarded counter space (e.g., a shared-ride van operator), other com- mercial ground transportation operators, particularly taxi- cab companies and drivers, may complain that the counters provide the shared-ride van operators an unfair advantage. Ground Transportation Center A ground transportation center (GTC) is a separate build- ing or waiting area where airline passengers board commer- cial ground transportation vehicles. These centers are also referred to as intermodal transportation centers, intermodal transfer centers, and bus/shuttle centers. At some airports, passengers may walk between the terminal and the GTC, while at others they ride an automated people mover (APM). GTCs primarily serve as boarding areas for courtesy vehicles and scheduled buses, but at some airports they also serve taxicabs and limousines. An ideal GTC provides: • An enclosed, heated/air-conditioned waiting area (e.g., Chicago O’Hare, Minneapolis-St. Paul International, and New Orleans International) • A ticket counter(s) for scheduled services (e.g., Minneapolis- St. Paul International) • Limited food/beverage concessions (e.g., Chicago O’Hare International and Minneapolis-St. Paul International on a separate level of the building) • Angled parking spaces to enhance customer visibility of the commercial vehicle and reduce walking distances (e.g., Minneapolis-St. Paul) • Airline baggage check-in counters when the GTC is used for both arriving and departing commercial vehicles Examples of GTCs include: • Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has a Transit Center located on Level 1 of a parking structure. In addition typically located in the baggage claim or arrivals areas and are staffed by representatives of a ground transportation concessionaire (e.g., a scheduled bus company or shared- ride van company), airport staff, a third-party contractor retained by the airport, or volunteers. Counters staffed by airport staff, third-party contractors, or volunteers do not sell tickets or make reservations, but instead provide the phone numbers or websites of authorized transportation providers. Frequently taxicab and shared-ride van opera- tors having a concession agreement with an airport are allowed (or required) to operate a counter. Many airports, including those serving Baltimore/ Washington, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, Denver, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Houston Intercontinental, Piedmont Triad, Syracuse, and Reno-Tahoe have counters inside their terminal buildings. At other airports such as Miami International and Tampa International Airports the counters are located adjacent to the vehicle boarding areas. At Denver International the available counter space is lim- ited and is made available through competitive bids with space reserved for mountain carriers, the local public tran- sit agency, and shared-ride van operators offering door- to-door service. Counters tend to be offered at small hub airports where there are a limited number of transportation providers or a single taxicab company. At some airports a concessionaire provides an automated kiosk that provides ground transportation information and allows customers to make reservations (e.g., Oklahoma City International). The key advantage of ground transportation counters is the benefit to customer service since passengers—unfamiliar with the airport, the local region, and/or the available ground transportation services—can obtain assistance from trained staff rather than having to rely upon signs or other media. Counter staff act as ambassadors to the community and are frequently required to answer questions not related to com- mercial ground transportation. Counters are also beneficial to ground transportation concessionaires as it provides them Figure 8-15. Ground transportation counters at John F. Kennedy International Airport.

107 a company representative can assemble and organize their customers or travel party and the accompanying baggage and then walk their customers to the adjacent waiting vehicle. – Electronic signs indicate departure times for scheduled carriers and other information. • Allows airport staff to readily monitor vehicles loading passengers to ensure that only authorized vehicles are pick- ing up airline passengers, even if access to the GTC is not gate-controlled. • Supplements available curbside length, reducing the required area in front of the terminal building. • Provides a location where airline passengers can readily observe and compare the full range of commercial ground transportation options available. The key disadvantages of a GTC are the capital costs because they are typically built as part of the development of a new parking structure or terminal building or modification of an existing parking structure or terminal building. To accommo- date a potential GTC, an existing parking structure should: • Provide greater vertical clearance than a typical parking structure on the GTC level in order to accommodate all courtesy vehicles (e.g., at least 10 feet and preferably 12 feet). • Comply with building code and fire requirements for “occupied” areas such as passenger waiting areas or coun- ters. The code requirements for these areas differ from those for a standard parking structure and may trigger the need to install fire suppression sprinklers in all or a portion of the building. Depending on the ceiling height and prox- imity to an exterior wall, it may also be necessary to pro- vide mechanical ventilation for the vehicle loading areas. • Provide entry lane(s) and exit lane(s) for use by commer- cial vehicles which lead to/from the passenger boarding to charter buses/vans it serves public transit and intercity (i.e., Greyhound) buses. Passengers ride a tram between the pas- senger terminal and the transit center. Airport staff report that the transit center reduces roadway congestion and enhances customer safety levels by separating large bus traffic (and the passengers they transport) from private vehicles. • O’Hare International Airport contains an enclosed, heated/ air-conditioned Bus Shuttle Center providing waiting and seating areas as well as a food and beverage concession. Passengers use a moving sidewalk and elevators to travel between the passenger terminals and the Bus Shuttle Center. • Miami International Airport has a north and south (Fig- ure 8-16) bus station where cruise ship passengers board and alight from cruise ship buses. The south station, which was specially designed to accommodate cruise ship passen- gers and buses, provides an enclosed and air-conditioned area with baggage check-in counters for American Airlines (the dominant carrier) and the vertical clearance needed for charter buses. By separating cruise ship passengers from other airport passengers, these bus stations improve cus- tomer service and minimize congestion in the terminals. Other airports having a GTC but which may not provide all the above amenities include those at the airports serving Indianapolis, Newark, and Seattle. Key advantages of a GTC include: • Provides exceptional customer service by minimizing walking distance and providing an enclosed, comfortable waiting area: – Customers may have a short walk from the baggage claim area to the GTC depending on its location and the availability of an APM or moving walkway. – Customers can wait in an enclosed waiting area that is heated or air-conditioned and provides seating. When used by scheduled or charter bus/van services, Source: Dade County Aviation Department. Figure 8-16. Miami International Airport’s South Station. Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission. Figure 8-17. Ground transportation center at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

108 costs are primarily for engineering, planning, implementation, and training of staff and drivers. These are typically low-cost improvements to customer service. These creative approaches can take time to design, gain approval, and implement. A rea- sonable time for this would be 6 to 9 months. Examples Airports with various types of creative taxicab passenger loading areas are referenced in the above paragraphs. The following pages present additional examples of best practices or creative boarding areas designed for specific ground transportation services. Because of the similarities among these creative boarding areas, the following paragraphs do not repeat the descriptions of the applicability, implemen- tation benefits and challenges, likely response by stakeholders, or implementation schedule and costs. Only key differences are highlighted in subsequent paragraphs. I1. Creative Taxicab Passenger Boarding Areas Description Most airports have a traditional taxicab line that lines up parallel to the curbside roadway where passengers queue nearby waiting to board the next available taxicab. How- ever, a few airports have developed creative loading areas that improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the passenger loading system. Purpose The purpose of many of these creative taxicab loading areas is to improve customer service and provide for more efficient operations. A secondary purpose of some of these areas is to improve the availability of information in order to help inform the airport passengers about the various ground trans- portation alternatives. Each of these is described more fully in the following: • Numbered boarding spaces. Single queue: Both Las Vegas McCarran International Airport and San Francisco Inter- national Airport direct airline passengers to numbered boarding positions that allow nine or more taxicabs to board passengers simultaneously. At these airports taxicabs are parked in a single queue (nose-to-tail) while passengers board. Once a passenger has boarded a vehicle, taxicabs are able to exit even if the vehicle in front has not completed the loading. This process ensures the ability to load passengers quickly, thereby decreasing overall passenger wait time. • Angled, pull-through spaces. As noted Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport has a loading system of multiple taxi- cabs which pull into diagonal parking spots (Figure 8-18). area and which are separate from the entry and exit lanes used by parking customers. • Provide a convenient walking path between the terminal building and the GTC. This implies minimizing walking distances and level changes, or providing moving walkways/ APMs and escalators/elevators to mitigate distances and level changes. However, most frequently these mechanical systems also serve other uses (e.g., rental car and parking facilities or other terminals), not just the GTC. A GTC can provide an efficient and effective commercial vehicle boarding area when it is built as part of a new parking structure and terminal building. However, it can be relatively expensive and disruptive to convert an existing parking area into a GTC unless it meets the above requirements. Applicability Applicable to any airport serving large volumes of commer- cial vehicles or the ability and space to develop an alternative solution. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges The key benefit is the improved customer service. The key challenge is the cost of developing creative areas if they require substantial modification of airport roadways or park- ing structures. Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Airport customers appreciate the ability to quickly get into a waiting vehicle and complete their trip from the airport. Thus, these creative systems are viewed very favorably by the customer. • Commercial ground transportation operator. Commer- cial vehicle drivers in general appreciate the ability to move quickly to the curb and pick up a customer without exces- sive wait time so these creative boarding areas are generally favored and appreciated by drivers. • Local elected and regulatory officials. There is generally widespread support among elected and regulatory officials regarding the fast loading or customer alternative choice programs offered to the airline traveling public. Implementation Schedule and Costs Designing and implementing a creative boarding area should not consume capital costs unless the roadway or other physical aspects of the airport require modification. Thus,

109 I2. Creative Limousine Passenger Boarding Areas Description This section details alternative passenger boarding configu- rations for prearranged limousine customers. Purpose At most airports, prearranged limousines are required to wait for customers on the arrivals curbside roadway while parked parallel to the curbside. Several airports provide cre- ative, alternative layouts for prearranged limousines, allowing drivers to leave their vehicles unattended, while also allowing the airport to better control these vehicles and the drivers. Examples of alternative passenger boarding areas for prear- ranged limousines include: • Convenient parking areas for limousines near the termi- nal. Several airports have lots reserved solely for use by limousine drivers or which are predominantly used by lim- ousine drivers – At each of Bush Houston Intercontinental Airport’s ter- minal buildings, surface parking areas (or an area within the parking structure) adjacent to the baggage claim are reserved for limousine drivers. Limousine drivers having an airport permit can leave their vehicles unat- tended and enter the terminal to greet their customers. Each parking area contains 30 to 60 spaces, but accord- ing to airport staff, more spaces are needed because lim- ousine drivers often arrive earlier than is necessary and linger in the lots. If time limits were placed upon these spaces, fewer additional spaces would be needed. – A limousine lot, containing about 100 spaces, is located at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International’s curbside, west of the courtesy vehicle boarding area. Access to this lot is limited to authorized limousines and is gate- controlled. The taxicab dispatcher then assigns passengers to a specific numbered parking spot. This allows all cabs to load simulta- neously and depart more easily when they are ready. • Pickup area located in adjacent garage. As noted previ- ously, nose-to-tail taxicab boarding areas are located in a parking structure at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Figure 8-19). • Boarding angled spaces from a central island. As noted, Boston Logan International Airport has developed a unique system to load over 20 passengers at once (Figure 8-20). At Terminal B, an entire level of a parking structure has been allocated to taxicab boarding. Two rows of angled taxicab spaces are arranged around a central sidewalk. Passengers are directed to one of the waiting taxicabs. This allows for faster boarding as taxicabs can enter and exit independently without waiting for other vehicles to complete the boarding process. Source: Metropolitan Airports Commission. Figure 8-18. Numbered, angled boarding spaces at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Source: Port of Seattle. Figure 8-19. Taxicab boarding area inside Seattle-Tacoma International Airport’s garage. Source: Massachusetts Port Authority. Figure 8-20. Angled boarding spaces at Boston Logan International Airport.

110 Likely Response by Stakeholders The following are likely responses by stakeholders: • Customers. Customers prefer to be met by their driver and to be offered assistance carrying their bags. Customers may walk further with some configurations described above than they would if the limousine were parked on the curbside roadway but the overall customer experience is not appre- ciably different and may be better. • Commercial ground transportation operators. Limou- sine companies and drives are likely to be supportive of the ability to leave their vehicle unattended and have access to reserved areas. • Local elected officials/regulatory officials. Local offi- cials are not expected to have strong positive or negative concerns. Implementation Schedule and Costs The cost of developing a new pickup area depends on the configuration and whether it is to be built in conjunction with a terminal area redevelopment program. No additional operating costs or revenues are expected unless the board- ing area requires a full-time security guard, such as Orlando’s ground transportation concourse. I3. Creative Shared-Ride Van Passenger Boarding Areas Description This section describes creative boarding areas and pro- cesses for assigning loading zones used by airport operators to efficiently manage shared-ride van operations. Purpose Airports have a limited amount of space at the terminal curbside for picking up airline passengers. Most airports allo- cate one to two spaces per shared-ride operator per loading zone, so particularly at airports with multiple shared-ride van operators, a system for fairly and effectively loading passen- gers is necessary, as this may require a large amount of space for one type of commercial ground transportation. The fol- lowing are examples of areas and processes used by airports to efficiently manage shared-ride van operations: • Courtyards and ground transportation centers. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport has designated courtyard areas with angled spaces for loading passengers into shared-ride shuttles. Tampa International Airport has courtyards (known as ground transportation – An hourly parking area, located directly opposite the baggage claim area at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, is used by limousine drivers. Limousine drivers and drivers of private vehicles may leave their vehicles unattended in this area. Limousine drivers pay a dura- tion-based parking fee for use of these spaces. • Commercial vehicle lots or courtyards. Commercial vehi- cle lots or courtyards are described at the beginning of this section. • Assigned boarding spaces. These spaces have already been described in this section (e.g., those at Vancouver Interna- tional Airport). • Ground transportation concourse. At Orlando Inter- national Airport limousine drivers are required to pick up customers on curbside roadways or “ground trans- portation concourses” located beneath Terminals A and B (Figure 8-21). These roadways have a 7’ vertical clearance making them ideally suited for use by limou- sines but precluding their use by larger vehicles such as courtesy vehicles, shared-ride vans, or scheduled and chartered buses/vans. Limousine drivers may park their vehicles on the concourses and leave them unattended while meeting and greeting customers because all vehicles must be inspected by security guards before entering the concourse. Guards are on duty at the roadway entrance between 8:30 AM and midnight. During other hours, limousine drivers use the same curbside area as other commercial vehicles. Reported Implementation Benefits and Challenges Benefits include improved customer service as a result of the driver’s ability to meet and greet their customers while leaving the vehicle unattended, and the airport staff ’s ability to monitor limousine operations more easily and efficiently. Figure 8-21. Ground transportation concourse at Orlando International Airport.

111 eliminates the need for vehicles to recirculate from the ticket- ing level to the baggage claim level. The key benefits include the following: • Reductions in the total amount of curb space that must be allocated for courtesy vehicles. • Improvements in air quality due to the reduction in dis- tance traveled by each courtesy vehicle and the associated reduction of vehicle-generated emissions. • Lower operating costs for the courtesy vehicle operators as each of their vehicles travels shorter distances, reducing fuel consumption and potentially enabling the operator to reduce the number of vehicles needed to maintain the same service levels/headway intervals. Key disadvantages of a single stop operation include: • Less convenient customer service at airports with multi- level curbsides as either enplaning or deplaning passen- gers must change levels with their baggage, depending on which level of the terminal building the courtesy vehicle single stop is located. • Increased demands upon the terminal building’s elevators and escalators as a greater number of passengers, many accompanied by their checked baggage, must use the ver- tical transportation systems to change levels. • Increased reliance upon wayfinding signage to guide passen- gers to/from their courtesy vehicle stop since it is not located on the same level as the private vehicle drop-off (or pickup area), and thus creating an increase in the number of signs and the complexity of the required wayfinding system. Gated controlled access. At several airports (e.g., those serving Denver, Orlando, Portland, and Salt Lake City) gates located at the entrance to the courtesy vehicle boarding area restrict access to only vehicles with airport permits and RFID transponders. The commercial vehicle boarding areas at these airports are located on curbside roadways used exclusively by commercial vehicles and are either adjacent to the private vehicle roadway (e.g., Salt Lake City International Airport) or on a separate roadway level (e.g., at Denver International Airport). Gate-controlled access provides a positive control on the volume and type of vehicles that may enter the com- mercial vehicle boarding area, resulting in several benefits. The key benefits include: • Private vehicles are prevented from entering the area, reduc- ing conflicts between professionally driven commercial vehicles and private vehicles, which improves traffic safety. • Unauthorized commercial vehicles are prevented from enter- ing the boarding area limiting their ability to improperly pick up airline passengers or interfere with the operations of authorized vehicles. lots) at the ends of the terminal buildings where shared-ride vans pick up their passengers from the airport. The passenger checks in at a kiosk located in the courtyard, is assigned a number, then waits comfortably in a temperature controlled waiting room with clear views of the courtyard until the van arrives and the driver calls the passenger’s number. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has a designated lane inside the parking garage for shared-ride vans and other commercial vehicles to pick up passengers. • Selection and rotation of curbside zones. If an airport is limited to having shared-ride vans pick up along a linear curbside, there are several methods for fairly and effec- tively assigning loading areas among multiple operators. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport has three shared- ride van operators. Each company is allocated one or two spaces in each shared-ride zone, depending on the terminal. To fairly allocate spaces, a lottery is held for the first, second, and third positions in each zone. Los Angeles International Airport, which has two full-service shared-ride van opera- tors, also assigns spaces at each terminal to the companies by lottery. • Counters. Counters staffed by shared-ride van company personnel are often located in the terminal building arrivals area to respond to passenger questions and sell tickets. I4. Creative Courtesy Vehicle Passenger Boarding Areas Description This section describes alternative courtesy vehicle board- ing area configurations that enhance customer service and safety, and improve the ability of airport staff to manage and control courtesy vehicles. Purpose The purpose of these boarding areas is to improve customer service and airport staff ’s ability to manage the passenger boarding areas. The following are examples of creative courtesy vehicle boarding areas. Single stop operations. At most airports, courtesy vehicles drop off passengers at a curbside located near the ticket lobby and pick up passengers at a different curbside area located near the baggage claim area. However, courtesy vehicles drop off and pick up passengers at the same location at some airports (e.g., Houston Bush Intercontinental, Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco International). A single stop operation reduces the amount of curb space that must be reserved for courtesy vehicles. It also benefits the operators of courtesy vehicles at air- ports with multi-level curbsides, since a single stop operation

112 arrivals area curbside roadway. However alternative board- ing areas include: • Single stop operations. At most airports, public transit services drop off and pick up passengers at a single airport stop. Private operators may do so as well if they serve the airport with frequent departures, but operators providing service that departs an airport every one to two hours or less often are likely to drop off adjacent to the ticket coun- ters and pick up by the baggage claim areas. Additional information about the benefits and disadvantages of single stop operations is presented in Section E2. • Angled parking spaces. The scheduled bus boarding areas at several airports (e.g., those serving Atlanta, Calgary, Orlando, and Vancouver) have angled bus parking spaces or use a “shallow saw tooth” design that allows buses to enter and exit without backing up (Figures 8-25 and 8-26). Access to the scheduled bus/van area is generally gate controlled to prevent unauthorized vehicles from entering the boarding areas. • Commercial vehicle courtyards. As described herein some airports provide surface parking lots or courtyards adjacent • A gate-controlled system can be installed at any airport with a separate commercial vehicle roadway or lane. Instal- lation of a gate arm control is the only required physical modification to the roadway layout. Key disadvantages of gate controlled access include the need to provide: • A queuing lane or area prior to the entry gate to accom- modate waiting vehicles. • A backup system should the primary gate arm control mechanism fail. • Access for infrequent operators (e.g., those serving the air- port less than once a month). Angled parking spaces. The courtesy vehicle boarding areas at several airports (e.g., those serving Atlanta, Calgary, Orlando, and Vancouver) have angled parking spaces (e.g., the vehicles park at a 45-degree angle to the curbside sidewalk rather than parallel, see Figure 8-22). The advantages and dis- advantages of angled spaces are described herein. Commercial vehicle courtyards. As described previ- ously, some airports provide surface parking lots or courtyards adjacent to the baggage claim area where courtesy vehicles are required to park while passengers board. These courtyards are also called commercial vehicle lots or GTAs, among other names (Figures 8-23 and 8-24). These courtyards and their advantages and disadvantages are described herein. I5. Scheduled and Chartered Buses and Vans At most airports, passengers alight and board scheduled and chartered buses/vans that are parked parallel to the Figure 8-22. Angled courtesy vehicle parking spaces at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Figure 8-23. Commercial vehicle courtyard at Reno-Tahoe International Airport. Figure 8-24. Commercial vehicle courtyard at San Francisco International Airport.

113 statement, and its specific values. As described in Chapter 2, while each airport has its own unique set of goals these goals frequently include one or more of the following five objectives: 1. Enhance the experience of the airport customer 2. Minimize required staff time and airport resources 3. Support airport and regional environmental and sustain- ability objectives 4. Establish an environment allowing drivers to earn a fair wage and other business owners to receive a reasonable return on their investments 5. Recover costs and, to the extent possible, increase airport revenues consistent with the other goals of management. The first step in the process for evaluating ground trans- portation practices and selecting those to be implemented is to determine the relative emphasis airport management places on each of these objectives or other objectives. The second step is to determine which of the practices described in Chapter 8 best support management’s objectives. In Tables 8-2 through 8-6, the best practices are ranked according to whether they provide a very positive effect, a somewhat positive effect, a neutral effect, a somewhat negative effect, or a very negative effect. These tables are intended to support the evaluation and selection process. These are defined as follows: • Very Positive—The best practice positively and significantly influences many of the relevant factors that contribute towards meeting a goal. • Somewhat Positive—The practice positively influences some of the relevant factors and perhaps a few significantly. • Neutral—A practice equally positively and negatively influ- ences factors that contribute towards meeting a goal, or a strategy has no effect on a particular goal. • Somewhat Negative—The practice negatively influences some of the relevant factors and perhaps a few significantly. • Very Negative—The practice negatively and significantly influences many factors that contribute towards meeting a goal. Chapter 2 of this guidebook describes the key consider- ations used to prepare these rankings and to define customer experience, required staff time, the environment, driver wages/ owner Return on Investment (ROI), or revenues. It is helpful to refer to these definitions as airport operators may define these terms differently or place different emphasis on the individual components of these rankings. The extent to which each practice is expected to positively or negatively influence an airport operator’s ability to meet each overall goal will vary depending on the practice and the airport. That is, two strategies receiving the same ranking or score may not have the same effect on customer experience, to the baggage claim area where scheduled buses/vans are required to park while passengers board. These courtyards are also called commercial vehicle lots and GTAs. • Ground transportation center. GTCs are described previously. J. Selecting the Solution This section describes a process for the evaluation and selec- tion of the best practices, selling the selected best practices to those who must approve or support their implementation, and the subsequent implementation of these best practices. Evaluating and Selecting the Solution The evaluation of best practices should reflect the goals of airport management, its vision for the airport, its mission Figure 8-25. Angled boarding spaces at Vancouver International Airport. Figure 8-26. Shallow saw tooth boarding spaces at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

114 Ability to improve customer experience Ve ry po sit iv e So m e w ha t p os iti ve N eu tra l So m e w ha t n eg at iv e Ve ry n e ga tiv e Notes A. Taxicabs A1 Vehicle Standards O A2 Driver Standards O A3 Fee Collection O A4 Addressing Excessive Taxicabs/Long Driver Waits O A5 Taxicab Rotation System O A6 Addressing Insufficient Taxicabs/Long Customer Waits O A7 Short Trip Procedures O A8 Dispatcher/Starter Responsibilities O A9 Processes for Communicating with Drivers O A10 Driver’s Lounge O A11 Driver Training Programs O A12 Enforcement O A13 Bid vs. Proposal O Assumes award of contract A14 One, Two, or Three Concessionaires O A15 Business Arrangements O A16 Oversight/Administration of Contract O B. Limousines B1 Fee Collection O B2 Control of Drivers and Vehicles O B3 Controlling Illegal Solicitation of Arriving Airline Passengers O B4 On-Demand Limousine Services O C. Ride-booking Services O Assumes vehicles are permitted to operate D. Shared-Ride Services D1 Open Access Systems O D2 Exclusive or Semi-Exclusive Access O D3 Vehicle and Driver Standards O D4 Customer Service Standards O E. Courtesy Vehicles E1 Vehicle Permitting and Fees O E2 Supporting Environmental and Sustainability Goals O F. Scheduled Buses O G. Chartered Buses and Vans O H. Supporting Airport and Local Environmental Goals and Initiatives O I. Creative Boarding Areas O Table 8-2. Ability to improve customer experience.

115 Minimize required staff time and airport resources Ve ry po sit iv e So m e w ha t p os iti ve N eu tra l So m e w ha t n eg at iv e Ve ry n e ga tiv e Notes A. Taxicabs A1 Vehicle Standards O Depends on enforcement A2 Driver Standards O Depends on enforcement A3 Fee Collection O A4 Addressing Excessive Taxicabs/Long Driver Waits O A5 Taxicab Rotation System O A6 Addressing Insufficient Taxicabs/Long Customer Waits O A7 Short Trip Procedures O A8 Dispatcher/Starter Responsibilities O A9 Processes for Communicating with Drivers O A10 Driver’s Lounge O A11 Driver Training Programs O A12 Enforcement O A13 Bid vs. Proposal O Assumes use of concessionaire A14 One, Two, or Three Concessionaires O A15 Business Arrangements O Assumes use of concessionaire A16 Oversight/Administration of Contract O Assumes use of concessionaire B. Limousines B1 Fee Collection O B2 Control of Drivers and Vehicles O B3 Controlling Illegal Solicitation of Arriving Airline Passengers O Depends on program B4 On-Demand Limousine Services O C. Ride-booking Services D. Shared-Ride Services D1 Open Access Systems O D2 Exclusive or Semi-Exclusive Access O D3 Vehicle and Driver Standards O D4 Customer Service Standards O E. Courtesy Vehicles E1 Vehicle Permitting and Fees O E2 Supporting Environmental and Sustainability Goals O F. Scheduled Buses O G. Chartered Buses and Vans O H. Supporting Airport and Local Environmental Goals and Initiatives O I. Creative Boarding Areas O Table 8-3. Ability to minimize required staff time and airport resources.

116 Support environmental and sustainability objectives Ve ry po sit iv e So m e w ha t p os iti ve N eu tra l So m e w ha t n eg at iv e Ve ry n e ga tiv e Notes A. Taxicabs A1 Vehicle Standards O A2 Driver Standards O A3 Fee Collection O Depends on type of fees A4 Addressing Excessive Taxicabs/Long Driver Waits O A5 Taxicab Rotation System O A6 Addressing Insufficient Taxicabs/Long Customer Waits O A7 Short Trip Procedures O A8 Dispatcher/Starter Responsibilities O A9 Processes for Communicating with Drivers O A10 Driver’s Lounge O A11 Driver Training Programs O A12 Enforcement O A13 Bid vs. Proposal O A14 One, Two, or Three Concessionaires O A15 Business Arrangements O A16 Oversight/Administration of Contract O B. Limousines B1 Fee Collection O B2 Control of Drivers and Vehicles O B3 Controlling Illegal Solicitation of Arriving Airline Passengers O B4 On-Demand Limousine Services O C. Ride-booking Services O D. Shared-Ride Services D1 Open Access Systems O Excess trips and wait times D2 Exclusive or Semi-Exclusive Access O D3 Vehicle and Driver Standards O Assumes use of alter- native fuel vehicles D4 Customer Service Standards O E. Courtesy Vehicles E1 Vehicle Permitting and Fees O Assumes use of headway and dwell time fees E2 Supporting Environmental and Sustainability Goals O Assumes use of alternative fuel vehicles F. Scheduled Buses O G. Chartered Buses and Vans O H. Supporting Airport and Local Environmental Goals and Initiatives O I. Creative Boarding Areas O Table 8-4. Support airport and regional environmental and sustainability objectives.

117 Allow drivers to earn fair wage/owners to receive reasonable ROI Ve ry po sit iv e So m e w ha t p os iti ve N eu tra l So m e w ha t n eg a tiv e Ve ry n e ga tiv e Notes A. Taxicabs A1 Vehicle Standards O A2 Driver Standards O A3 Fee Collection O A4 Addressing Excessive Taxicabs/Long Driver Waits O A5 Taxicab Rotation System O Depends on non- airport business A6 Addressing Insufficient Taxicabs/Long Customer Waits O A7 Short Trip Procedures O A8 Dispatcher/Starter Responsibilities O A9 Processes for Communicating with Drivers O A10 Driver’s Lounge O A11 Driver Training Programs O A12 Enforcement O A13 Bid vs. Proposal O A14 One, Two, or Three Concessionaires O A15 Business Arrangements O A16 Oversight/Administration of Contract O B. Limousines B1 Fee Collection O B2 Control of Drivers and Vehicles O B3 Controlling Illegal Solicitation of Arriving Airline Passengers O B4 On-Demand Limousine Services O C. Ride-booking Services O D. Shared-Ride Services D1 Open Access Systems O D2 Exclusive or Semi-Exclusive Access O D3 Vehicle and Driver Standards O D4 Customer Service Standards O E. Courtesy Vehicles E1 Vehicle Permitting and Fees O E2 Supporting Environmental and Sustainability Goals O F. Scheduled Buses O G. Chartered Buses and Vans O H. Supporting Airport and Local Environmental Goals and Initiatives O I. Creative Boarding Areas O Table 8-5. Ability to provide environment allowing drivers to earn a fair wage and owners to receive a reasonable ROI.

118 Ability to recover costs and increase revenues Ve ry po sit iv e So m e w ha t p os iti ve N eu tra l So m e w ha t n eg at iv e Ve ry n e ga tiv e Notes A. Taxicabs A1 Vehicle Standards O A2 Driver Standards O A3 Fee Collection O A4 Addressing Excessive Taxicabs/Long Driver Waits O A5 Taxicab Rotation System O A6 Addressing Insufficient Taxicabs/Long Customer Waits O A7 Short Trip Procedures O A8 Dispatcher/Starter Responsibilities O A9 Processes for Communicating with Drivers O A10 Driver’s Lounge O A11 Driver Training Programs O A12 Enforcement O A13 Bid vs. Proposal O A14 One, Two, or Three Concessionaires O A15 Business Arrangements O A16 Oversight/Administration of Contract O B. Limousines B1 Fee Collection O B2 Control of Drivers and Vehicles O B3 Controlling Illegal Solicitation of Arriving Airline Passengers O B4 On-Demand Limousine Services O C. Ride-booking Services O Assumes collection of per-trip fees D. Shared-Ride Services D1 Open Access Systems O D2 Exclusive or Semi-Exclusive Access O D3 Vehicle and Driver Standards O D4 Customer Service Standards O E. Courtesy Vehicles E1 Vehicle Permitting and Fees O E2 Supporting Environmental and Sustainability Goals O F. Scheduled Buses O Depends on measure G. Chartered Buses and Vans O Depends on measure H. Supporting Airport and Local Environmental Goals and Initiatives O Depends on measure I. Creative Boarding Areas O With gate controls Notes: Assumes costs are recovered and revenues increased in a manner which is consistent with other goals of the airport. Table 8-6. Ability to recover airport costs and increase airport revenues. the expected degree of improvement may not be the same at all airports. In addition to identifying those strategies that best respond to the management’s objectives, it is helpful to identify the complimentary strategies and consider including those in the list of candidate strategies to be evaluated. required staff time, the environment, driver wages/owner ROI, or revenues. These evaluations are qualitative, not quantitative. For example, both vehicle standards (described in Section A1) and the selection of one, two, or three con- cessionaires (described in Section A14) have significant and positive effects on improving the customer experience but