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.
5 CONCLUSIONS Recent changes in airport configurations and operational policies, and technology available to passengers have changed the way travelers value the time involved in air travel. These changes include security measures put in place since September 11, 2001, the proliferation of airside passenger amenities, and the widespread adoption of such technologies as wireless internet access, mobile phones, tablets and laptop computers. Moreover, these changes are continuing to evolve. These changes mean that what was once âwasted timeâ can now be used as productive time, and that entertainment, dining and shopping can replace what was a monotonous wait time. On the other hand, security procedures have introduced new sources of uncertainty in the time required to get through the airport terminal to the gates. Therefore, it is sensible to approach the analysis of the value of time of air passengers by considering the values assigned to the time spent in different segments of a single airport trip, including ground access, terminal access, flight check-in and movement through security, time to reach the gate from security, time at the gate (or in the terminal in proximity to the gate), flight time and flight delay. Travel time is often a significant consideration in benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for transportation projects and policies. Current guidance from the Federal Aviation Administration and other U.S. Department of Transportation agencies identify single values of time for business travelers and personal travelers, and a hybrid value of time for use when trip purposes of travelers are not known. The research presented in this report analyzed the value of travel time from the perspective that the various segments of an air trip each have a unique value of time that differs between business and personal travelers. For example, this research finds that passengers are willing to pay more for a reduction in the time spent in security lines than in waiting at the gate for a flight. Simply put, the value of time to air passengers is higher in a security line than at a departure gate. It stands to reason that a proposed capital investment that will affect one or several trip segments will have a different value of travel time to passengers than an investment that will affect a different trip segment or set of segments. This insight, that one value of time should not be uniformly applied across a variety of capital investments, represents a major advance in how benefit-cost analyses can be approached and capital investment decisions can be considered. The economic values that emerge from this research are the basis of the guidebook prepared by the Research Team for airport managers and sponsors, and their consultants, on how to: (1) apply these values to different types of capital investments; and (2) merge the results into benefit-cost analyses. As noted in the Introduction (Chapter 1), the guidebook can be downloaded at www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/172472.aspx. 5 Page 102
5.1 Follow-on Research Although this project has resulted in a significant advance in how to approach BCA for airport capital projects, follow-on research is needed to improve the segmentation of air passengersâ value of time. Such additional research can build off the insights and modeling developed in this project. Moreover, follow-on projects will also have access to the literature review, analysis of tools and techniques, case studies and the analysis of research gaps that are provided in the appendices to this report. They are available at www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/172474.aspx. As noted above in Chapter 4, perhaps the most important new task is to undertake additional stated preference surveys with greatly increased sample sizes. A significant limitation of the survey undertaken in this project was that budget considerations restricted the sample size to about 1,200 respondents. As a consequence, the number of survey questions and the complexity of the stated preference experiments needed to be limited in order to keep the required time to complete the survey manageable for respondents. A survey with a significantly larger sample size (say 5,000 â 6,000 respondents) would allow for tailored stated preference experiments around different aspects of the trip (for example, access, security, intra-airport circulation, gate, and flight times), which could then be combined together for analysis. Such topically-divided survey instruments would not be overwhelming to a respondent, and the richness of the derived data would be greatly expanded over a single survey that addresses all trip segments at the same level of detail. Expanding the Concept of Measuring Value of Time by Trip Segment to Other Modes Although this research is limited to air passengers, the segmentation of willingness to pay by different trip segments could also be applicable to other modes. Passenger rail, intercity bus and water transport have similar characteristics to air travel, in that their stations and terminals involve access and egress travel, wait times, and scheduled departures and arrivals, while the time spent in travel on each mode is influenced by the vehicle speed, the number of any transfers required, and the potential for delays. In fact, wait times are currently incorporated in value of time assessments for transit when proposed improvements are considered that will affect transfers between routes or lines. Highway travel is different due to the preponderance of individual car ownership and the decentralization of travel, as well as the ability to make an origin to destination trip in the same vehicle at any desired time and, therefore, the usefulness of trip segmentation may be limited, although it may be worth considering whether the value of travel time differs by the type of road or highway being used. Page 103
