Exploring Airport Employee Commute and Parking Strategies (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 chapter one IntroductIon Background Many commercial airport operators in the United States devote time and resources to providing improved ground access choices for air passengers, yet devote seemingly little atten- tion to the need for or the provision of viable alternatives to the drive-alone commute for airport employees. Airport employees must be on site before the first scheduled flight and until after the last flight, which for most medium and large hub U.S. airports, translates to round-the-clock staffing, 365 days per year. Public transportation typically accommodates the tradi- tional weekday commuter, to accommodate work start times between approximately 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and work end times between approximately 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a convergence of service in the central business district or other major employment centers. The ser- vice hours of the public transportation system and the location of the airport in relation to the public transportation network often do not satisfy airport employee commute requirements, resulting in the need for airport employees to drive to work. Furthermore, for an individual without access to a private auto- mobile, working at the airport may not be an option. Employees’ vehicle trips to and from the airport impact air quality and traffic conditions on airport property, in the communities surrounding the airport, and in the region. The availability (or lack of) commute options also has an impact on the quality of life for employees, and has implications for hiring and retention. In addition, commute trips made by per- sonal vehicles affect the airport operator, who must establish and pay for employee parking and shuttle buses. This ACRP Synthesis evaluates airport employee commute patterns and modes, programs offering alternatives to the airport commute by single occupant auto, how progress of such programs is measured, what is known about the effec- tiveness of airport ECO programs, the challenges for provid- ers of such programs, and some ECO programs offered by non-airport employers that may be adaptable to airports. Methodology A literature search was undertaken to establish what types of programs are being offered by airport operators, airport trans- portation management associations (TMAs), and TMAs that serve airports and non-airport employers; and to assist with identifying potential candidates for case studies. Inquiries concerning candidates were also directed to Airports Council International, the American Association of Airport Execu- tives, the Association for Commuter Transportation, the Director of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program at the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, and a Professor of Transport Policy in the Transport Studies Group at Loughborough Uni- versity in the United Kingdom (U.K.). The airport is an employment center with dozens of employers, which often requires employee coverage 365 days per year, up to 24 hours per day. In addition, some do not have direct access to public transportation options that provide reasonable travel times in relation to commuting by automobile, such as a subway, light rail, or bus rapid tran- sit system. The literature search also included a review of employee commute options programs being offered at select nonairport employment centers that may offer program ele- ments that are applicable to the airport environment. The goal of the survey was to interview six to eight airport operators, airport TMAs, or TMAs that include an airport with robust ECO programs that would serve as the basis for the development of case studies. To the extent possible the sample was to include airports with both good and limited public transportation access and one airport in the U.K. as a national mandate requires major U.K. airports to produce surface access strategy. The scope of this study did not include conducting interviews with airport employ- ers such as airlines, concessionaires, rental car companies, or federal agencies. Table 1 lists 19 potential interview candidates that was developed based on the consultant’s knowledge of what is being offered at U.S. airports, inquiries about airport opera- tors that might offer comprehensive ECO programs, sugges- tions by the Topic Panel, and information obtained in the literature search. From the 16 airport operators and three TMAs that were interviewed, it was determined that although some airport operators offer benefits or provide information to encourage commuting by modes other than the single- occupant vehicle, six airports had comprehensive ECO pro- grams. Case studies were completed for five of the airports, each of which is considered to have good public transporta- tion access. Insufficient information was available at the time

6 Organization Contacted Airport Comprehensive Em ployee Commute Program Candidate for Interview Sample Interview Completed City of Atlanta Departm ent of Aviation Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) No. There was a TMA in the past, but it is not currently active. No Not applicable Massachusetts Port Authority Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) Yes Yes Yes The BWI Business Partnership, Inc., a TMA that includes BW I Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport No. They felt they weren’t ready to be interviewed (August, 2011). The work by the TMA as it applies to BWI is em erging, but it is not a com prehensive program . No. Potential candidate for a future study. Not applicable Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) No N o Not applicable Broward County Aviation Departm ent Fort Lauderdale– Hollywood International Airport (FLL) Unlikely. One representative did not think so. Researcher was referred to another representative who could not be reached. No Not applicable Dulles Area Transportation Association (DATA), a TMA that includes IAD Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) No. They felt they weren’t ready to be interviewed (August, 2011). DATA administered an employee travel survey No. Potential candidate for a future study. Not applicable to IAD employees in September/October of 2011 to use as the basis to develop program initiatives for IAD em ployees. City of Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) Unknown. Did not respond to inquiries. No Not applicable Port Authority of New York and New Jersey John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) No N o Not applicable TAbLE 1 LIST OF COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS COnSIDERED FOR InTERvIEw SAMPLE SELECTIOn

7 TAbLE 1 (continued) Los Angeles World Airports Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Yes Yes Yes Port Authority of New York and New Jersey LaGuardia Airport (LGA) No N o Not applicable Metropolitan Airports Commission Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport (MSP) No N o Not Applicable Port of Portland Portland International Airport (PDX) Yes Yes Yes Port of Oakland Oakland International Airport (OAK) No No Not applicable Los Angeles World Airports Ontario International Airport (ONT) Yes. Have 6 vanpools, 7 carpools, and only one transit rider, since limited transit access. Yes. No. Insufficient information available by the interview deadline. City of Phoenix Depart me nt of Aviation Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) No N o Not applicable Airport Corridor Transportation Association (ACTA), a TMA that includes Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT) No. PIT is a m em ber of the TM A, but ACTA does not currently (August, No Not applicable Organization Contacted Airport Comprehensive Em ployee Commute Program Candidate for Interview Sample Interview Completed PIT 2011) work with them . ACTA did not believe there was an active em ployee co mmu te program at PIT. City and County of San Francisco Airport Commission San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Yes Yes Yes County of Orange John Wayne Airport (SNA) No N o Not applicable St. Louis Airport Authority Lam bert–St. Louis International Airport No N o Not applicable Hillsborough County Aviation Authority Tampa International Airport (TPA) No. Have tried vari ous initiatives, but low em ployee participation. No. May be a candidate in the future, at such time a planned bus transfer facility is built on airport property. Not applicable (continued on next page)

8 of report submission to complete the sixth case study. The case study response rate was 83%. The five airports that are included in this study are: • boston Logan International Airport (bOS) • London Stansted Airport (STn) • Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) • Portland (Oregon) International Airport (PDX) • San Francisco International Airport (SFO). organIzatIon of report This chapter concludes with a definition of terms. The remain- der of this report includes the following: • Chapter two includes summary information on the case studies, comparison tables, and detailed case studies for each of the five airports. • Chapter three presents ECO strategies that may have applicability to the airport community, with examples of how they have been applied at airports and at other large employers or employment centers. • Chapter four summarizes challenges to providing ECO programs at airports, with potential solutions or actions to resolve them. • Chapter five presents the study conclusions and sug- gestions for further research. • Appendix A describes the literature search. • Appendix b includes the interview form. defInItIon of terMs Airport employee population: the total number of employ- ees reporting to work on airport property. There are typically dozens of employers located at a commercial airport, includ- ing the airport operator, airlines, concessionaires, rental car companies, cargo companies, the FAA, and the TSA. Airport employer: An employer that is located on airport property and/or that has employees working at the airport for airport-related work. Airport tenant: Employers that are located on airport prop- erty that have lease agreements with the airport operator. Employee Commute Options (ECO) program: A program offered by an employer or a TMA offering incentives, infor- mation, and services to encourage employees to commute to work using alternatives to driving alone in a private vehicle. It is also referred to as an employee TDM program or as an employee trip reduction program. Scheduled high-occupancy vehicle (HOv): A bus, van, bus rapid transit (bRT), light rail, subway, train, or ferry that provides scheduled passenger service. Single-occupancy vehicle (SOv): Travel undertaken by a person driving alone in a private vehicle. Terminal area employee: Airport employees within walking distance of the terminal area. walking distance is defined as up to one-half mile from the terminal area (Schlossberg 2007), if infrastructure is in place to allow for a safe walk. Transportation Management Association (TMA): A group of employers in a certain geographic area that work together to solve common transportation issues and pool resources to offer commute services and benefits to member employees (Online TDM Encyclopedia 2011). TAbLE 1 (continued) BAA Stansted London Stansted Airport (STN) Yes Yes Yes Tucson Airport Authority Tucson International Airport (TUS) Unknown. Did not respond to inquiries. No Not applicable Total Airport Operators: 16 Total TMAs: 3 Total Airports: 22 T otal Sam ple Size: 6 Total Completed Interviews: 5 Prepared by DMR Consulting (Nov. 2011). Organization Contacted Airport Comprehensive Em ployee Commute Program Candidate for Interview Sample Interview Completed