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.

51 chapter four Challenges in the Provision of airPort emPloyee Commute oPtions Programs This chapter examines the common challenges to provid- ing viable alternatives to the commute by SOV for airport employees, with potential program elements or actions that may mitigate the challenges. These are the challenges the airport operators and airport area TMAs contacted for poten- tial inclusion in this study are faced with in providing ECO programs unless otherwise noted. PubliC transPortation system Public transportation options serving the airport may • not provide sufficient hours of operation to accommo- date employee schedules, • not provide the geographic coverage for locations where airport employees reside, • only provide service for employees that work within walking distance of the terminal area, or • not offer travel times that are competitive with com- muting by automobile. Table 15 presents the challenges associated with provid- ing public transportation to airport employees, and a menu of potential solutions. emPloyee Parking suPPly At many airports, employees are being provided with free or low-cost parking, which serves as a disincentive for the employee to consider commuting using alternatives to the SOV. This includes instances where the out-of-pocket cost to the employee to use public transportation is greater than the out-of-pocket cost of employee parking. Furthermore, airports appear to have a sufficient amount of employee parking to accommodate the single-occupant commute. In late 2008 and early 2009, operators of eight large hub, five medium hub, and two small hub airports were interviewed as part of ACRP 10-06, A Handbook to Assess Impacts of Constrained Airport Parking. The few airport operators who experienced a constrained employee parking supply reported that the problems were primarily resolved by adding capacity (Ricondo & Associates, Inc. 2010). The fee the airport operator charges for employees to park in employee facilities often results in a revenue stream that does not cover the cost of the operation when considering the full cost to provide parking, including capital, maintenance, and operating costs of the parking facility, and the cost to run associated shuttle bus service. There are a variety of reasons for the airport operator to charge fees that are lower than cost recovery, including: • Airport employers located at more than one U.S. airport tend to compare the cost of parking between airports, putting pressure on the individual airport operator to keep prices low. • Employers may believe that many employees drive to work because public transportation alternatives may not be viable. Therefore, higher parking fees may financially penalize the employee who has no reasonable alterna- tives to the driving alone. Low wage earners who have the choice between working at an airport, working in a downtown area with a variety of public transportation options, or working at a location with free parking, may be deterred from working at an airport with expensive employee parking. • Airport operators may not be aware of the full cost of pro- viding employee parking based on how their accounting cost centers are structured. • Employee parking spaces or rates may be included in the terms of certain tenant leases. An additional problem is that employers at the airport may subsidize parking for their employees. In some instances, the provision of employee parking may be included in collective bargaining agreements. In addition, at many U.S. airports, a certain amount of park- ing is provided to employees in the public parking areas adja- cent to the terminal area, which reduces capacity for air passen- gers and lowers revenue potential. Potential solutions include: • Raising the price of parking to the point where alterna- tives to the SOV become more attractive to employees. For example, the price of parking would be greater than or equal to the cost of a monthly transit pass. • Offering free or low-cost conveniently located parking spaces for rideshare employees. • Locating employee parking farther from employment locations to increase travel time to the workplace for the SOV commuter.

52 • Working with airport employers to encourage them not to subsidize parking. • Offering a parking cash-out program, where employees are provided the cost of parking to use for either parking or alternatives to the SOV. emPloyee PartiCiPation An ECO program may experience low employee partici- pation. Potential reasons may be that employees are not aware of the program, the program elements offered are not viable for the employees being targeted, or insuffi- cient incentives or disincentives are being offered to induce employee mode shift. To boost employee awareness, information may be dis- seminated in the variety of ways outlined in chapter three, under Information Dissemination in each case study. Information from employee travel surveys will assist the airport operator or TMA in developing program elements that accommodate airport employees based on their needs, and in Potential Solutions Challenge C arpools V anpools D edicated B us/V an S ervice 1 L ink to Public T ransportation T elecom m uting C om pressed W ork W eek B icycle 2 W alk 2 Increase S ervice F requency 1 P rovide B us/V an S ervice to R educe T ransfers 1 E xtend E xisting Services to O ther E m ploym ent L ocations 1 Employees Reside Outside of Public Transportation Area, Residences Widely Dispersed √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Employees Reside Outside of Public Transportation Area, Cluster of Residences in a Defined Area Public Transportation Hours of Operation Do Not Serve Work Schedules, Residences Widely Dispersed Public Transportation Hours of Operation Do Not Serve Work Schedules, Cluster of Residences in a Defined Area Commute Time by Public Transportation Is Significantly Longer Than by Private Auto Because of Low Service Frequency √ Commute Time by Public Transportation Is Significantly Longer Than by Private Auto Because of the Number of Transfers √ Public Transportation Does Not Serve Employment Locations Away From the Terminal Area √ Prepared by DMR Consulting, Nov. 2011. 1Funded by public transportation operator, airport funding source, other public entity, or grants. Potential airport funding sources include: the airport operator, airport employers, or airport employees. 2For shorter commutes. TAbLE 15 ChALLEngES AnD POTEnTIAL SOLUTIOnS FOR ThE PROVISIOn OF PUbLIC TRAnSPORTATIOn TO AIRPORT EMPLOyEES

53 the development of program incentives and disincentives. Data from periodic surveys will also help with developing goals and measuring progress. Information from employee focus groups may be helpful as supplementary information. Employee surveys and focus groups are described further in this chapter under Availability of Data. airPort emPloyer PartiCiPation In the United States, the airport operator typically employs less than 10% of the airport employee population. Although a comprehensive ECO program offered by the airport operator to its employees may result in a high percentage of employ- ees commuting by alternative modes and a significant reduc- tion in average vehicle trips generated by employees, it will have a smaller impact on the average vehicle trip rate gener- ated by the total airport employee population. Some airport employers offer incentives to their employees to commute by alternative modes, and these efforts contrib- ute to a reduction in the average airport employee vehicle trip generation rate. The airport operators interviewed in this study were able to identify some but not all of the employers offer- ing ECO programs, and they were generally not aware of the details of their programs. For the airport operator that would like information on the extent to which commute options programs offered by all airport employers are reducing the airport employee vehicle trip generation rate, communicating with the various airport employers to determine what they are offering, and how they are measuring progress, may be helpful. If the goal is for a reduction in the airport employee vehicle trip generation rate by all airport employees, the airport oper- ator may choose to make airport employers aware of what it offers to its own employees and encourage them to offer similar options. This would include information on programs that are available through other organizations, such as regional ride- matching services. Or the airport operator may choose to explore the potential for forming a collective effort among airport employers, with optional or mandatory participation. There are many ways in which the collective effort could be organized; for example, information-sharing at airline station managers’ meetings or airport tenants’ meetings, or through formation of a TMA. availability of Data The airport operator may not have key pieces of information to use in the development of, or as justification for, an ECO program. Such information is also important for the develop- ment of goals and measurement of progress. total airport employees At most airports, a percentage of employees do not have secu- rity badges. If the airport operator is interested in reducing the trip generation rate of the airport employee population, an employee count is vital. This information may be obtained through requests from each airport employer. by collecting the information on the number of employees with and without security badges, the information on the number of employees may be crosschecked with the information from the security badge file maintained by the airport operator. employee Demographics and Commute Characteristics These are obtained through the administration of a periodic airport employee survey, ideally of the airport employee population, including employees with and without airport security badges. Key pieces of information include com- mute mode by day for a certain timeframe (minimum of seven days), work start and end times, vehicle occupancy, location of residence, employment location, and employer and employment classification by relevant airport employ- ment categories. This includes, at a minimum, a distinction between flight crew members, office personnel, operations personnel, and shift personnel. Additional useful informa- tion includes employer commute benefits provided, whether parking is subsidized, trips made during the workday, vehi- cle ownership, salary, and employee overtime requirements. The employee commute survey will provide useful informa- tion for evaluating employee needs in relation to available public transportation options, and for the development of program elements to motivate employees to choose alterna- tives to driving alone to work. This information includes employee mode share, employee trip origins, employee work locations, and the percentage of airport employees that commutes on a daily basis. The information on commute mode by day of the week, along with work start and end times, allows an analyst to estimate the number of employee vehicle trips generated by the airport by day of the week and by time of day. employee Commute Preferences Information from focus groups may provide useful informa- tion for development of questions to be included in an employee travel survey, or as helpful supplementary data to the employee travel survey, for the formulation and refine- ment of program elements for an ECO program. groups of approximately six to ten employees would be asked ques- tions about their commute preferences, the reasons they do or do not use alternatives, and what types of incentives or services would cause them to choose alternatives to the com- mute by SOV. vehicle trips Airport employees generate a significant number of vehi- cle trips to the airport on a daily basis. Information on the number of vehicle trips and the percentage of airport trips generated by airport employees for a period of time, such

54 as an average day, or an average weekday over a one-week period in a typical or peak month, will provide the airport operator with information on employee traffic impacts. This information may help to justify (or not) development or enhancement of an ECO program. This information may be estimated from an airport employee commute survey, or may be estimated with traffic counts near employee parking facilities. Parking spaces Provided by airport employers An inventory of parking spaces provided by employers through leasing arrangements is useful if the airport operator wishes to encourage or mandate airport employers to reduce vehicle trips generated by their employees. employee Commute options Programs offered by airport employers As mentioned in the previous section, if the airport opera- tor is interested in a reduction in the trip generation rate by all airport employees, it will need information on programs being provided by all airport employers, and how progress is measured. funDing The airport operator may not place priority on allocating funds, or may not have funds to support elements of an ECO program, such as subsidized public transportation passes, a vanpool program, supplemental transportation services, or promotional materials. Potential solutions to providing funding and program resources include: • Explore resources that are available from other local, regional, state, and federal organizations that may be incorporated into the airport ECO program. Examples include ride-matching services, availability of promo- tional materials, and one-time or ongoing subsidies for using alternative commute modes. • Apply for grants to fund program elements from local, regional, state, and federal sources. One example is a Job Access and Reverse Commute grant (JARC), offered through the FTA. Transportation projects that provide public transportation options for low-income employees to and from jobs, for employment-related activities, and for reverse commuting are eligible to compete for JARC funding (“Job Access and Reverse Commute Program” 2011). • Develop or identify a guaranteed funding source for the ECO program. An example of a potential funding source is the revenue from an increase in employee or air pas- senger parking rates. by comparing the broader economic impacts of the esti- mated financial and nonfinancial costs of not providing pro- gram elements with the estimated financial and nonfinancial costs and savings that may be realized by providing a pro- gram, the airport operator will have more information for determining the level of priority that is placed on its ECO program. nonfinancial costs include vehicle trips generated, air quality impacts, fuel consumption, and the impacts to the local community of airport-generated traffic. nonfinancial benefits include contributing to employee well-being, good- will in the local community, and a reduction in vehicle trips generated, air quality impacts, and fuel consumption. Grants The Dulles Area Transportation Association (DATA), which is a TMA located in a 160-square mile area that includes Washington Dulles Airport (IAD), used a grant from the Virginia State Department of Rail and Public Transporta- tion to conduct an airport-wide employee survey at IAD. The survey was conducted from September through October of 2011. DATA will analyze the survey results to determine IAD employee commute patterns, and develop program elements for an airport employee commute options program. This will include planning a transportation service for IAD employ- ees that is eligible for a FTA Jobs Access and Reverse Com- mute (JARC) grant, since some of the IAD businesses have employee retention problems due to poor public transporta- tion access at IAD (personal communication, Doug Pickford, DATA, Sep. 2011 and July 2012). Funding Source for Public Transportation Use Merck & Co. employees located in Boston are subsidized for their entire cost of commuting by public transportation with the revenue raised from on-site parking garage fees. Sixty percent of employees commute by public transporta- tion (Profiles of Employer Sponsored Transportation Pro- grams 2011). Guaranteed Funding Source To encourage the use of public transportation and rideshar- ing and increase available public transportation options for air passengers and employees, BAA Stansted introduced a Passenger Transport Levy (PTL) fund at London Stansted Airport in 1999, which utilizes approximately 31p from every passenger car park transaction and £10 from every annual staff car park pass issued. This equates to between £600,000 to £800,000 annually, that is currently used for supporting the Airport Commuter Centre, funding new bus services for up to three years, supporting additional hours of service on local public transportation routes, providing employee shuttles, administering ride-matching and public transportation passes, developing an iPhone/Android appli- cation, and marketing.