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.
55 chapter five ConClusions The purpose of this study was to determine what is known about airport employee commute patterns and commute modes, what programs are being offered to airport employees to encourage them to use alternatives to the drive alone to commute to work, how progress is measured, what is known about the effectiveness of airport employee commute options (ECO) programs, what the challenges are for the providers of such programs, and to review some ECO programs offered by non-airport employers for program elements that may have applicability in the airport environment. summary of findings The literature search and review conducted in developing the sample for this study confirmed that very few U.S. airport operators provide comprehensive ECO programs for their employees. From the 16 airport operators and 3 transporta- tion management associations (TMAs) that were contacted as potential candidates for case study development, it was determined six airports had comprehensive employee com- mute options programs. The airports operators interviewed for this study are subject to regulations and commitments for which employee commute options programs are either required or are a logical course of action for the airport operator. The review and interviews indi- cated the benefits of the ECO programs extend beyond satisfy- ing such requirements, resulting in shifts to higher-occupancy modes from the single-occupant commute, a reduction in vehicle trips generated by employees and the associated envi- ronmental benefits, and enabling airport employees to choose not to drive alone to work by providing them with more viable options for commuting. The airport operator is directly responsible for a small pro- portion of total airport employees. Employees of the four U.S. airport operators interviewed as part of this study represented between 5% and 8% of the airport employee population. Therefore, although airport operators with active, ECO pro- grams may be successful in making a significant reduction in the average vehicle trips generated by their own employees, the programs are responsible for a smaller reduction in the average vehicle trips generated by the total airport employee population. The largest ten employers at three of the case study airports employed between 40% and 51% of employees. Although there are airport employers that offer ECO ben- efits or programs, no airport operator interviewed was aware of all the employers based at its airport that offered ECO ben- efits. When airport operators were aware of employers that offered such benefits, they were not aware of the specifics of their programs. ⢠Airport employee surveys are conducted at four of the airports on a regular basis to understand employee commute patterns. â The operators of Boston Logan International Airport (BOS) and London Stansted Airport (STN), Massport and BAA Stansted, respectively, collect information for all airport employees. â At Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and at Portland International Airport (PDX), employee commute surveys are administered exclusively to employees of the airport operator. â The employee commute surveys at LAX, PDX, and STN have been administered in a consistent manner, allowing for the identification of changes in employee commute patterns over time. The airport operators interviewed were missing some data that would assist them in furthering their employee commute options programs. They were not aware of: ⢠The number of employees without security badges who work at their airport. The count from the airport security badge file does not provide the total airport employee count. ⢠The proportion of employees that work within walk- ing distance of the airport terminal area. This infor- mation is necessary to understand the number of employees that may be accommodated by scheduled HOV options serving the terminal area, as well as the number of employees that cannot be served by such commute options. ⢠The number of vehicle trips or the percentage of air- port vehicle trips generated by the airport employee population. ⢠The number of employee parking spaces provided by tenants through leases. The ECO programs from the five case study airports incorporate resources from outside organizations that offer
56 assistance with ride-matching, promotional materials, or provide some financial resources and human resources. At the U.S. airports interviewed, ECO programs are not expanding as a result of funding constraints. All of the airport operators interviewed are subsidizing or providing scheduled HOV service to the airport that benefit airport employees: ⢠Massport and the City and County of San Francisco Airport Commission, which operates San Francisco International Airport (SFO), supply operating subsidies to a scheduled HOV route serving the airport that is provided by the regional transit operator. ⢠BAA Stansted provides funds for up to three years to enhance existing scheduled HOV services or start new ones. ⢠Massport funds an early morning shuttle service to BOS to transport employees in two surrounding communi- ties to work before the start of the public transportation system. ⢠The Port of Portland provided a contribution to the cost of extending the MAX light rail line into PDX. ⢠Massport and Los Angeles World Airports oper- ate express bus systems that provide nonstop service between the airport and communities in the airport market area. Los Angeles World Airports sponsors a vanpool program with 65 vans that has a 97% occupancy rate. BAA Stansted has a fund that is used to pay for elements of the employee commute options program, the Passenger Transport Levy (PTL), which is generated by a portion of passenger and employee parking revenue. One of the program elements the PTL is used for is the subsidization of existing and new scheduled HOV services. The U.S. airport operators interviewed indicated pub- lic transportation services provided to and from the airport may not offer sufficient hours of operation to accommodate employee schedules, may not provide the geographic cov- erage for locations where airport employees reside, may supply service that accommodates only the employees that work within walking distance of the terminal area, or may not offer travel times that are competitive with commuting by automobile. At some of the case study airports, the cost of employee parking is less than cost of public transportation if the airport operator or airport employer does not offer a sufficient public transportation benefit. Furthermore, at some of the airports, the revenue the airport operator collects from employee park- ing fees is not sufficient to cover the costs of the employee parking operation and shuttle buses. The availability of options to the single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commute for airport employees may help with employee recruitment and retention. ⢠LAWA Rideshare staff members receive inquiries from potential LAX employees who are exploring their com- mute options before accepting a job at LAX. This sug- gests that some prospective employees might not work at LAX if viable alternatives to the commute by SOV were not available. ⢠The Dulles Area Transportation Association (DATA), the TMA located in a 160-square mile area that includes Washington Dulles Airport (IAD), indicated that some of the IAD businesses have employee retention prob- lems because of poor public transportation access at IAD. DATA intends to analyze IAD employee com- mute survey data to develop initiatives to address this problem. suggestions for further researCh ⢠Prepare a Guidebook on How to Develop an Airport- wide Employee Commute Program Building upon information in this study, collect additional information and conduct research to pre- pare a guidebook on how to develop an airport-wide employee commute program, establish program goals, determine available resources, generate airport employer and employee interest, estimate benefits, and measure progress. Interview a sample of airport employers about what information and incentives they offer their employees to shift to alternative commute modes, a sample of air- port employers that do not offer employee commute programs to determine why, and airport employers in both categories with operations at multiple airports. Determine what would motivate airport employers to offer more employee commute options strategies to their employees, or to work jointly with the airport operator and other airport employers to reduce the number of airport-wide SOV commute trips. Interview some airport operators to determine what would moti- vate them to participate in a cooperative effort with airport employers. Use this information as the basis to explore models for airport employer involvement in cooperative efforts such as a TMA. This would include interviewing representatives from a sample of TMAs outside of the airport environment. In addition, research successful cooperative efforts among airport employers, such as a green initiative or a customer service program, that offer experience on how airport employers have worked collectively in ways that may have applicability to the organization and operation of an airport-wide employee commute program with
57 participation by multiple employers. Provide informa- tion in the guidebook to assist airport operators and employers in understanding the financial and non- financial impacts of an ECO program, including the development of a template for evaluation of program elements based on potential changes in mode share compared with economic, environmental, and quality of life factors. ⢠Develop a Benchmark Airport-Wide Employee Survey Instrument and Data Collection Methodology Findings from this study indicate it is uncommon for U.S. airports to conduct a survey of the total airport employee population, which means airports collectively have little experience with airport-wide employee sur- veys. A benchmark airport-wide employee survey would be useful to airport operators who would like to develop or enhance an employee commute options program. This would involve development of a benchmark employee survey, market-testing at an airport, and analyzing the results to determine employee commute patterns at the airport. The survey instrument, survey administration and analysis methodology, and lessons learned would be presented in a manual. This would include development of methods on how to determine the number of vehicle trips generated by employees so airport operators may understand their contribution to airport traffic.
