National Academies Press: OpenBook

Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity (2017)

Chapter: Chapter Five - Case Examples

« Previous: Chapter Four - Methods of Estimating Truck Trips for Air Cargo Facilities
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24848.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24848.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24848.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24848.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24848.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24848.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Five - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24848.
×
Page 36

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.

30 To obtain a detailed understanding of how and why airports and their local planning partners have devel- oped and used air cargo-related truck trip generation rates and estimates, three case examples of selected airports (Hartsfield–Jackson International, Los Angeles International, and Memphis International) were undertaken. The selection of case example airports was based on the information collected and analyzed in interviews as well as input and guidance from the project panel. Geographic diversity and the nature of air cargo activities at each airport were also considered in the case example selection process. Hartsfield–Jackson atlanta international airport (atl) Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport is one of the 10 busiest cargo airports in the United States by tonnage, with more than 625,000 metric tons of cargo moved in 2015. It also handled more than 2,500 flights per day in 2015 with more than 100 million passengers. Air cargo is one of the ATL airport’s top priorities, as air cargo activities account for more than 9,000 airport-based jobs, 27,000 jobs in the region and $6.7 billion in business revenue. ATL forecasts 1.7 million metric tons increase of air cargo within the next 5 to 10 years and expects that cargo business will build 1.7 million square feet of new warehouse space to accommodate the anticipated growth. ATL currently has three main air cargo complexes (North, Midfield, and South) with more than 1.5 million square feet of cargo handling space. Each complex dockside access to adjacent interstate highways. More than 100 trucking companies provide expedited ground transportation for air cargo shipments in ATL (Figure 5). The dominant, integrated domestic carriers UPS and FedEx, who connect from ATL to their national hubs in Louisville, Memphis, and Indianapolis, are the dominant air cargo service providers in Atlanta. Although UPS and FedEx offer global services, international air cargo mostly travels in the bellies of widebody passenger aircraft, for which the Delta Airlines’ principal hub at ATL offers extensive service and connections through its own operations as well as with partner airlines to European and Asian markets (WSP & Parsons Brinkerhoff 2016). Many of the on-airport and off-airport roadways that provide access to ATL currently perform at unacceptable levels of service and experience delays that are predicted to worsen. ATL is making a strategic push to capture more air freight and has attracted several new carriers recently. If greater market penetration combines with normal growth, and if online retail continues to push up package volumes, the pressures at key external network access points to the air cargo complexes could be sub- stantial. Because air cargo is time-sensitive and dependent on aircraft schedules, it tends to be bound to peak periods that press against capacity limits (WSP & Parsons Brinckerhoff 2016). To begin mitigating some of the growing air cargo-related truck congestion and operating issues, ATL has initiated a truck staging system. According to airport officials, truck traffic to and from ATL sometimes creates gridlock on neighboring roads. At peak hours, tractor-trailers often backed up to the interstate while blocking driveways and side streets. In addition, truck drivers were self-selecting which dock door to use, creating confusion, blocking docks, and triggering arguments. Still in its development phase, the airport decided to create a distinct truck staging system that would not only eliminate congestion, but also differentiate ATL in the industry and move it closer to its desired cargo goals. When fully built-out, the system will include: • A dedicated, secured staging lot with 40–60 spaces and check-in booth adjacent to the South Cargo Complex and the expanded, consolidated cargo now in development. chapter five case examples

31 • 100% participation by the cargo handlers and airlines to guarantee success of the program. • Assigned matching of trucks with available docks. • A computerized system using individual dock sensors with internal alerts (red and green lights to indicate availability). There are 32 docks per existing building (128 total), and each will be equipped with sensors. The system has metric reporting capabilities. • Communication to ensure orderly pickup and delivery (Air Cargo News 2016). While not a primary purpose of the new staging system, airport officials did say that the ability to better understand truck movements and trip generation associated with air cargo may be a benefit that the airport and others will be able to use to improve planning and operations. The staging system and consolidated cargo complex are expected to be fully operational in 2018. los angeles international airport (lax) LAX is the seventh busiest airport in the world and the third busiest in the United States with more than 2.1 million tons of cargo moved in 2015. Most of the 2,300 average daily flights that fly through LAX carry at least some belly cargo; in addition, nearly 30 dedicated cargo airlines operate at LAX. The airport has more than 2.1 million square feet of cargo space on 194 acres of ground. An addi- tional four million square feet have been developed for cargo use in the immediate vicinity of the airport. LAX has two major cargo complexes (Century and Imperial) (Figure 6). As discussed in the literature review summary in chapter four, a comprehensive study of goods movements was done at the LAX airport in 1990 to address specific traffic problems associated with truck movements to/from the LAX airport. Trip generation rates were calculated by conducting FIGURE 5 ATL airport air cargo aerial map (Source: RSG, using map data from Google Earth, Nov. 2017).

32 interviews with air cargo carriers, freight forwarders, and truckers, and by using truck volume and classification data, cargo area counts, and cargo volumes. The study concluded that the derived trip generation rate calculated per tonnage is comparable and in range with the rates calculated in previous studies. Currently, the only air cargo truck-related information that LAX prepares is the annual trip generation reports which is a requirement of the LAX Airport-Specific Plan (mandated by Los Angeles City Council). These annual traffic generation reports from 2009 to 2015 are available on their web- site. According to the website, “These reports identify the number of trips generated by LAX Airport, the number of trips anticipated to be generated at the completion of any LAX Master Plan Project(s) in development at the time of the report, the number of trips projected to be generated following the implementation of the LAX Master Plan as informed by current and project-based trip counts, and the number of trips anticipated to be generated by on-going LAX Master Plan construction activities.” Vehicle trips are counted during a design day (Friday in August, a busy day in a busy month) and the trip counts are reported for three peak periods (8–9 a.m., 11 a.m. to noon, and 5–6 p.m.) for the Central Terminal Area and more than 60 airport-related driveways in and around the airport. These data are compiled by LAX officials. As part of the traffic count process, truck traffic data are recorded manually at the cargo facility driveways and are reported for 13 cargo facilities in about 60 driveways around the airport (access points) from which 13 driveways are used for cargo movements. These trip counts, which are reported for inbound and outbound movements, are potentially useful for estimating truck trip generation rates by comparing historical and current data. Using the square footage of air cargo facilities or total tonnage to/from each facility, truck trip generation rates can be estimated using the peak hour number of trucks reported in the previously mentioned trip generation reports. According to the LAX airport official interviewed, there is not much demand for air cargo truck trip information and most of the public and airport officials’ attention is paid to central terminal FIGURE 6 LAX airport air cargo area aerial map (Source: RSG, using map data from Google Earth, Nov. 2017).

33 and passenger traffic congestion. Air cargo truck traffic is mostly on outer streets connecting to LAX and have less traffic. As discussed in the literature review, the 1990 study provided some forecasts of tonnages, terminal expansions and truck trips for 2010. The forecast details, which are shown in Table 15, were com- pared with those forecasts were compared with actual 2010 truck trips using public data from the LAX website and some other data received from the LAX official interviewed. Calculation details are shown in Table 16. Based on the calculations, there were about 14,500 daily truck trips to/from LAX air cargo facilities in four terminals (Table 16). This was calculated using the “air cargo terminals truck trip generation rates” calculated in the 1990 study. Using the “annual trip generation reports” from LAX that was discussed earlier, the number of daily truck trips are comparable with the calculated numbers. The 2010 LAX annual trip generation report has counted 588 trucks in the peak one-hour period in one day in 2010. This is 1,600 trucks for three one-hour peak periods counted. Assuming that peak period counts are 7% of total daily counts, a calculation based on publicly available comparison of truck counts by hour from stations close to airports on NYS Traffic Data Viewer (http://gis3.dot.ny.gov/ Terminal Area (sf) Annual Truck Trips Daily Truck Trips Annual Trucked Cargo Tons Area Percentages Trucks per Ton Cargo City 899,026 1,726,692 4,933 651,582 34% 2.65 Imperial 593,469 1,139,832 3,257 430,125 22% 2.65 Southside 933,617 1,793,128 5,123 676,652 35% 2.65 Southwest 232,442 446,434 1,276 168,466 9% 2.65 Sources: LAX Traffic Generation Reports (http://www.lawa.org/ourLAX/AnnualReports.aspx?id=8090), 2010 data. LAX Traffic Volume Statistics (http://www.lawa.org/LAXStatistics.aspx). Data received from LAX official interviewed. Notes/Assumptions: Area for each facility is based on current data received from LAX official interviewed. Area percentages are calculated based on these data. Annual trucked cargo tons are calculated based on area percentages and total freight and mail tons moved from LAX (1,926,825 tons) from LAX statistics (this assumes terminal tons are proportional to terminal area). Annual truck trips are calculated using truck trip generation rate from the 1990 study (trucks per ton) mentioned in the literature review. Daily truck trips are calculated assuming there are 350 days per year. TABLE 16 CALCULATED LAX TrUCk TrIPS IN 2010 (based on truck trip generation rates in the 1990 study) TABLE 15 SUMMArY OF LAX CArGO 2010 FOrECASTS (from the 1990 study) Terminal Area (sf) Annual Truck Trips Daily Truck Trips Annual Trucked Cargo Tons Area Percentages Trucks per Ton Cargo City 720,000 1,644,000 5,269 612,900 24% 2.68 Imperial 540,000 2,365,450 7,582 461,700 18% 5.12 Southside 750,000 1,057,168 3,388 639,900 25% 1.65 Southwest (new planned) 750,000 2,008,828 6,439 637,200 25% 3.15 Source: A Study of Goods Movement at Los Angeles International Airport. Notes: Southwest is a new forecasted terminal in 1990 study. Another planned cargo facility was northwest, but its data were not available from LAX airport in their current traffic generation reports.

34 html5viewer/?viewer=tdv) total daily counts based on 2010 traffic generation report was calculated to be 11,760 trucks. This number is lower than the calculated 14,500 daily trucks but comparable. Adjusting various assumptions for these calculations might make the numbers more comparable. The fair conclusion could be that the calculated “air cargo terminals truck trip generation rates” in the 1990 study using the trucks per ton approach results in reasonable number of trucks. The LAX Airport cargo areas are generally oriented around three primary areas, known as the “Cargo City” (also known as “Century Cargo Complex”), the “Imperial Cargo Complex,” and the “South Cargo Area.” Twenty-seven on-airport warehouses provide more than 2.8 million sq. ft. of warehouse and support space. All but one of these facilities offer airside-to-landside access. Four additional off-airport warehouses providing 120,000 sq. ft. also serve LAX. Major tenants based on building area currently include FedEx, United Airlines, Mercury Air Cargo, USPS, Japan Airlines, korean Airlines, American Airlines, and Asiana Airlines (see Table 17). These eight cargo facili- ties account for about 60% of LAX cargo facility area and the majority of truck trips inbound and outbound of LAX air cargo facilities. mempHis international airport (mem) Memphis International Airport (MEM) is owned and operated by the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority (the Authority). As of 2015, MEM ranked first in the nation and second in the world (after Hong kong) for total air cargo tonnage handled (ACI 2015). MEM includes two principal air cargo facilities: the FedEx “Superhub” on the north side of the airport and the cargo east facility, located southeast of the main passenger terminal (Figure 7). The FedEx Superhub encompasses numerous facilities to support cargo operations, including aircraft gates/hardstand parking positions, sort facilities, maintenance hangars, corporate offices, employee parking, support vehicle storage, and an independently operated fuel farm. FedEx facilities are located both north and south of runway 9-27. The central air cargo facility includes additional air cargo aprons and hangars facilities that serve UPS and other non-FedEx carriers (Memphis Master Plan 2010). For the first 10 months of 2016 (January–October), MEM handled a total of 3.66 million U.S. pounds of air cargo, including all-cargo carriers, belly cargo and others. This was a decline of about TABLE 17 LAX AIrPOrT MAJOr TENANTS Primary Tenant Location Function/Land Use 2013 Total Building Area (SF) FedEx South Cargo East Cargo 405,220 United Airlines Century Cargo Complex Cargo 213,737 Mercury Air Cargo Century Cargo Complex Cargo 206,745 USPS Century Cargo Complex Cargo 197,044 Japan Airlines South Cargo East Vacant, Cargo 191,652 Korean Airlines South Cargo East Cargo 158,245 American Airlines Century Cargo Complex Cargo 148,813 Asiana Airlines / Virgin Atlantic Century Cargo Complex Cargo 144,175 Note: Century Cargo Complex is also known as “Cargo City.” Source: LAX Airport summary of the cargo facilities (obtained from the interview contact).

35 5% from the same period in 2015. MEM officials stated that FedEx activity represents about 99% of MEM’s total air cargo weight handled. Every weekday night at the Superhub, FedEx lands, unloads, reloads, and flies out 150 to 200 jets. Its aircraft take off and land every 90 seconds between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. The Superhub processes between 1.2 million and 1.6 million packages a night. The central air cargo facility handles UPS, which is mostly road feeder services and truck-to-truck transfers, as well as other air cargo carriers. The volume of belly cargo has declined in recent years to a very low level. Because FedEx dominates the air cargo situation at MEM, the airport’s master planning typically includes significant consideration of FedEx’s growth and plans. Occasionally, the airport’s master planning consultant will conduct supplemental modeling of area roadways, as warranted by existing FIGURE 7 MEM airport air cargo aerial map (Source: RSG, using map data from Google Earth, Nov. 2017).

36 or forecast conditions related to airport access for passengers and cargo. However, MEM officials said this modeling did not include identifying or generating any truck trip generation rates for air cargo facilities specifically. One of the factors that mitigates the need to conduct such truck trip generation analysis is the airport’s easy access to Interstate highways that provides substantial excess capacity. The MEM officials believe a major change in highway demand and/or capacity would be required to generate interest in pursuing a more detailed, granular study of truck trip generation associated with air cargo. MEM officials said the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has previously conducted various studies of traffic flow to look at truck traffic regionally and around the airport, although none of these were specific to the airport. The officials were not aware of any past instances of the airport or air cargo firms providing truck trip estimates to the MPO (or other agencies) connected with development of a new or expanded air cargo facility. They did note that MEM has a representative on the MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee, whose role is to help prioritize and fund road projects across the metropolitan region. In 2014, MPOs developed a strategy to create an integrated urban land development, often referred to as an Airport City. The impact area of this development extends as far as 25 miles into East Arkansas and North Mississippi and 50 square miles directly adjacent to the airport. This Plan developed a strategy to create an airport-integrated urban land form, where the impact and development attraction of the airport extends out as far as 25 miles into East Arkansas and North Mississippi and 50 square miles directly around the airport (often referred to as Airport City). Although this ambitious plan calls for several major investments and initiatives related to improving freight and truck movement and connectivity throughout the Airport City area, it did not develop data or information on truck trip generation associated with air cargo or other facilities. Such analyses may be conducted as part of future implementation studies. conclusions from case examples The case examples for this synthesis collectively suggest that large freight hub airports and air cargo facility developers/owners do not generally conduct truck trip generation analyses when building or expanding a facility unless required to do so by relevant authority. The studied airports contain large-scale cargo facility areas and move significant amounts of freight to/from the airport. However, it appears that passenger traffic congestion receives the majority of public and airport attention, rather than to truck movements to/from air cargo facilities. Additional data was obtained from the LAX airport and used, along with the airport’s traffic gen- eration reports, to calculate truck trips and compare previous forecasts of air cargo terminal truck trip generation rates (from a LAX study in 1990). This resulted in reasonable and comparable truck trips per day when using a trucks per ton approach for estimating air cargo truck trip generation rates. This calculation and comparison could not, however, be conducted for the other two case example airports because related data were not available. Any truck-related studies by or for the case example airports in recent years were conducted by consultants. Consequently, the data necessary to perform analyses comparable to that conducted for LAX are not available.

Next: Chapter Six - Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research »
Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Synthesis 80: Estimating Truck Trip Generation for Airport Air Cargo Activity compiles existing information about air cargo truck trip generation studies. The existing literature and research regarding air cargo facility-related truck trip generation rates is limited in its scope and detail. In addition, the complexity of the modern air cargo industry makes it difficult to obtain the data necessary to develop truck trip generation rates. Access to such information could conceivably help a community plan and invest appropriately by accounting for air cargo’s impacts. Similarly, air cargo operators and airport officials could employ such data to help ensure cargo facility truck access and egress remains reliable and safe.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!