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.
14 Survey Development Information used in this synthesis was collected through phone interviews with public-use airports and private GT operators regarding their experiences and perceptions of clean vehicle policies and sustainability practices at airports. The study team designed two sets of question- naires to collect primary data: one for surveying public-use airports and another for survey- ing various types of GT fleets operating at the airports. Different questionnaires were required because of the different perspectives of airports and private GT operators on clean vehicle programs and other sustainability initiatives. The survey questionnaire for airports included 32 questions mainly related to alternative fuels or clean vehicle policies employed by the airports, as well as the relationships and interactions between airports and GT providers. The questions were intended to gain basic information on the details of AF policies, development history, implementation obstacles, and other experiences with the application of policies. The Airport Survey Form is provided in Appendix A. The survey questionnaire for GT providers included 23 questions that dealt with GT fleetsâ sustainability practices, compliance with airport requirements and policies, airport involvement in assisting private fleets with converting to AFs, evaluation of the effectiveness of an airportâs clean vehicle programs from the fleetâs perspective, and other aspects of airport clean vehicle policies. The Ground Transportation Provider Survey Form is also provided in Appendix A. Airport and Fleet Selection Airports were selected to interview based on their geographic location, size, experience with AFs, and availability of good contacts. The study team compiled a list of 14 commercial service airports representing all FAA regions of the continental United States to provide even geographic coverage for the study. Although all airports targeted for the study are major hub airports, the list includes large, medium, and small hubs to provide relative size diversity. Additionally, the study team considered airportsâ previous participation in similar studies (indicating a potential willingness to contribute to the current study), the availability of good contacts, and airportsâ experience with implementing AF projects. Finally, the study team consulted with the ACRP panel, soliciting their advice and recommendations regarding the potential survey participants. To capture the perspective of private GT providers, the study team selected a diverse list of various types of operators to interview. The list of potential fleets to survey included 26 com- panies providing service at their corresponding 26 U.S. airports, four each from the categories of taxicabs, limousines, shared van rides, hotel/parking shuttles, rental car shuttles, and sched- uled airport service, and two transportation network companies. The fleets were not necessarily C H A P T E R 2 Study Approach
Study Approach 15 selected from the same locations as the airports, although a large number of them served the airports also targeted for interview. The fleet selection process was based partly on the desire to compare the different perspectives of airports and fleets on the same sustainability policies and partly was the result of airport recommendations (contacted airports often recommended fleets that served their airport for the interview). As with the airport selection, the study team solicited recommendations and nominations of potential fleets to survey from ACRP panel members, and accounted for operatorsâ experiences with AF technologies as well as the availability of good contacts. The list of surveyed airports and fleets is provided in Appendix B. Data Collection The study team collected data over a 3-month period, contacting the airports and fleets by e-mail and/or by telephone. The team also solicited help from the ACI-NA to reach out to identi- fied airports. ACI-NA sent an e-mail to member airports requesting that they participate in the study and provide assistance to the study team with data collection. The team also requested help from the Airport Ground Transportation Association (AGTA), as well as Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association (TLPA) to reach out to private GT fleets serving the airports. Both AGTA and TLPA provided direct outreach to their member fleets requesting their assistance with the study. Additionally, the ACRP panel assisted by reaching out to particular fleets and airports that did not respond to the first contact. Airports and fleets that agreed to participate were interviewed over the phone, and the calls lasted approximately 30 min. Interviews were kept short to ensure higher participation because some of those contacted expressed concern about the time commitment. Interview questions were also sent in advance of the interview to allow participants to become familiar with the topics covered. A purposive sample of 14 commercial service airports was proposed. Eleven airports were interviewed. Thirteen corresponding airport private GT providers were approached and also interviewed for this study. All the information obtained from the interviews was summarized and is included in the current report. Interviewed airports and fleets that requested to review the summaries were given the opportunity to read and provide corrections. The names of the fleets that preferred to remain anonymous were removed. Appendix C provides the interview summaries of the airports and fleets. Data Analysis and Presentation Data gathered from the phone interviews of 11 targeted airports and 13 targeted airport GT fleet operators are presented in Chapter 3. Qualitative methods are the main analytical tool used, and common themes discovered are described. The nonrandom nature of the sample and the small sample size, particularly of GT provider types, prevented the application of quantitative analytical methods.