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.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-1 | Best Practices 5. BEST PRACTICES 5.1 INTRODUCTION Identifying âBest Practicesâ is a form of program evaluation in public policy. It is the process of reviewing policy and management options that have been effective in addressing similar issues in the past and may be transferable to a current problem in other locations. While some research and evidence must be utilized when determining whether a practice is the "best," it is often more helpful to simply determine if a practice has worked exceptionally well in a particular setting and determine why that practice worked well. The framework presented in this Reference Guide builds on recent Transportation Research Board research on commercial ground transportation and TNCs. For example, ACRP 146, Commercial Ground Transportation at Airports: Best Practices, developed broad categories of best practices. In that report, the term âbest practicesâ referred to âthose practices which, when implemented, would help achieve or support the relevant goals of airport management.â42 For this project, the work plan required a more focused definition of Best Practice so landside managers could have available a menu of specific techniques that have been proven effective with managing and monitoring TNC services. Best Practice Definition Therefore, the working definition of a Best Practice used is: Any management action, program, or policy that integrates TNCs into an airportâs commercial ground transportation system and sets the framework to achieve the following airport management goals: ï§ providing effective congestion management for terminal access roads and curbs ï§ maintaining passenger safety and security ï§ enhancing passenger customer service ï§ protecting and enhancing revenue ï§ supporting strategic ground access goals: environmental, fuel, emissions, vehicle occupancy ï§ fostering fair and neutral treatment of drivers and commercial ground transportation providers ï§ leveraging intermodal resources ï§ customizing services to meet emerging needs ï§ leveraging digital technology 42 Transportation Research Board, Airport Cooperative Research Program, Report 146: Commercial Ground Transportation at Airports: Best Practices, 2015, p. 1.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-2 | Best Practices Section 5.2 presents summary tables listing all 24 practices in this Reference Guide; each practice is accompanied by a brief description and an indication as to the intended audiences. Practices are organized according to four categories: ï§ Policy development, regulations, and permits ï§ TNC and ground access management, operations, and analysis ï§ Business and revenue analysis and capital programming ï§ Technology In selected cases, exhibits, drawings, and photos illustrating the practice are also provided. For airport operators who need additional information, references to source material are also provided. An Approach to Sustainable Commercial Ground Access Programs The rapid introduction and expansion of TNC activity warranted swift regulatory and revenue management responses from airport operators to ensure: safe vehicle operations, vetting of TNC drivers, adequate insurance coverages, and trip fees necessary to support landside management and fiscal objectives. As airport operators gained experience in working with TNCs, landside managers, planners, and business development staff began to adjust operations, fee structures, and monitoring to more effectively respond to this new popular mode. A significant finding of this research is that airport operators have evolved their practices from reacting to TNCs, to managing their operations and revenue impacts, to the current situation, where they are adopting and seeking tools to influence and shape TNCs within broad strategic goals. Accordingly, the Best Practice definition for this ACRP project notes the need to consider TNCs within an airportâs overall ground access system. Several of the practices in this Reference Guide describe approaches and tools to help accomplish this. ï§ Practices 5.3.1 (Comprehensive Ground Access Plan) and 5.3.2 (Sustainable Commercial Ground Transportation Program) present the key elements of policy plans. ï§ Practice 5.4.1 (Curb Management) considers overall landside capacity and how curbs, surface lots, and garages all might be used to relieve curb congestion generated by all commercial GT modes. ï§ Practices 5.4.5 (Recurring Ground Access Surveys), 5.4.6 (Access Mode Choice Modeling), and 5.5.3 (Develop Simulation Tools to Estimate Changes in Mode Share and Revenue) present the data and illustrative models that can serve to evaluate airport initiatives and different pricing structures. ï§ Practice 5.6.5 (Mobility as a Service) considers all facets of airport ground access: technology, modes, equity, and demand management. In assembling the Best Practices, it became apparent that many airport operators are responding to substantial recurring landside congestion on curbs and roadways and at gateway tunnels and bridges. This is due to not only the emergence of TNCs but also the rapid growth in enplanements at many U.S. airports and the airline designation of hubs. Consequently, airport operators have been adapting by moving pick-up and drop-off operations to alternative curbs, levels, or locations to make effective use of available landside capacity. The objective is to find more efficient ways to stage passengers and move them around the airport. One method is to create a ground transportation facility that can support a range of commercial and private ground access modes.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-3 | Best Practices Ground Transportation Centers The establishment of GT centers, remote terminals, and auxiliary curbs that can accommodate all commercial GT modes (e.g., TNCs, limos, taxis, shared-ride vans, and shuttles) can provide a mode-neutral way of managing demand. As market share for a particular mode grows or shrinks, and as new technologies emerge, GT centers can offer the flexibility to serve as central processing facilities for passenger drop- off and pick-up. These GT centers can offer complementary services, such as ticketing, screening, and remote bag check. This approach can free up curb capacity that would then be made available for transit services and high-occupancy modes; this would also support unimpeded or improved curb access for the pick-up and drop-off of passengers with disabilities. Several airport operators either have adopted this approach or are in the process of implementing the concept. Examples are presented for the following three airports: MinneapolisâSt. Paul International Airport (MSP), Boston Logan International Airport (BOS), and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). ï§ At MSP, the airport operator has been working to provide a central location with connections to a variety of GT modes.43 The operator is building a new Transit Center that will enable MSP to implement the following actions in 2020: â Allow taxicabs and TNCs to pick up passengers in the same area. â Relocate off-airport parking shuttles, limousine operations, courtesy and corporate shuttles, and charter and employee buses to a central location. â Continue to re-evaluate the operation of individual roadways and surface lots. ï§ At BOS, a new initiative to manage TNCs will relocate pick-up and most drop-off activities from the terminals to the ground floor of the Central and West Garages. The area will be protected from the weather and will offer a remote bag-check option for departing passengers. For the long term, as part of the âLogan Forwardâ capital program, the airport operator is planning an Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) that will be connected by a people mover to each of the four terminals, as well as to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Blue Line Airport Station, the on-airport parking garages, and the Rental Car Center. The potential ITC may provide a dedicated location for pick-ups and drop-offs for TNCs, taxis, limos, and, possibly, water ferries. The system would promote high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) access to the airport by giving HOV modes priority access to terminal curbs. Passengers arriving via other commercial modes would be transported from the ITC to the terminals with buses, an automated people mover, or other technology along a dedicated route.44 ï§ At LAX, as part of its Landside Access Modernization Program (LAMP), Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) is finalizing plans for Intermodal Transportation Facilities (ITF East/West). These facilities are envisioned to become the main connection point for passengers arriving at LAX via public transportation and private vehicles. Planned features of the sites include private vehicle parking, shuttle connections, passenger pick-up and drop-off areas, waiting areas, concessions, and ticketing and information kiosks. The ITF East and West sites will connect to the airport's Central Terminal Area via LAWA's Automated People Mover.45 Other key components of LAMP that are connected via the Automated People Mover include a new Consolidated Rent-A- Car (ConRAC) facility and the Airport Metro Connector station, which connects Metro bus and light rail service to LAX. 43 Holes, S., Manager of Commercial Vehicle Operations, Metropolitan Airports Commission, St. Paul, MN; personal communication, August 8, 2019. 44 Massachusetts Port Authority, https://www.massport.com/logan- forward/initiatives/looking-ahead/ (accessed August 1, 2019). 45 Los Angeles World Airports, LAX Landside Access Modernization Program, Project Overview, https://www.lawa.org/connectinglax (accessed August 1, 2019).
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-4 | Best Practices Ground Access Models Several Best Practices involve the distribution of ground access surveys and the development of tools to estimate air passenger responses to changes in airport access services.46 While these practices are briefly described later in this section, an expanded discussion is appropriate given the important role that models can play in helping airport operators estimate the impacts of pricing and service changes on ground access revenues and mode share. The research team evaluated models and approaches used to project GT transactions and revenues for purposes of financial analysis. Depending on the purpose and timeframe of the analysis, three broad categories of modeling tools are available to airport operators: ï§ Planning: These models focus on long-term demand for facilities and use passenger forecasts to test policies and programs; they typically generate long-term estimates of mode-share and provide insight into facility requirements and program alternatives. ï§ Operations: These models focus on activity in different areas of the airport and do so at a âmicroâ level. They support management of landside operations and help formulate tactics to manage curb and access road congestion; this level of analysis can also support permitting and operating protocols. ï§ Financial: These models focus on commercial GT transactions and revenue generation and are used to analyze transactions and trends by mode type, revenue per transaction, and revenue per passenger; they may also support the evaluation of management strategies for increasing revenue generation. ACRP 01-35 research included a detailed review of the modeling tools available for analyzing airport ground access. The effort involved the initial development of an aggregate mode-choice model based on the airport survey; this was followed by the development of two disaggregate mode-choice models (for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport [DCA] and SFO) that serve as examples of how airport operators can approach the challenge of estimating the sensitivity of passengers to changes in price and ground access services. The objective was to develop disaggregate mode-choice models that describe how TNCs compete with other ground access modes, including specifically how they affect airport parking. This work differs from the aggregate TNC mode share analysis in several respects: ï§ First, the resulting models are structured specifically to evaluate the competitive effects between TNCs and each of the other available ground access modes; however, due to the nature of the data on which it was based, the aggregate model was only able to evaluate the TNC mode share versus all other modes combined. ï§ Second, the model uses disaggregate (individual-level) data, meaning it is based on the ground access mode choices made by individual air travelers, as described in the air passenger ground access surveys. It also requires data about the level of service (travel times, costs, etc.) of each of the ground access modes that are available for each of the air passengers in those surveys. These data provide statistical observations about how those service levels affect choices. ï§ Finally, because of the resolution provided by these data, the resulting models can be used to more reliably estimate elasticities of demand for TNCs and other specific modes with respect to service attributes, such as travel time and cost. 46 An Excel-based simulation template that shows how the mode-choice model was developed to estimate revenue impact (based on hypothetical policy changes at SFO) is provided as a separate deliverable in addition to this Reference Guide.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-5 | Best Practices While similar disaggregate ground access mode-choice models have been developed for several other airports, none of those published to date have included TNCs. An important unknown that can be answered by this work is how TNCs fit competitively in the mix of existing ground access modes and, more specifically, how changes in TNC fees, parking prices, and other policies controlled by airports affect TNC mode shares and, in turn, parking volumes/revenues. This document describes the methodology and development of those models, while a later section will focus on analysis based on different policy scenarios using the models. As previously noted, the models developed for this task are all based on disaggregate air passenger survey data. In the case of one selected airport (SFO), they use the more precise point-to-point level of service data that are now available through a variety of online sources, such as Google Maps (as opposed to the much more approximate zone-to-zone âskim treeâ data from regional travel demand forecasting models that have typically been used for these models and are used for our second airport, DCA). Combining the individual-level survey data with the point- to-point level of service data provides the statistical information necessary to determine how these factors affect choices among available ground access modes. The specifications for these modelsâthe explanatory variables and their relationship to a modeâs relative attractivenessâhave been drawn from the teamâs prior experience developing such models for other airports. However, these models include the TNC as a specific competing mode, separate from the modes such as taxis and limousines that have been included in previously developed airport ground access mode-choice models. Also, a critically important consideration in the structure of these models is how TNCs compete with other modes and specifically the extent to which changes in TNC service levels (e.g., price) affect other modesâ shares and, conversely, how changes in those other modes will affect TNC shares. The simplest mode-choice modelsâusing the common multinomial logit model formâessentially treat all modes equally; changes that increase the share of one mode will result in equal proportional changes in the mode shares of all other modes. However, that is not necessarily a realistic representation of how modes compete. Some modes may be more similar to others in the types of service they provide beyond measurable level of service variables, such as travel time and cost. As a result, increases in some modesâ shares may result in a disproportionately large change in the shares of other selected modes. For example, it appears that taxi mode shares at most airports have declined significantly as TNCs have become available at those airports, while shares of other modes have not changed as much. This type of behavior can be represented in other model structures, such as the nested logit model. The nested logit model can be used to determine, statistically, which modes compete most directly with each other and how they compete with all other modes. Technically, this model structure can be used to estimate how the cross-elasticities of demand vary across modes. Practically, it can be used to determine, for example, how changes in TNC prices would affect taxi demand versus how they would affect airport parking demand. And, conversely, it can be used to determine how changes in parking price will affect TNC usage. These, of course, are important factors in determining how TNCs will affect future parking revenues.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-6 | Best Practices Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 summarize the models developed for DCA and SFO, respectively. As previously mentioned, separate models are presented by market segment for each airport. The models show there is some variation across segments and airports in the innate (âall else being equalâ) preference for one mode over another. These mode constants are expressed as a comparison to private vehicle drop-off, which is used as the âbaseâ47 choice in these models. As would be expected, residents show greater preference for private vehicle drop-off and parking, while non-residents lean more heavily on commercial modes. TNCs do not experience the same innate preference in these data from 2014 to 2015, particularly compared to taxis, as one might expect to observe today. However, there is a noticeable increase in preference for TNCs between the two survey periods (SFO in May 2014 and DCA in October 2015), particularly for non-business travelers, who may have had limited exposure to and comfort with the app- based service in 2014. The coefficients in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 are nearly all significant; their signs are correct and their magnitudes are logical. To apply these models, inputs are run through the nested logit equation (where applicable, multinomial logit otherwise), which produces mode share values for each mode going to the airport under different policy conditions. For those not familiar with nested and multinomial logit models, the best way to interpret these coefficients is by using the simulator tool (provided separately) to see how the models behave with different policy inputs. For example, for the SFO model, an increase of $2.00 in TNC fees results in a 3.0 percent decrease in TNC share to the airport and increases in all other modes, including transit by 0.3 percent. Several different nesting structures were tested to determine which modes were the closest substitutes for each other. In all models, except for non-resident SFO models, âdoor-to-doorâ commercial options together (TNCs, taxis, and limos) were found to be close substitutes. This means that respondents show a strong tendency to switch among these convenient commercial choices before switching to other modes. SFOâs non-resident models did not exhibit this pattern, consistent with RSG findings on non-resident models for some other airports. While numerous specification tests were conducted in the development of these models, additional testing would be appropriate before using the models for airport-specific planning and forecasting applications. In addition, for those applications, more recent survey data would be useful. However, these models provide an appropriate base for illustrating the effects on mode shares and airport revenues regarding changes in fees and prices. These models were implemented in a sample enumeration-based simulator and used to provide estimates of the revenue effects of parking price and TNC-related changes. An Excel-based simulation template that shows how the mode-choice model is applied to estimate revenue impact (and is based on hypothetical policy changes at SFO) is provided as a separate deliverable in addition to this Reference Guide. 47 While the model requires one mode to be used as the âbaseâ for model estimation, the only values that matter are the differences between the mode constants, and these differences would be the same regardless of which mode was used as the base.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-7 | Best Practices TABLE 5-1 RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT (DCA) MODEL SUMMARY VARIABLE TYPE VARIABLE RESIDENT- NON-BUSINESS RESIDENT- BUSINESS NON- RESIDENT- NON-BUSINESS NON- RESIDENT- BUSINESS Mode Constants Private Vehicle Drop-off - - - - Private Vehicle Parking â Terminal -0.89** 1.44** -0.73** -0.70** Private Vehicle Parking â Economy -0.27 0.03 -1.62** -0.84** Rental -0.26 0.24 0.58** 1.89** Taxi 0.99** 2.34** 1.57** 3.19** TNC 0.71** 1.44** 0.90** 1.88** Limo 0.72** 1.45** 1.14** 2.47** Transit 1.52** 0.99** 0.78** 2.05** Primary Explanatory Variables Travel Time (minutes) -0.032** -0.011* -0.020** -0.026** Cost ($) -0.036** -0.040** -0.051** -0.050** Secondary Explanatory Variables (mode- specific for transit only) Baggage (at least one checked bag) -0.96** -0.58* -0.55** -0.76** Party Size (not a solo traveler) -0.59** -1.08** -0.48** -1.08** Nests Door-to-Door (TNC, Taxi, and Limo) (expressed as lambda) 0.52** 0.64** 0.74** 0.82** Other Value of Time ($/hour) $52.50 $16.82 $23.34 $30.78 * = statistical significance at the 95% confidence level ** = statistical significance at the 99% confidence level
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-8 | Best Practices TABLE 5-2 SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (SFO) MODEL SUMMARY VARIABLE TYPE VARIABLE RESIDENT- NON-BUSINESS RESIDENT- BUSINESS NON- RESIDENT- NON-BUSINESS NON- RESIDENT- BUSINESS Mode Constants Private Vehicle Drop-off - - - - Private Vehicle Parking â Domestic Terminal -0.71** 2.00** -1.68** -1.81** Private Vehicle Parking â International Terminal -2.13** 0.03 -2.23** -3.56** Private Vehicle Parking â Long Term (economy) -0.81** 1.17** -3.72** -3.38** Private Vehicle Parking â Off-Airport -081** 1.16** -3.42** -2.91** Rental -2.94** -1.29** 0.73** 2.38** Taxi -0.37* 2.28** 0.32** 2.52** TNC -0.63** 1.56** -0.66** 1.19** Limo -1.27** 2.27** -0.66** 1.19** Shared-Ride Van -1.46** -0.67** -0.44** 0.35** Transit 0.72** 1.90** 1.00** 1.81** Other Scheduled Bus -1.99** -1.13** -2.17** -2.46** Primary Explanatory Variables Travel Time (minutes) -0.005** -0.027** -0.013** -0.013** Cost ($) -0.020** -0.048** -0.022** -0.025** Secondary Explanatory Variables (mode- specific for transit only) Baggage (at least one checked bag) -0.71** -0.32* -0.45** -0.29** Party Size (not a solo traveler) -0.53** -0.23 -0.44** -0.42* Transfers (number of transfers) -0.38** -0.46** -0.41** -0.41** Nests Door-to-door (TNC, Taxi, and Limo) (expressed as lambda) 0.99** 0.61** - - Other Value of Time ($/hour) $15.76 $34.18 $34.21 $31.82 * = statistical significance at the 95% confidence level ** = statistical significance at the 99% confidence level
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-9 | Best Practices Broader Implications of the SFO and DCA Examples SFO and DCA were selected for these detailed analyses in large part because they were willing and able to provide the research team with the detailed survey and other data to support this work. They are both large-hub airports with good rail transit access and a full range of other highway-based modes. On the surface, they would seem to be not particularly representative of the broad range of airports that are currently experiencing significant increases in TNC access. However, apart from their size and the fact that they have direct rail access, they share with most other US airports a competitive mix of ground access options, including on-airport parking, private vehicle drop- off, rental cars, taxis, and, now, TNCs. Most also have similarly designed revenue and fee structures: direct revenues from airport parking; proportions of rental car charges and per-trip fees for taxis and TNCs. These common features all lead to complex interactions among these modes, as well as additional complexities in the resulting ground access revenues. The SFO and DCA mode share and revenue calculations suggest some results that are likely generalizable to other airports. ï§ While TNCs undoubtedly drew most of their initial market share from taxis and parking, they also drew from other modes, and at SFO they now appear to draw share similarly from all the major modal alternatives. The extent to which they do draw share from other modes depends on the competitive mix at each airport, but this research does not support assuming a simple substitution between TNCs and taxis or parking. ï§ The price elasticities of demand for parking and rental cars are more elastic than -1.0 at SFO; at DCA they are also more elastic than -1.0 for rental cars. This means that reliable past practices of simply raising airport parking prices and rental car fees to increase revenues may now result in the reverse effect (i.e., further reductions in revenue). This is in part due to the simple economic effect that elasticities generally increase as prices increase (which they have at both airports over time), but also due to the increased competition to parking presented by TNCs. ï§ Similarly, simply increasing TNC fees may result in shifts to lower-revenue access alternatives, such as private vehicle drop-off, and thus not result in net increases to airport revenues. ï§ The ground accessârelated revenue and fee structures used by airport operators result in complex interactions as a result of demand effects and significant differences in the amount of revenue derived from each passenger trip. The net result of fee changes can be very different if either or both of these effects are not appropriately accounted for. However, there are also results that are specific only to these airports; therefore, this work should not be viewed as a reasonable substitute for more current, airport-specific studies. As noted earlier, the work required to build and apply an integrated supply and disaggregate demand model that can be used to properly calculate all these effects is relatively straightforward. Given that most airport operators already expend considerable effort to collect air passenger ground access survey data, the incremental effort required to build a model that can be used for both ground access planning and revenue analysis is relatively small, especially in comparison to the missed revenue targets that could result from use of less rigorous methods. The Contractorâs Final Report explains the process for developing the disaggregate models, and it provides details regarding the nested model structures, specifications, estimations, and calibrations. Also, an Excel-based simulation template that shows how the mode-choice model is applied to estimate revenue impact (based on hypothetical policy changes at SFO) is provided as a separate deliverable in addition to this Reference Guide.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-10 | Best Practices 5.2 SUMMARY TABLES OF PRACTICES The Reference Guide presents a variety of policy, management, operational and business practices that encompass the issues airport operators frequently encounter in the management of TNCs. Tables 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6 provide a quick reference to the 24 practices that are detailed in Section 5.3 ï§ Policy Development, Regulations, and Permits (Table 5-3) focuses on the broad initiatives that provide the framework for effective TNC management ï§ TNC / Ground Access Management, Operations, and Analysis (Table 5-4) covers landside management tools available to airport operators for maintaining efficient and effective TNC operations. ï§ Financial and Business Development, Revenue Analysis and Capital Programming (Table 5-5), includes methods for monitoring revenue impacts and maintaining credit ratings; this category also includes the development and application of a simulation tool that can estimate the broad impacts of trip fee changes on mode share and revenue. ï§ Technology (Table 5-6) covers current and emerging practices that use automated vehicle identification, PIN matching, and other technology-based tools and concepts for more efficient GT management. EXHIBIT 5-1 STAGING AREAâMINNEAPOLIS-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SOURCE: Steven J. Holes, Metropolitan Airports Commission, August 9, 2019.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-11 | Best Practices TABLE 5-3 POLICY DEVELOPMENT, REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS # PRACTICE BRIEF DESCRIPTION PRIMARY (SECONDARY) AUDIENCE 5.3.1 Develop a comprehensive ground access plan ï§ Adopt policies and strategies to manage all ground access programs and activities: parking, commercial ground transportation, private vehicle pick-up and drop-off, and employee access. ï§ Establish mode-share goals tied to passenger levels. ï§ Program flexible ground transportation infrastructure and utilities that can adapt to changes in technology, customer preferences, and shifts in revenue. Executive (Landside Managers) 5.3.2 Integrate TNCs into a sustainable commercial ground transportation program ï§ At the executive level, regularly convene representatives from all units that have a role in TNC/commercial ground transportation issues: Chief Financial Officer, Landside Operations, Environmental, Legal Planning, and Capital Programming (cross functional teams). ï§ Under the guidance of the cross functional team, develop a comprehensive approach to all commercial vehicle modes: trip fees, environmental impacts and performance, customer service, curb management, and driver equity. Executive 5.3.3 Establish regulations and permit conditions that address reporting, insurance, driver training, and accessibility requirements ï§ Require that TNCs and/or TNC drivers carry primary coverage that specifically covers TNC activity as defined and required by the TNC to demonstrate that required coverage in the given jurisdiction is in place during this period. ï§ Insurance and commercial liability coverage while on airport property should be at least $1 million with $250,000 of excess liability. ï§ As a permit condition, require TNCs to prepare training materials that accurately reflect current airport regulations; airport operator reviews and approves materials and retains option to randomly test drivers on regulations. ï§ Permits should require companies to provide accessible vehicles. Drivers must be trained in properly serving passengers with disabilities and accommodating service animals. Performance should be monitored by the airport operator. Penalties for violations should be included in permits. Executive (Landside Managers) 5.3.4 Provide framework for pilot programs ï§ Ensure airports have flexibility to evaluate and consider proposed TNC pilot programs. Structure flexible agreements that allow testing of new technologies or processes. Executive 5.3.5 Establish performance indicators ï§ Define ground transportation objectives and metrics and set policy and operating plans accordingly. ï§ Implement infrastructure to continuously monitor traffic conditions on roadways. ï§ Consider metrics such as average vehicle speed, travel time, and curbside dwell times. ï§ Consider adopting a customer pick-up wait time measure. Executive 5.3.6 Foster collaboration between airport managers and TNC senior staff ï§ Create working groups to address core policy and permitting needs. ï§ Develop working relationships between airport landside staff and TNC companies. ï§ Communicate future capital improvement and construction plans when known as far in advance as possible. Executive (Landside Managers)
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-12 | Best Practices TABLE 5-4 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY / GROUND ACCESS MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, AND ANALYSIS # PRACTICE BRIEF DESCRIPTION PRIMARY (SECONDARY) AUDIENCE 5.4.1 Curb management ï§ Evaluate overall curb demands by time-of-day (both arrival and departure curbs, as well as arrival and departure roads and drives) and flex drop-off and pick-up areas to use the least congested curbs. For example, in some cases, airport operators have designated arrivals level for drop-off in order to balance activity between upper and lower level roadways. ï§ Airport operators are evaluating overall curb and roadway operations and taking a comprehensive approach to managing curb congestion. For example, SFO and BOS have relocated (or are planning to relocate) TNC activities to nearby garages and lots. The operator of BOS is considering starting a remote bag-check service to complement garage drop-offs. ï§ In the short term, airport operators should consider possible repurposing of garage spaces; in the long term, airport operators should consider designing and constructing ground transportation (GT) centers that could accommodate multiple commercial ground transportation providers away from terminal curbs. Within the GT center, spaces can be reallocated space as market/mode share shifts. Landside Managers 5.4.2 Staging areas/hold lots The location, adaptability, capacity, and design should be consistent with current demand, while allowing for expansion. Location should be in reasonable proximity to terminals (5- to 10-minute travel time), and adequate driver facilities should be provided. Landside Managers 5.4.3 Wayfinding The challenge of managing TNCs starts with the matching stage. Passengers and drivers are matched via the smartphone app prior to either of them being at the curb. This means the passenger and driver must first find each other amid the activity at the frontage. Drivers move slowly looking for a passenger with whom they are not familiar, while passengers attempt to look over the nearest vehicles to find a license plate or vehicle number on âtheirâ vehicle. This is neither pleasant nor efficient. It is essential to use easily understood and highly visible signs, markings, and standard icons to guide arriving passengers to the proper pick-up location: whether it is a curb, level, exit door, or nearby lot or garage. Landside Managers 5.4.4 Rematch This is a dispatch technology that allows a TNC vehicle to drop off a passenger and immediately become eligible for a pick- up within a defined period of time. Rematch offers the potential to reduce deadhead trips, relieve hold lot demand, improve customer service by reducing wait times, and may also reduce vehicle miles of travel on an airportâs access roads. Landside Managers 5.4.5 Recurring ground access surveys Conduct a survey of air passenger (and ideally employee) ground access behavior. Surveys provide: ï§ airport access mode share estimates ï§ essential input data for mode-choice modeling and simulation Landside Managers (Executive) (Financial/Revenue Analysts) 5.4.6 Access mode-choice modeling Develop and apply a probabilistic model that incorporates ground access survey trip data and data about level of service for each access mode to estimate how sensitive passengers are to changes in those levels of service. Landside Managers
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-13 | Best Practices TABLE 5-5 F INANCIAL AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, REVENUE ANALYSIS , AND CAPITAL PROGRAMMING # PRACTICE BRIEF DESCRIPTION PRIMARY (SECONDARY) AUDIENCE 5.5.1 Establish trip fees for sustainable revenue that are aligned with ground access policies ï§ A fee charged to commercial vehicle operators doing business on an airport: This is the principal method that airport operators use to recover the costs of managing the activity. Airport operators also use market-based fee setting; in some cases, fee schedules must be developed as specified in state or local enabling legislation. Trip fees are also used as a policy lever to align ground access operations with broad policy goals related to curb management or environmental performance. ï§ Benchmarking: Airport operators should regularly conduct studies on how other airports (direct peers as well as non-peer airports) set fees. ï§ Reasonableness and fairness: Whatever methods are used to determine fee arrangements, airport operators should strive for reasonableness, transparency, and fairness. This relates in some respect to the individual airport circumstances, but it also reflects an understanding of effective practices at other airports. ï§ Revenue management: Airport operators should engage in data-driven tactics and strategies that optimize product availability and price to achieve the highest possible revenue growth. Landside Managers (Executive) (Financial/Revenue Analysts) 5.5.2 Monitor revenue and activity ï§ Airport operators should develop monthly or daily activity tracking that enables identification of patterns that are not apparent at an annualized level. Consistently tracking activity (e.g., TNC transactions per 1,000 enplanements) and revenues (e.g., parking revenue per enplaned passenger) across modes supports a comprehensive evaluation of the airportâs ground transportation system and facilitates accurate financial reporting and planning. ï§ Consistent tracking and reporting of ground transportation activity, revenues, and data across multiple modes should be inputs to a dashboard that establishes a baseline and identifies trends for financial managers and policy boards, as well as rating agencies. Financial/Revenue Analysts (Executive) 5.5.3 Forecasting: Develop simulation tools to estimate changes in mode share and revenue and under different scenarios ï§ There are many different purposes for forecasting including near-term operating budget planning, long- term facility planning, and long-term strategic planning. There are a variety of models that can be applied, ranging from spreadsheet tools to more sophisticated demand models. ï§ Estimate passenger price elasticity and changes in mode share using disaggregate mode-choice models. Financial/Revenue Analysts (Executive) 5.5.4 Maintain airport credit rating ï§ Airport operators will continue to face questions regarding (a) ability to generate revenues from traditional nonairline sources, such as parking and rental cars; (b) basis for facility investment plans; and (c) ability to prudently manage the airport financial result. These questions relate to the items discussed above. A key point in terms of Best Practices is to not wait for the questions to be asked, but instead engage in proactive planning. Financial/Revenue Analysts (Executive) 5.5.5 Monitor rental car transactions and programs ï§ Review monthly transaction reports for trends. ï§ Meet regularly with rental car companies to understand current business practices and new programs: for example, pick-ups and drop-offs at the curb for premier customers; companies entering into agreements with TNCs to rent cars to drivers. Financial/Revenue Analysts
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-14 | Best Practices TABLE 5-6 TECHNOLOGY # PRACTICE BRIEF DESCRIPTION PRIMARY (SECONDARY) AUDIENCE 5.6.1 Vehicle identification, management, and tracking Use a range of tools to support the airport operatorâs management of TNC activity, curb enforcement, and auditing requirements; these include AVI/RFID, beacons, automatic license plate recognition (LPR), GPS, Bluetooth, and integrated toll module (ITM). Separate software/applications include GateKeeperTNC-Opsâ¢ software and American Association of Airport Executives App-Based Transportation (ABT) Clearinghouse service. GIS mapping and video monitoring can supplement simulation models and can identify curb âhot spots.â Executives Finance Landside Managers (Planning) 5.6.2 PIN code matching Passengers open the TNC app to request a ride; they receive a numerical code, then they are directed to wait in a pick-up line outside the terminal. The passenger shows their code to the driver, the trip information is processed, and the ride proceeds as usual. Landside Managers TNC Drivers and Riders 5.6.3 Predispatch This is an algorithm that anticipates rider demand at airports and matches drivers to riders en route. This helps to lower the customer wait time. Landside Managers TNC Drivers and Companies 5.6.4 Push data Information push is initiated by the server, not the client/user, such as news updates, navigation routing, and mobility management system. These systems aim to improve efficiency for drivers and a faster trip for passengers. Landside Managers TNC Drivers and Companies 5.6.5 Mobility as a service (MaaS) MaaS encompasses digital platforms that provide a gateway for users to view, reserve, and pay given a menu of real-time mobility optionsâboth public and privateâsuch as transit, rail, TNCs, carshare, bikeshare, and micromobility. This enables users to easily determine their most attractive mobility option based on their individual preference for time savings, trip amenities, convenience, and cost. Ground Transportation Users 5.6.6 Connected vehicles (CVs) CV technology allows vehicles to communicate wirelessly with surrounding vehicles, infrastructure, the cloud/network, and pedestriansâcollectively referred to as vehicle-to- everything. Together, these components constitute a connected vehicle environment, which is a core attribute facilitating the development of connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs), intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and smart city initiatives. Landside Managers Finance (Planning) 5.6.7 Autonomous vehicles (AVs) AV technology, sometimes referred to as self-driving vehicle technology, enables a vehicle to guide itself with little to no physical control or monitoring by a human operator. Current AV development is primarily driven by TNCs, carshare companies, auto manufacturers and Tier 1 suppliers, tech companies, and microtransit companies. The timing, adoption rate, and impact of AVs are subject to conjecture. Landside Managers Finance (Planning) NOTE: Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI); Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-15 | Best Practices 5.3 POLICY DEVELOPMENT, REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS Develop a Comprehensive Ground Access Plan 5.3.1 OBJECTIVES Establish the broad policy framework to consider all aspects of airport ground access: curb and terminal roadway congestion, environmental indicators (including dead head trips, VMT, and greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions), safety, customer service, capital plans, emerging technologies, and sustainable revenue practices. This framework provides the foundation for commercial ground transportation programs (Practice 5.3.2), trip fees, revenue management, and the potential for airport access fees. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Airport operators adopt policies and strategies to manage ground access programs and activities: parking, commercial ground transportation, private vehicle pick-up and drop-off, rental car use and employee access. The reasons for adopting the policies may vary and may include: ï§ demand management to manage congestion and maintain operations ï§ enhanced landside levels of service ï§ revenue optimization ï§ environmental goals limit to help VMT and emissions Recommended practice is to begin designing/constructing flexible ground transportation infrastructure and utilities that can adapt to changes in technology, customer preferences, business models, and shifts in revenue. For example, consolidated ground transportation centers can accommodate both commercial modes and private vehicle activity away from congested curbs. Although US airports (with one exception at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport [DFW]) do not currently charge private vehicles for driving on the airport roadways and accessing curbs (i.e., pick up/drop off), this concept has surfaced in discussions at several large-hub airports and may be an effective practice to consider for managing overall curb and roadway congestion, influencing mode share, and supplementing nonaeronautical revenue. EXAMPLES ON HOW IT HAS WORKED Both BOS ad SFO have policies that place a priority on supporting programs that encourage the use on alternative ground access modes. BOS has an HOV goal of 35.2 percent at 37.5 million annual passengers; SFO has a âTransit Firstâ policy. UK airports began monetizing curb access in 2007 at Birmingham/Clark, and more airports adopted the practice starting in 2009; it is now in place at 14 UK airports, as well as at Charles de Gaulle Airport in France. RELEVANT AUDIENCES Policy boards, senior staff, landside managers, and chief financial officers. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ Advances in tolling and license plate recognition (LPR) systems have significantly improved the ability to automate identification of âunknownâ private vehicles. ï§ Reduction in traditional landside revenue streams (e.g., parking, rental cars) will continue to create pressure for new resources. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry (ACRP 20) Research Roadmap on Policy and Planning Issues, Strategic Themes â Landside Connectivity (ACRP 11-02/Task 33)
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-16 | Best Practices Integrate Transportation Network Companies into a Sustainable Commercial Ground Transportation Program 5.3.2 OBJECTIVES Manage commercial ground transportation services for sustainability, efficiency, and balance vis-a-vis aeronautical revenue generation. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Within the framework established by Practice 5.3.1, develop a comprehensive commercial ground transportation management program. A sustainable program will monitor trends in transactions per 1,000 enplaned passengers; track total GT revenue, as well as shifts within revenue sources; monitor trends in nonaeronautical revenue (in constant dollars) per enplaned passenger; and identify infrastructure to support and manage commercial GT consistent with revenue performance objectives. The trip fee structure should reflect the operating and capital costs associated with supporting and managing each commercial ground transportation mode. Expenses for landside operations (direct operating costs of providing ground transportation facilities, asset depreciation, costs of roadways, and other infrastructure used for ground transportation services) should be tracked and calculated in determining the revenue required to adequately operate, maintain, and expand commercial ground transportation services. Components of a sustainable program will: ï§ Include all commercial modes. ï§ Establish cross functional teams (landside managers, financial officers, capital program managers). ï§ Have a fee structure aligned with policy goals and one that recognizes that price increases alone may not be a sustainable strategy. ï§ Have guidelines for revenue management and allocation for: ï§ operating revenue ï§ capital programming ï§ Establish performance measures / key performance indicators and collect necessary data to: ï§ Establish baseline conditions. ï§ Perform analysis and benchmarking. ï§ Track/identify trends. A sustainable program will also consider goals for: ï§ HOV mode share ï§ customer service: wait times, safety, accessibility ï§ curb operations and circulation on access roads and drives ï§ environmental impacts: deadheading, GHG emissions ï§ equity and operator living wage policies ï§ variable rate/dynamic parking ï§ monetizing curb access EXAMPLES OF WHERE IT HAS WORKED Charlotte Douglas International Airport, DFW, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX): see âA New Framework for Ground Transportation at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport,â ACRP, Impacts on Practice, February, 2018. RELEVANT AUDIENCES Landside managers; financial and revenue analysts ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Commercial Ground Transportation at Airports (ACRP 146) Guidebook for Incorporating Sustainability Into Traditional Airport Projects (ACRP 80)
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-17 | Best Practices Establish Regulations and Permit Conditions that Address Reporting, Insurance, Driver Training, and Acessibility Requirements 5.3.3 OBJECTIVES Establish conditions and requirements to enable the safe and efficient operation of TNCs on airport property. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Company information and fees ï§ Charge application or administration fee. ï§ Establish term (1 to 2 years) and whether permit is renewable. ï§ Trip fee: specify drop-off, pick-up, or both. ï§ Color photo of company trade dress. ï§ Accessibility plan for accommodating passengers with physical disabilities. ï§ Trip fee set by rate schedule and consistent with ground access policies: environmental, cost recovery, customer service. ï§ TNC should agree to allow airport operator to conduct passenger surveys and should assist (not interfere) with process. Insurance ï§ âTransportation network company insuranceâ is a policy that specifically covers the use of a vehicle in connection with a TNCâs online-enabled application or platform. ï§ Insurance and commercial liability coverage while on airport property should be at least $1 million. ï§ $200,000 excess liability. ï§ A participating driver shall carry proof of TNC insurance coverage at all times during use of a vehicle in connection with a TNCâs online-enabled application or platform. ï§ Airport as additional insured. ï§ Require that TNCs and/or TNC drivers carry primary coverage that specifically covers TNC activity as defined and required by the TNC to demonstrate that required coverage in the given jurisdiction is in place during this period. Supporting exhibits: maps, definitions, forms ï§ Attach to agreements a location map or aerial photo showing location of staging area(s), route to terminal(s), and pick-up/drop-off locations. ï§ A TNC is an organization, including a corporation, limited liability company, partnership, sole proprietor, or any other entity, operating in [state] that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle. ï§ TNC activity is the period a driver is logged onto the TNCâs app to the time the driver logs off or the ride is completed, and the passenger has exited the vehicle, whichever is later. ï§ TNC drivers shall only transport passengers on a prearranged basis. For TNC services, a ride is considered prearranged if the ride is solicited and accepted via a TNC digital platform before the ride commences. TNC drivers are strictly prohibited from accepting street hails. ï§ Provide template for monthly trip reporting/payments. Operational requirements ï§ Specify pick-up and drop-off locations: levels, doors, designated lots, inner/outer curbs, all dependent on airport configuration and management policies. ï§ Define routes to/from staging area to terminals. ï§ Identification: require display of trade dress, visible within 50 feet. ï§ Specify staging lot dwell time limit; duration may differ based on time-of-day or arriving flight schedules. ï§ Driver may not refuse trips unless unable to provide service due to travel party size. ï§ Drivers may not solicit rides. ï§ Driver may not turn off app while in staging lot. ï§ Staging lot to be used to serve on-airport trips only. ï§ Drivers to remain with vehicles when parked in the staging area. Penalties ï§ Notices sent to TNCs for payment, not to drivers.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-18 | Best Practices Driver information and fees ï§ Driver application and annual renewal fee. ï§ The make and model of the motor vehicle being driven. ï§ The license plate of the motor vehicle being driven. ï§ TNC drivers must possess a valid driverâs license and be at least 21 years of age. ï§ Certificates of insurance for the motor vehicle being driven (see insurance practice). ï§ Renewal process allows airport operator to update list of authorized drivers and confirm insurance compliance. ï§ Training: TNCs must establish a driver training program to ensure all drivers are familiar with airport rules and regulations. Driver background checks and enforcement ï§ TNCs must perform national criminal background check, including the national sex offender database on drivers utilizing their platform. ï§ TNCs to facilitate Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) checks. ï§ There should be a 7-year âlook backâ on reckless driving and for any convictions related to drugs or alcohol, fraud, sexual offenses, use of a motor vehicle to commit a felony, a crime involving property damage and/or theft, acts of violence, or acts of terror. ï§ Airport operators should perform spot checks in hold lots and staging areas to verify the TNC driver in the vehicle matches the company app and the vehicle registration. At one airport (BOS) a TNC driver was found to be using the company credentials issued to another person. The unauthorized driver had several outstanding warrants. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ Permit conditions should be aligned with the airport operatorâs sustainable commercial ground transportation program. ï§ Airport operators should monitor federal and state legislation related to background checks and should revise permit conditions to reflect national and state practice. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES The Contractorâs Final Report presents a comprehensive list of suggested TNC permit terms and requirements. Provide Framework for Pilot Programs 5.3.4 OBJECTIVES Ensure airport operators have sufficient flexibility to manage and approve pilot programs related to operations, emerging technology, and reporting. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE As technology and best practices continue to evolve, permits should be flexible enough to allow airport leadership to test new products, features, and operational configurations through pilot programs. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED At Portland International Airport (PDX), the PIN pilot required reconfiguration of pick-up areas and dispatching methodology. At multiple airports where rematch has been implemented, contracts allow for flexible TNC dispatching (not mandating that dispatches occur from a staging lot). RELEVANT AUDIENCES Senior staff, landside managers, and information technology staff. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS As permit renewals come due, consider incorporating specific language that allows for mutually agreed upon pilot programs. Consider the ability to repurpose infrastructure for new use cases as passenger and operational needs evolve. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Example language in TNC permit: âOperator may, from time to time, propose to [airport operator] the testing of new products or features designed to enhance TNC operations or customer service. Upon the [airport operator] express written approval, such testing may begin without requiring further modification to the underlying Agreement.â The duration of and measures for evaluating the pilot program should be specified in the airport operatorâs approval; the approval should also acknowledge the airport operatorâs authority to terminate the pilot program at any point.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-19 | Best Practices Establish Performance Indicators 5.3.5 OBJECTIVES Manage environmental impacts of TNCs, including deadhead trips, VMT, and GHG emissions. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE ï§ Establish performance indicators to manage/reduce the impact of TNCs on emissions, fuel consumption, and GHG. ï§ Permit operations that reduce deadhead trips (e.g., rematch). ï§ Establish fuel-efficiency requirements. ï§ Provide incentives for use of alternative fuel/electric vehicles. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED ï§ Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA): Environmental Key Performance Indicator (E-KPI) sets environmental fuel efficiency goal of 10.82 lbs. of CO2 per passenger trip which is based on the equivalent for taxis, which have a 45 MPG requirement. TNCs can accomplish the CO2 goal using high MPG vehicles, deadhead reduction and/or pooling of unrelated passenger and any combination of these three items. Rematch is permitted. ï§ PHX: 10 percent discount on trip fees for dedicated alternative fuel vehicles. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Guidebook for Quantifying Airport Ground Access Vehicle Activity for Emissions Modeling (ACRP Report 180 and Web-Only Document) Foster Collaboration between Airport Managers and Transportation Network Company Senior Staff 5.3.6 OBJECTIVES Develop effective working relationships between airport ground transportation staff and TNCs in order to discuss operations, proposed changes in pick- up/drop-off locations and procedures, enforcement issues, and hold lot activity. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE All airport operators interviewed for this ACRP research said senior landside managers meet on a regular basis with representatives from the TNCs. These meetings offer an opportunity to discuss proposed changes in procedures and curb assignments, to discuss upcoming capital projects and construction plans that may alter access patterns, and to identify emerging customer service or enforcement issues. Several landside managers mentioned walking terminal curbs with TNC representatives to observe operations and to discuss the rationale for the airportâs rules and regulations. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED Many airport operators are working collaboratively with TNCs to identify issues, evaluate solutions, and ensure effective implementation. Recent examples include Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW), PDX, and San Diego International Airport in the development of PIN programs. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ As necessary, create working groups to address emerging issues and topics: e.g., permitting, trip fees, routing to/from hold lots. ï§ Ensure there are multiple points of contact regarding airport staff and TNCs to address both high-level policy topics and day-to-day matters: e.g., driver conduct, customer service issues.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-20 | Best Practices 5.4 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY AND GROUND ACCESS MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS, AND ANALYSIS Curb Management 5.4.1 OBJECTIVES Reduce overall access road and curb congestion; make best use of available landside capacity. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE ï§ Flex between departures and arrivals levels to reallocate TNC activities to less congested locations. ï§ Consider the role of non-terminal locations (nearby garages and surface lots) for pick-up and drop-off; if garages are used, spaces should be designed to allow for pull-through rather than backing into travel aisles. ï§ Consider using (or establishing) intermodal centers for all commercial ground transportation operations. ï§ Analyze proposed changes with a microsimulation model, such as VISSIM, or with the spreadsheet tool developed for ACRP Report 40.1 ï§ Monitor mode market share every 6 months and adjust curb assignments (linear feet, location) commensurate with demand. ï§ Vehicles should display trade dress and any other airport commercial ground transportation tags. Drop-off and pick-up should only be in designated areas, and drivers must not block lanes, dwell for excessive time at the curb, or solicit for riders. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED ï§ The operators of BOS, DFW, Denver International Airport (DEN), SEA, and SFO have proactively and creatively reassigned pick-up and drop-off locations to make efficient use of available curbs and to designate âunderutilizedâ airport property, such as nearby garages and mini staging areas, for pick-up. ï§ New drop-off, pick-up location for Uber and Lyft at DEN; TNC passengers will now use Level 5 (commercial GT level), not Level 6; airport staff began researching options for pick-ups and drop-offs earlier this year and worked closely with the TNCs to make the change that are more streamlined. ï§ At MontrÃ©alâPierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport (YUL), clear striping indicates designated TNC zones. ï§ The sponsor of BNA created a TNC pick-up area on the ground floor of a new short-term parking garage. ï§ The operator of MSP is building a new âTransit Centerâ that will enable the following: ï§ Taxicabs and TNCs pick up in the same area. ï§ Relocate off-airport parking shuttles. ï§ Relocate limousine operations. ï§ Relocate courtesy and corporate shuttles. ï§ Relocate charter and employee buses. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Design landside infrastructure with flexibility in mind. Given that existing modes of ground transportation may gain or lose popularity, and new modes may materialize, infrastructure should be built and designed to accommodate a range of growth scenarios and mode shifts. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ï§ Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue (ACRP 03-47) ï§ Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations (ACRP 40)
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-21 | Best Practices Staging Areas/Hold Lots 5.4.2 OBJECTIVES Provide adequate capacity; set location in reasonable proximity to terminals; provide driver facilities. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Staging areas: location ï§ Recommended travel time from hold area to passenger pick-up location should not exceed 5 minutes; upper limit should not exceed 10 minutes at peak periods. ï§ Establish separate and clear ingress and egress lanes to prevent line cutting, unnecessary bottlenecks, and potential accidents. ï§ Avoid left turns out of the lot. ï§ Create lane space for merging vehiclesâsecondary lane space at the exit of the lot allows for ease of adding vehicles into the flow and prevents bottlenecks. ï§ Opt for traffic signal lights over stop signsâpeak-hour egress can be nonstop, so having a stop sign significantly delays the flow of traffic. Staging areas: adaptability ï§ Locate and design hold areas consistent with overall ground access plan. ï§ Plan for shared facilities. Staging areas: capacity (number of spaces) â Survey responses and interviews suggest the following ranges: ï§ Large hub: 250 to 300 ï§ Medium hub: 100 to 150 ï§ Small hub: 50 to 75 ï§ Consider splitting staging area into two separate smaller locations to improve passenger pick-up wait time and to reduce staging area congestion. Staging areas: design ï§ Access and egress should be adequate to prevent spillback of queued vehicles onto adjacent roads. ï§ Place delineators or bollards between ingress and egress lanes. ï§ Pavement marking and signs should be consistent with good traffic engineering practice. ï§ Mark pavement with inbound/outbound arrows on ingress and egress lanes. ï§ Exit lane signage should detail next move (e.g., âStraight Onlyâ). ï§ Exit lane signage should detail restricted moves (e.g., âNo Left Turnâ). ï§ Sanitary facilities, lighting, trash receptacles, video surveillance, and prayer areas should be provided: ï§ Multiple garbage cans should be distributed throughout the lot. ï§ Provide on-site/portable restrooms for drivers to use while waiting (recommendation is one restroom per every 20 lot spaces). ï§ Provide sufficient lighting for safety, security, and visibility. ï§ Visibly post TNC driver rules and instructions for operating on airport premises. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED The operator of BOS reconfigured a former limo lot for an initial TNC hold area; with the increase in demand for TNCs, taxis were relocated from the taxi pool and TNCs were moved into the larger lot vacated by taxis. Enhanced striping and delineation have been implemented at Chicago OâHare International Airport (ORD); the operator of ORD recently installed a traffic signal and has optimized the signal timings to improve hold lot access. Traffic flow and routing recommendations have been implemented at Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ) and SEA. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Keep staging lot design and location in mind when planning airport construction/renovation projects. Staging lots should be designed to accommodate a range of growth scenarios. New programs, such as rematch, may reduce demands on staging lot capacity. Efficient design and location also serve to reduce neighborhood impacts and improve the driver experience.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-22 | Best Practices Wayfinding 5.4.3 OBJECTIVES Provide arriving passengers with clear, simple, universal communication of pick-up locations: curb, level, door, or nearby lot or garage. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Many airport operators developed their own wayfinding symbols and terminology to direct TNC passengers to pick-up locations. This resulted in a variety of terms and icons designating TNC pick-up locations. The AAAE, in collaboration with TNCs, airport operators, and other industry stakeholders, led the effort to develop a common and easily recognized set of terms to provide a consistent experience for passengers wherever they land. It features consistent wording and imagery for signs directing passengers to TNCs. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED The AAAE symbols and nomenclature are in use at nine airports, including Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS), DEN, LAX, BNA, Orlando International Airport (MCO), DCA, SFO, and YYZ. D-FW is developing a holistic curb signage program. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Understanding that signage might have to be replaced in phases, airport operators should routinely include this wayfinding standard in planned updates/upgrades. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES âEstablishing a Common Standard for TNC Wayfinding at Airportsâ (AAAE, August 2018). The âRide App Pickupâ icon may be used in several different formats and versions. Vector EPS files are supplied on the AAAE website: AAAE.ORG/RIDEAPP Dallas Fort Worth International Airport AAAE COMMON STANDARD ICON SOURCE: D. Galloway, D-FW, August 7, 2019 SOURCE: AAAE, August 2018
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-23 | Best Practices Rematch 5.4.4 OBJECTIVES Reduce deadhead trips and emissions; reduce customer pick-up wait times. Can be an effective solution for airports with congested staging lots, since rematch reduces the number of drivers dispatched from the staging lots. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Rematch is a dispatch technology that allows a TNC vehicle to drop off a passenger and immediately become eligible to pick up a new passenger within a defined period of time. Feasibility of this practice depends on the specific airport roadway layout; the practice works best where drop-offs and pick-ups can occur on the same level or in a separate nearby area, such as a surface lot or garage. Some airport operators have established a rematch-specific entrance for a shorter loop that allows recirculation to all airport terminal roadways. Rematch has the potential to reduce: ï§ deadheading and congestion ï§ total vehicle miles driven per passenger ï§ vehicles in staging lot ï§ passenger wait times and cancellations EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED At airports where rematch has been implemented, passenger pick-up wait times have been reduced by over 30 percent. At SEA, Lyft achieved reductions in deadheading through the rematch program and received an Aviation Environmental Excellence Award from the Port of Seattle in 2018. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The rematch algorithm calculates the estimated travel time between a drop-off location and a pick-up location. The driver with the shortest route to the pick-up point will receive a request in lieu of a new driver being dispatched from the waiting lot. As long as roadways accurately appear in mapping software, rematch will dispatch an eligible driver with the quickest route to the pick-up point, even if that routing requires switching levels or making use of an airport return/U-turn roadway. SOURCE: Rematch graphic provided by Uber, August 12, 2019
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-24 | Best Practices Recurring Ground Access Surveys 5.4.5 OBJECTIVES Provide relevant airport staff with recent data on how people get to the airport. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE Survey of air passenger (and ideally employee) ground access behavior to provide: ï§ Mode share to/from the airport ï§ Input data from mode-choice modeling and simulation EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED At BOS, SFO, and DCA ground access surveys are periodically conducted to explore airport access patterns at those airports. RELEVANT AUDIENCES ï§ Ground Transportation ï§ Customer Experience LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ Recurring surveys allow airport operators to keep their analyses relevant to the rapidly changing ground transportation landscape. ï§ Primary data source for tracking current air passenger and employee airport access patterns, as well as changes and trends in those patterns. ï§ Provide data to support new ground access policies and operations in response to observed changes. ï§ Survey data can be used to develop ground access forecasting models or tools. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Guidebook for Conducting Airport User Surveys (ACRP Report 26) SOURCE: Screen shot, Ground Access Survey, Massport DEP Parking Freeze Study, October, 2018.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-25 | Best Practices Access Mode-Choice Modeling 5.4.6 OBJECTIVES Provide relevant airport staff with a framework to use ground access survey data for forecasting and planning. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE Probabilistic model that incorporates ground access survey trip data and data about level of service for each access mode to estimate how sensitive people are to changes in those levels of service. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED ï§ At BOS, a mode-choice model was used to support discussion around policy changes related to high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) use. ï§ At SFO and DCA mode-choice models were developed, as part of this ACRP, to explore potential revenue impacts of various hypothetical policy changes. RELEVANT AUDIENCES ï§ Ground Transportation ï§ Customer Experience LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ Allows airport operators to understand how customers and employees will change or maintain the way they get to the airport in a highly dynamic and fast-changing ground access system. ï§ Key input for ground access forecasting and, thus, for developing well-informed ground access policies. ï§ Access mode-choice models allow airport operators to examine a range of travel modes and policy considerations. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Excel simulator template provided as a separate deliverable (and includes model specifications); Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Models (ACRP Synthesis 5) SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, Airport Cooperative Research Program, Synthesis 5: Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Models, p. 17, April 14, 2008.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-26 | Best Practices 5.5 BUSINESS AND REVENUE ANALYSIS AND CAPITAL PROGRAMMING Establish Trip Fees for Sustainable Revenue that Are Aligned with Ground Access Policies 5.5.1 OBJECTIVES Set commercial ground transportation trip fees to support sustainable revenue for operating and capital expenses and in a consistent, transparent manner and apply them fairly and equitably across all commercial ground transportation operators. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE Airport operators have gradually increased per-trip fees for TNCs and have started to apply them not only to pick-up but also drop-off trips. This provides both (a) a replacement for revenue that might be lost from other GT modes and (b) revenue needed to fund operation and capital costs required to accommodate the rapid increase in TNC operations. Airports have longstanding fiscal policies and business practices underlying the establishment of ground transportation fees. At some airports, social equity considerations and living wage goals now complicate the development of fee structures. ï§ The required revenue should be allocated based on ground transportation mode share spread across the estimated number of trips. ï§ TNC revenue should be utilized to reinvest back into the passenger experience (such as wayfinding, pick-up area, and staging lot amenities). ï§ Benchmarking: Airport operators should regularly conduct studies on how other airports (direct peers as well as non-peer airports) set fees. Airport industry associations can assist by periodically surveying airports and publishing the results. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED ï§ PHX conducted a study of all commercial ground transportation to ensure fees are applied consistently across modes. ï§ BOS will undertake a 6-month review of fees charged to taxis and limos. Current fees were last updated in 2007. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ Existing modes of ground transportation may gain or lose popularity; airport operators should seek to diversify revenue streams across all modes of landside access, including commercial ground transportation, parking, and private vehicles. ï§ Airport access fee structures should be designed to meet airport revenue goals consistent with ground access policies: HOV mode share, congestion management, GHG emissions, and customer service.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-27 | Best Practices Current Schedule of Trip Fees at Selected Airports (as of August 12, 2019) AIRPORT TNC FEE NOTES BOS $3.25 (pick-up only) $3.00 pick-up: effective 10/1/2019 $3.00 drop off: effective 10/1/2019 ï§ State law allows airport to require Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) and sex offender checks. ï§ Fee will increase to $4.00/$4.00 July1,2020. ï§ 50% discount for shared ride. ï§ Pick-up/drop-off to be relocated to Central Garage 10/1/2019. ï§ Rematch to be permitted 10/1/2019. DEN $5.20 total ($2.60 pick-up and drop-off) ï§ Rematch is allowed; it reduces roadway traffic; reduces demand for space in hold lot; and improves customer service (shorter wait times). ï§ June 2019, DEN changed TNC operations by moving all pick-up and drop- off activity to its commercial vehicle level. This change was prompted by the growth of enplaning passengers and the growth of the TNCâs, which was creating a bottleneck on the Departures level. ï§ Collect both a drop-off and pick-up fee. ï§ Allow rematch. DFW $10.00 total ($5.00 pick-up and drop-off) $600.00 annual permit fee ï§ Major recent adjustment in curb management: only active loading/unloading allowed. ï§ $3.00 of trip fee paid by company; $2.00 by driver. ï§ Collect both a drop-off and pick-up fee. LAX $8.00 total ($4.00 pick-up and drop-off) $1,000.00 activation fee ï§ Rematch permitted. ï§ $200.00 per violation of rules and regulations. ï§ Collect both a drop-off and pick-up fee. ï§ Allow rematch. DCA and IAD (MWAA) $8.00 total ($4.00 pick-up and drop-off) $5,000.00 activation fee ï§ Applies to DCA and IAD. ï§ Permits were issued to TNCs (Uber and Lyft), not to individual TNC drivers. Failure to follow MWAA regulations can result in Notices of Violation, with fines up to $250.00 per occurrence, applied against the permit holders. ï§ Collect both a drop-off and pick-up fee. RNO $1.00 (pick-up only) ï§ Rematch allowed only if hold lot is empty. ï§ Use rematch to manage TNC supply. SEA $6.00 (pick-up only) Tiered activation fee: $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 ï§ Trip fee is set in an attempt to âlevel playing fieldâ with taxis. ï§ Environmental/fuel-efficiency goal ï§ Rematch permitted. ï§ TNCs have the option of paying a pick-up or drop-off fee (i.e., split the $6.00 into two $3.00 charges). All chose to pay the $6.00 fee. ï§ Set trip fee in context with other commercial ground access services. ï§ Allow rematch. ï§ Establish environmental/fuel-efficiency policy. SFO $4.50 ï§ Activation fee based on pre-permit trips. ï§ Transit First policy. ï§ As of June 5, 2019, pick-up/drop-off relocated to top level of the domestic hourly parking garage. During fiscal year 2019/20, the Airport Director or his designee is authorized to adjust Ground Transportation Access Fees from time to time, provided the total rate in effect for each mode is projected to recover allocable costs and does not exceed $9.00 per trip. SOURCES: Transportation Research Board, Airport Cooperative Research Program, ACRP 01-35, Airport Survey, June 2018; RSG, DATE; Airports Council InternationalâNorth America, Survey of Airport Trip Fees, August 2018; Airport Ground Transportation Association, 2018 Ground Transportation Vehicle Fees and Fares Survey, March 2018; Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June 2019.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-28 | Best Practices Monitor Revenue and Activity 5.5.2 OBJECTIVES Receive and compile TNC transaction and trip data of sufficient accuracy to support audits, monitor compliance with permits, establish baseline activity, and track trends. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE ï§ Implement geofence to track all entry, exit, pick-up, and drop-off activity on the airport. ï§ Trips are to be reported and payment remitted monthly; this should include date and time of entry into geofence. ï§ Company should establish electronic waybill system with trip details satisfactory to airport administration, finance, or audit departments. ï§ Require companies to make available for inspection complete records of all business transacted at the airport. ï§ Airport operator has the right to audit the TNCâs airport operations; inspect or audit books of account, statements, documents, records, returns, and files relating to business transacted at the airport. ï§ Monthly trip report and trip fees due by the 15th of the following month. ï§ Deposit increase, prepayment requirement, or termination may result in event of default. ï§ Enforcement and auditing: real-time vehicle activity to be visible to enforcement officers via an airport mobile app. ï§ Real-time data must corroborate self-reported trip fees. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED The Port of Seattleâs 2018 audit of TNCs can be accessed at: https://meetings.portseattle.org/portmeetings/attachments/2018/2018_03_19_SCM_9_TNC.pdf LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ Airport operators may require the TNC company, at its own expense, to provide a report prepared by a Certified Public Accountant on trip activity and fees paid.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-29 | Best Practices Forecasting: Develop Simulation Tools to Estimate Changes in Mode Share and Revenue Under Different Scenarios 5.5.3 OBJECTIVES Provide relevant airport staff with a tool to explore policy and service changes. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE Simulation tool that uses ground access survey data and ensuing ground access mode-choice models to estimate changes in mode share and, correspondingly, ground transportation revenues based on changes in policy or level of service. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED ï§ At BOS, a mode share simulator was used to support discussion around policy changes related to high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) use. ï§ At SFO and DCA mode share and revenue simulators were developed, as part of this ACRP, to explore potential revenue impacts of various hypothetical policy changes. RELEVANT AUDIENCES ï§ Ground Transportation ï§ Customer Experience LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ Allows airport operators to estimate the impacts of proposed policy and service changes on mode shares and, correspondingly, on ground transportation revenues and operations. ï§ Can be used to determine what changes are necessary to achieve airport operatorsâ ground access service, operations, and revenue objectives. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Excel simulation template provided as a separate deliverable. SOURCE: Screen shot, simulation template prepared for ACRP 01-35
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-30 | Best Practices Maintain Airport Credit Rating 5.5.4 OBJECTIVES Maintain credit ratings adequate to support bonded indebtedness required to replace infrastructure and expand facilities necessary to support passenger enplanements. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE This research project has not identified any significant negative impact on near-term ability to finance airport facilities. Airports have generated replacement ground transportation revenue sources, and airport operators have been generally successful in developing revenue necessary to support capital programs. There is a concern that TNC activity has or will result in a decrease in important nonairline revenue sources, such as parking and rental cars and, by extension, the total nonaeronautical revenue at airports. Any decrease in nonaeronautical revenue is a concern with respect to: (a) ability to fund ongoing airport operations; (b) requirements to increase airline rates and charges to replace nonairline revenue; and (c) stability of annual revenues to support repayment of debt used to fund airport capital programs. However, if TNCs provide an incremental and replacement source of revenue, from the per-trip fees that are assessed at most airports, then there is less of a concern in terms of overall airport finances. Bond rating agencies have recognized the uncertainties regarding changes in GT mode share and impacts on revenue, but at the same time they have noted airport sponsors have developed strategies to either enhance existing nonairline revenue or develop replacement revenue. Thus, the increasing use of TNCs has not yet emerged as a major credit risk according to the various bond rating reports. The rating agencies track the annual trends in airline and nonairline revenue, and there is a noticeable increase in attention to the impact of TNCs and changes in mode share and revenue generation at airports. Two key actions should be highlighted regarding airport actions to ensure adequate revenues: ï§ Creative GT Programs: Many airport operators have recognized the need to develop more creative GT programs to attract demand and revenue. Examples include online reservation systems, more user-friendly signage, space availability technology, variable pricing, and products at a range of price points. Ultimately, the product and pricing most preferred by the customer is likely to prevail, and airport operators will need to address this concept not as a protected monopoly, but as a competitor. ï§ Fees for TNCs: Airport operators have gradually increased per-trip fees for TNCs. This provides both (a) a replacement for revenue that might be lost from other GT modes and (b) revenue needed to fund operation and capital costs required to accommodate the rapid increase in TNC operations. LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS A key question to consider is: how does the rapid growth of TNC activity at airports change or affect the criteria used to evaluate airport debt? The answer would seem to be in the impact on airport revenues, as well as the resulting impact on an airportâs ability to generate sufficient debt service coverage. The impact of TNC activity is not a separate rating category for the rating agencies; rather, it is a consideration related to the more general analysis of airport revenues. As previously discussed, there have been concerns related to TNC impacts on airport revenues. However, the data do not show a significant decline in the broad category of GT revenue, and certainly not in any way that would jeopardize the ability of airports to generate sufficient debt service coverage. As a result, it is expected that bond rating agencies will continue to highlight these new trends but will also continue to offer favorable ratings to airports that show overall positive trends in market growth, revenue generation, and ability to service debt.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-31 | Best Practices Monitor Rental Car Transactions and Programs 5.5.5 OBJECTIVES Maintain current transaction data, identify financial trends, and remain current with company programs and initiatives. DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICE The FAA CATS database reports data for rental car revenue at US airports. This includes the concession revenue paid to airport operators, but not the CFC revenue paid by rental car companies to support the operation of rental car facilities and associated capital improvements. CFC revenue is dedicated to support the operation and development costs of rental car facilities, and, in most cases, it is not considered part of the general revenues collected by airports. For most airports, there are rental car agreements that provide for the payment of monthly concession revenues. The concession revenues are typically a combination of minimum annual guarantees (against a percentage of gross revenues earned from car rentals) plus space rentals (e.g., ready- return areas and counters). One-third of surveyed airport operators reported a decrease in rental car revenue. However, on balance, more airports continued to experience an increase in rental car revenue since the introduction of TNC operations. Airport operators should: ï§ Continue to review monthly transaction reports for trends. ï§ Meet regularly with rental car companies to understand current business practices and new programs: e.g., pick-ups and drop-offs at the curb for premier customers; companies entering into agreements with TNCs to rent cars to drivers. ï§ Monitor activities of peer-to-peer companies: e.g., Turo.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-32 | Best Practices 5.6 TECHNOLOGY Vehicle Identification, Management, and Tracking 5.6.1 OBJECTIVES ï§ Ensure compliance with regulations and auditing. ï§ Ensure equity across transportation modes. ï§ Preserve passenger choice. ï§ Identify operational changes to increase efficiency. ï§ Ensure tangential goals (e.g., congestion mitigation or GHG emission targets) are met. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE TNC vehicle identification and tracking, within the airport geofence, supports trend analysis, curbside enforcement, cost recovery, and financial auditing. A range of technologies are used depending on the need, including: ï§ AVI/RFID â used at over 30 US airports; nearly all those that charge per-trip fees ï§ beacons ï§ automatic LPR ï§ GPS ï§ Bluetooth ï§ ITM Management within the geofence area can be supported by using GIS-based mapping and video monitoring to supplement simulation models and to identify curb âhot spots.â Separate software/applications include:48 ï§ Separate software/applications include GateKeeperTNC-Opsâ¢ software and AAAE App-Based Transportation (ABT) Clearinghouse service. AAAE's ABT Clearinghouse operates as a service which utilizes geofence technology to receive data from TNC companies and tracks driver events such as entries and exits from the airport property, as well as pick-ups and drop-offs. The service includes monthly trip fee and data reconciliation, a mobile app for curbside enforcement and advocacy to the TNCs on behalf of airports who use the service. This may increase revenue and enforcement capability for airport operators. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED ï§ PHX is conducting a thorough study of all commercial ground transportation to ensure fees are applied consistently across modes. ï§ SFO developed the ABT Clearinghouse tool to increase revenue and improve enforcement capability. RELEVANT AUDIENCES ï§ Airport Executives ï§ Finance â revenue and auditing ï§ Landside Operations â curb management ï§ Planning â performance management goals LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ Since existing modes of ground transportation may gain or lose popularity, new modes may materialize, and parking may become less popular in some locations, airport operators should seek to diversify revenue streams across all modes of landside access, including commercial ground transportation and private vehicles. ï§ Imposing access fee structures that meet airport revenue goals but do not penalize any one particular provider in favor of another can broaden the revenue base and support equity across transportation modes. 48 SOURCES: TNC Operations Overview, GateKeeper Systems, Accessed June 2019; ABT Clearinghouse, AAAE, Accessed June 2019.
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-33 | Best Practices PIN Code Matching 5.6.2 OBJECTIVES ï§ Reduce customer confusion and wait time. ï§ Increase curb throughput by reducing dwell times. ï§ Reduce terminal congestion. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE Allows drivers and riders to match instantaneously at the curb based on riderâs in-app request. The steps for riders are the following: (1) the TNC app is opened to request a ride; (2) a 4-digit numerical PIN code is received through the app; (3) passengers are directed to wait in a pick-up line outside the terminalâmuch like taxi linesâand await a turn for a ride; (4) once at the front of the line, a code is shown to the next driver, who punches in the code linking the driver and rider in the TNCâs system; and (5) the ride proceeds as usual. ï§ Provide dedicated and separate curb space for each TNC company. ï§ Provide curb dwell space to ensure efficient passenger loading and to maintain maximum throughput. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED ï§ Lyft pick-ups at San Diego International Airport (SAN) Terminal 2 ï§ Lyft PIN program at Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW) ï§ Uber at Portland International Airport (PDX) RELEVANT AUDIENCES ï§ TNC drivers, riders, and companies ï§ Landside Operations LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS May require additional staffing to actively manage curb operations; separate curb designated for each TNC. SOURCE: Uber Blog; used by permission
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-34 | Best Practices Predispatch 5.6.3 OBJECTIVES ï§ Reduces TNC rider wait times. ï§ Reduces curbside crowding. ï§ Reduces TNC driver wait time in the hold lot. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE ï§ Predispatch is an algorithm that anticipates rider demand at airports and matches drivers to riders en route. This helps to lower the customer wait time. ï§ Drivers may receive a text message and an in-app notification to drive toward the terminal. If the driver does not receive the ride request en route, then the driver must drive back to the staging area and is placed at the front of the queue. ï§ The application would be most appropriate for when the hold lot is a substantial distance from the terminal. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED ï§ Uber and Lyft worked with SFO to refine dispatching procedures, 49 the first change being prematch or predispatch. This is intended to lower TNC passenger wait times. ï§ The Lyft platform uses predispatch at Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) and DCA.50 RELEVANT AUDIENCES ï§ TNC drivers and companies ï§ landside operations Push Data 5.6.4 OBJECTIVES Maximize the efficiency of TNC trips for both drivers and customers by allowing more trips per working period, decreased wait time for customers, and a quicker trip to the customerâs destination. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE Push data are information initiated by the server, not the client/user, to the TNC application. This includes information such as news updates, navigational routing based on current traffic conditions (e.g., avoiding accidents on a nearby freeway by using an alternative route), and mobility management system (MMS). EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED Used systemwide in the TNC application. RELEVANT AUDIENCES TNC drivers and companies LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Types of data are constantly evolving and should be frequently evaluated for their usefulness to the efficiency of airport TNC trips. 49 Transportation Network Companies at San Francisco International Airport, SFO, September 2017. 50 Washington D.C. airport information for drivers, Lyft, Accessed June 2019
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-35 | Best Practices Mobility as a Service (MaaS) 5.6.5 OBJECTIVES ï§ Personalize and optimize transportation routes with a variety of different vehicles. ï§ Provide variety of individual and societal benefits,51 including cost savings (reduced car ownership), convenience (less delays and time for other tasks), reduced congestion, and safety (motor vehicle accidents). ï§ Promote sustainable transportation by using environmentally friendly modes of transportation, including trains, buses, and bicycles. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE ï§ Consumers have increasingly embraced new mobility options, as demonstrated by the growing number of TNCs, carshare, bikeshare, and micromobility companies worldwide. The next step is bringing all these services together onto a common digital platform. ï§ As mobility as a service (MaaS) applications continue to develop, it is important that airport operators make investments in improving digital information sharing to present ground transportation options to passengers and, in turn, influence the use of different modes of access. ï§ Implementing MaaS through smartphone apps would support easier multimodal trips that easily could incorporate more than two modes of transportation, unlike the previous examples. In 2018, Bay Area Rapid Transit began a partnership with moovel to create a new smartphone app through which passengers in groups of two or more may purchase public transit tickets to either of the two area airports (SFO or Oakland International Airport [OAK]) at a 25 percent discount. While this system currently is limited to public transit options, the smartphone app could support purchasing tickets for other modes of transportation, becoming a true MaaS platform. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED Helsinki, Finland: the first all-inclusive MaaS solution, Whim, is commercially available on the market, and gives its users all city transport services in one step, with public transport, taxis, bikes, cars, and other options, all offered under a single subscription. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ï§ Streeting M., I. Kershaw, N. Santha, and A. Khanna. The Future of Airport Ground Access. L.E.K. Consulting, 2018. ï§ See Appendix A (Transportation Research Board, Mobility on Demand Initiative, 2018). ï§ https://whimapp.com/about-us/ Connected Vehicles 5.6.6 OBJECTIVES ï§ Inform drivers to use an alternative route due to congestion. ï§ Provide parking availability, reducing the need for advanced messaging. ï§ Allow the cell phone lot to be used more appropriately for just-in-time pick-ups. ï§ Improve safety. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE CV technology allows vehicles to communicate wirelessly with surrounding vehicles (referred to as vehicle-to-vehicle or V2V), infrastructure (vehicle-to-infrastructure or V2I), the cloud/network (vehicle-to-network or V2N), and pedestrians (vehicle-to-pedestrian or V2P), which are collectively referred to as vehicle-to-everything or V2X. Together, these components constitute a connected vehicle environment, which is a core attribute facilitating the development of connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs), intelligent transportation systems, and smart city initiatives. Adequate and secure high-speed/high-capacity communication infrastructure should be installed to prepare for connected vehicles. It may be timely to install conduits for electric vehicle charging and to provide increased power grid capacity. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED See autonomous vehicles slides for initial applications. RELEVANT AUDIENCES ï§ Landside Operations and Planning 51 National Express Transit, April 2019 (mobility as a service benefits).
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-36 | Best Practices Autonomous Vehicles 5.6.7 OBJECTIVES Many theoretical benefits attach to widespread implementation of AV technology. These may include: ï§ improved safety ï§ more free time for occupants ï§ increased mobility and access ï§ reduced emissions (associated with smoother acceleration and traffic signal coordination) ï§ greater opportunities for higher utilization of vehicles that could be shared DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND PRACTICE ï§ AV technology, sometimes referred to as self-driving vehicle technology, enables a vehicle to guide itself with little to no physical control or monitoring by a human operator. ï§ Current AV development is primarily driven by ride-hailing companies (e.g., Uber and Lyft), carshare companies (e.g., Zipcar), auto manufacturers and Tier 1 suppliers (e.g., GM, Tesla, BMW, Aptiv, Scania), tech companies (e.g., Waymo , Nvidia, Voyage, and Aptiv), and microtransit companies (e.g., Navya, May Mobility, MOIA). ï§ With the deployment of this technology, airports would likely experience an increase in demand for curbside access and a decrease in long-term parking demand. AV technology would facilitate the growth of ride-hailing services (which would not require parking), and personal AVs would drop off their owners on site and would return to the ownerâs residence or an inexpensive remote lot. EXAMPLES OF HOW IT HAS WORKED ï§ Waymo is offering commercial AV ride-hailing in an area of Phoenix and has recently committed to manufacturing AVs in Michigan. ï§ Several airports and cities have begun to test AVs for internal movement and for access between the airport and the city. Since 2011, Heathrow Airport in London has been running battery-powered âultra podsâ on what is in practice a fixed guideway between Terminal 5 and the Business Car Park. Each pod carries up to six passengers and offers on- demand service through touch screens at the three stations. The pods also monitor their own battery charge and remove themselves from service at opportune times for charging. From the perspectives of control and technology, this does not constitute much of a departure from âpeople moverâ systems in function, if not capacity. ï§ Phenix, M. âHands offs with Heathrowâs Autonomous Pod Cars.â BBC, November 13, 2014. ï§ In 2017, New Zealand began testing on-roadway AVs, operated by HMI Technologies and produced by the French company NAVYA, at the Christchurch Airport with the intention for these shuttles to carry up to 15 passengers, sitting and standing, between the terminal and parking lots. Hayward, M. âFirst New Zealand Autonomous Vehicle Demonstration Klicks Off at Christchurch Airport.â Stuff, January 26, 2017. ï§ In 2018, the operator of Brussels Airport finalized a contract to pilot AVs for internal circulation on airport roadways in mixed traffic, which would be the first application of AVs at an airport for this purpose. Testing is planned to start this year, and, if successful, these buses will be put into operation in 2021. Brussels Airport. âBrussels Airport and De Lijn Start Pilot Project with Self-Driving Bus.â April 20, 2018. SOURCE: Photo courtesy Austin-Bergstrom International Airport Parking, August 2, 2019. (Note the icon indicating an autonomous vehicle.)
ACRP 01-35: TNCS: IMPACTS TO AIRPORT REVENUES AND OPERATIONS AUGUST 19, 2019 FINAL DRAFT DELIVERABLE Reference Guide | 5-37 | Best Practices LONG-TERM PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ï§ Timing, adoption rate, and impact of AVs are subject to conjecture; proactively plan for the advent of AVs. ï§ Traffic study of AVs in a mixed environment: can they ever violate the rules of the road? What does it mean for an AV to drive safely? ï§ Infrastructure needs. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ï§ Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography for additional information: ï§ Arbib, J. and Seba, T., Rethinking Transportation 2020â2030, 2017. ï§ American Planning Association, Knowledgebase Collection: Autonomous Vehicles, 2018. ï§ Litman, T., Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning, 2018. ï§ The Economist, âAutonomous Vehicles: Reinventing Wheels,â 2018. ï§ ENO webinars on AV safety and technology ï§ https://www.enotrans.org/events/webinar-automated-vehicles-safety/ ï§ Mobileye (Intel)