National Academies Press: OpenBook

Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues (2021)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Current and Future Risks to Public Parking and Ground Transportation Revenues and Facilities
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26091.
×
Page 42

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.

20 Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs Together with Chapter 2, this chapter addresses the question, “What, methods are there to forecast future parking demands given the ongoing and future uncertainty regarding passenger propensity to park?” As described in Chapter 2, TNCs and other services have gradually increased their share of the airport ground access market. It also appears likely that at some airports, airport access mode shares may stabilize in the near term (i.e., 2020 through 2025) as each market matures and responds to TNC services and fares. There is also a chance, however, that TNC fares may evolve in response to changes in TNC business models and state regula- tions. In the long term (i.e., beyond 2025), however, airport parking and ground transportation facilities and revenues will likely be adversely impacted by another ongoing development: the introduction of AVs. Since the life expectancy of parking structures is 50 years or longer and such facilities are typically financed using 30-year general airport revenue bonds backed by concessions, parking fees, and other revenue sources, it is relevant to now consider how TNCs and AVs might impact the use of these facilities. This chapter presents strategies for estimating future public parking needs at airports. When estimating future public parking needs, it is necessary to forecast (a) the travel modes that will be available to airline passengers and (b) the percentage of passengers who will chose to travel in private vehicles parked at the airport (versus selecting one of the available alternative travel modes). An airport passenger’s decision to park at an airport versus using other available travel modes is influenced by numerous factors including (the differences in) travel costs and travel time, level of convenience, trip purpose, service reliability, service hours, and service frequency. While airport management can establish the cost of parking (or parking rates), on-airport travel time, and the level of convenience (or range of parking products), it has little to no ability to influence those aspects of trips offered by other existing or future modes. In general, the strategies discussed in this chapter focus on (a) developing near-term projec- tions (i.e., 0 to 5 years) where the factors impacting passenger mode choice are generally known and understood versus (b) longer-term projections (i.e., greater than 5 years) where the factors impacting passenger mode choice and the extent of their impacts are less certain. Two “disruptive” factors have and will significantly change historical or traditional airline passenger mode choice patterns and airport parking requirements in the near and long term: TNCs and AVs. This chapter focuses on strategies for estimating the potential impacts on parking of TNCs and the anticipated increasing share of AVs in the fleet. Transportation Network Companies. As described in Chapter 2, since their introduction at airports in 2012, an increasing proportion of airline passengers are selecting TNCs for airport access. While experiences have varied at individual airports, the growth in TNC activity has generally resulted in declining use (on a per-passenger basis) of every other airport access mode, including passenger use of private vehicles and the proportion C H A P T E R 3

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 21 of private vehicles parked at the airport. Several factors have contributed to the growth in TNC activity at airports but the primary factors appear to be the savings in cost and improved convenience when compared with the other transportation services, such as taxicabs, shared-ride vans, public transit, parking, and rental cars. Automated Vehicles. As described in Section 2.7, AVs have the potential to reduce parking demand at airports due to the following possibilities: – They will reduce the average household vehicle ownership (which may mean that an airport passenger is less likely to own a vehicle that will be parked at an airport for the duration of their trip). – After dropping off an airport passenger, an AV could be dispatched back to the owner’s home (if the AV is a personal AV), to another customer (if the AV is a shared or pay- per-use AV), or to another destination such as a low-cost or no-cost vehicle storage area. – Businesses offering shared AVs (either owned by the business or as part of a peer-to-peer arrangement) could provide service at a significantly lower cost than services requiring drivers, such as taxicabs, shared-ride vans, and traditional TNCs. Such commercial AV providers could offer lower fares attractive to passengers who might otherwise park at the airport. As described in Chapter 2, TNCs offer passengers an airport access option providing a comparable service to (or in many instances better than) taxicabs but at a lower cost. A commercial service provider using AVs could offer a similar service at a cost substantially less than the cost of a human-driven TNC. The methodology and strategies presented in this chapter focus on estimating total demand for public parking at an airport with the goal of determining whether an airport would have surplus parking capacity that could be repurposed for other uses. The results can also be used to estimate future potential parking revenue impacts and inform decisions on prices, products, and operating strategies that could offset such impacts on net parking revenues. 3.1 Methodology The methodology, in its simplest form, includes the following steps: 1) Assess Existing Conditions. Identify existing airline passenger levels and establish a “design” level demand to be used as the basis for future projections of public parking demands. 2) Analyze Recent Trends. Evaluate recent trends in passenger propensity to park versus use other travel modes. 3) Estimate Future Passenger Propensity to Park. Estimate potential impact (or likely reason- able ranges of impact) of TNCs and future disruptors (such as AVs) on passenger propensity to park versus use of other modes. 4) Prepare Parking Demand Estimates. Combine existing demands, passenger activity forecasts, and estimated passenger propensity to park (i.e., modal share) to estimate future parking demands. Among U.S. airports, parking data availability varies widely. Thus, the guidelines provided below are intentionally general and can be customized to an individual airport’s situation and need. Furthermore, it is recommended that estimates of future parking demands incorporate ranges that account for uncertainties within key assumptions. 3.2 Typical Data Used for Parking Demand Forecasts While the basic methodology may be the same, each airport may need to tailor its approach for estimating future parking demands to reflect the amount and types of data available. Data

22 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue that could potentially be used are summarized on Table 3-1, and the availability of these items will vary airport to airport. Subsequent sections of this chapter describe how a methodology could vary depending on the data available for a given airport. 3.3 Assess Existing Conditions The goal of the existing conditions assessment step is to understand the level of parking demand that should provide the basis for future planning. This level is often called the “design day.” As each airport experiences different usage patterns in their parking facilities, the choice of a design day reflects those unique patterns as well as airport management’s goals and objec- tives regarding the experiences of their parking customers. Typically, a design day is based on observed vehicle accumulations (or occupied spaces) in an airport’s public parking facilities. The design day accumulations, however, should also consider factors that may be artificially increas- ing or decreasing the peak accumulations during a day. 3.3.1 Design Day Selection Airport planners have several options available when selecting a design day to use as the basis for estimating existing and future parking demands. Traditionally, airport planners assess total parking demand or occupied spaces occurring on each day of a 12-month period and base the design day demand on one of the following: Historical public parking activity and facilities Monthly parking transactions, by product, and by length of stay Monthly parking revenues, by product, and by length of stay Daily peak period parking facility occupancy, by facility Existing parking inventory by type of products (and recent expansions/changes) Current quantity of spaces reserved for employees, tenants, or other non-public users Existing parking rates (and recent changes to these rates) Ground transportation activity data Monthly or annual trips, by ground transportation operator Fees paid by off-airport parking businesses Number of monthly or annual trips made by off-airport parking shuttles Passenger survey data Airport access mode used Parking location, if vehicle was parked Trip purpose (e.g., business or leisure) Place of residence (i.e., zip code) Travel duration (i.e., number of days away from home) For TNC customers, mode used prior to introduction of TNCs Passenger activity data Monthly enplanements and/or deplanements Monthly originating enplanements (i.e., non-transfer passengers) Monthly local enplanements (i.e., airline passengers who live in the airport’s catchment area) Regional transportation studies Forecasts of vehicle ownership trends for the region / airport catchment area Estimates of AV adoption rates in the region Source: InterVISTAS. Table 3-1. Potential data types, airport parking demand forecasts.

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 23 • Highest occupancy day of the year; • 30th highest occupancy day of the year; • 90th or 95th percentile of daily peak occupancies throughout the year; • Average (mean) or median daily peak occupancy during the airport’s peak month for passenger activity; and • Average (mean) daily peak occupancy for a consistently busy day (e.g., Wednesday) during the airport’s peak month for parking activity or demand (which may not be the same month as the airport’s peak month for passenger activity). This choice typically reflects the following factors: Customer experience. Does airport management wish to accommodate every customer in the customer’s preferred facility during the busiest day (or hours) of the year, or is it accept- able for customers to experience a few, several, or many days when spaces are unavailable in their preferred facility? This decision is influenced by the availability of alternate parking locations. For example, if a customer cannot find an empty space in their preferred facility during the busiest hours/days of the year will they: – Use spaces provided in a less convenient airport-operated facility or “overflow” lot (i.e., a lot only intended for use when demands exceed those of the primary facilities)? At some airports, overflow lots are only open during peak periods and, because they are lightly used, are not built to the same standards or operated in the same manner as the primary facilities. – Park at off-airport parking facilities? Will this impact an airport’s ability to retain market share? – Reserve (or book) a parking space in advance the next time they travel through the airport? (Chapter 7 discusses pre-booking of parking spaces.) – Observe parking guidance signs (or internet data) indicating the availability of spaces in each airport parking facility and choose a parking facility other than their preferred option? Financial feasibility. When sizing a new facility, especially a parking structure, it is generally considered to be a good practice to only accommodate the requirements occurring during the design day, rather than those occurring during the absolute peaks. That is, spaces that are rarely used will generate insufficient revenue to pay for themselves (i.e., the revenues will be less than the amortized costs of construction and maintenance). Risk tolerance. Given the uncertainty regarding how TNCs, AVs, and other factors may influence future public parking demand at airports, airport management may consider lower design day parking levels. This would reduce the risk of constructing facilities that in the future may not be needed but could also result in deteriorating customer service as drivers would increasingly find it difficult (and eventually, impossible) to locate an available parking space. Using data from a small-hub U.S. airport, Figure 3-1 presents an example of how that decision can influence the design day parking demand. Figure 3-1 shows the peak number of accumulated vehicles across all airport-owned parking products for each day in 2018, sorted highest to lowest. Also shown are the number of accumulated vehicles associated with each of the traditional design day options identified above. As shown, the absolute peak day value, 6,425 spaces, was approximately 1,000 spaces higher than the 90th percentile value, a difference of approximately 19%. If this airport’s management used the 90th percentile value as a basis for design, there would be insufficient capacity during 30 to 35 days of the year. Thus, the airport would need to provide alternate or temporary parking spaces on these days (or certain hours depending on the selected design day) or accept that some customers would be unable to park on the airport.

24 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue If airport management chose to use the average Wednesday in March as the design day, the design day demand would be approximately 7% below the absolute peak demand and be exceeded on fewer than 10 days of the year. However, this design day choice would require that the airport provide more than 10% more spaces (and incur higher capital and operating costs) than if management had based the design day demand on the 90th percentile value, recognizing that these additional spaces would be occupied very few days during the year. 3.3.2 Other Considerations As an airport planner analyzes existing parking activity data, such as parking occupancy, to identify the design day, they may need to consider factors that could be artificially increasing or decreasing current use of parking facilities. For example, if an airport operates a parking facility that is routinely full, it is likely that there are customers who are being forced to (a) use another airport-owned parking facility instead, (b) use an off-airport parking facility, or (c) use an alternative access mode. Customers choosing to park off-airport or use another access mode will not appear in the airport’s parking occupancy data and can be considered “latent demand” that could return to airport facilities if sufficient capacity was available. Thus, analyses to determine a design day should consider the potential level of existing latent demand and adjust the design day value accordingly. Other factors that should be considered during evaluation of the potential design day include: • Depending on the airport, busy months for airline passengers may not coincide with parking demand peaks; • Christmas and other holiday periods may generate high volumes of short-duration parkers, but few long-duration parkers; • Each of an airport’s parking facilities may be busiest during different days of the week and/or different times of the year; Source: InterVISTAS, from data provided by Gerald R. Ford International Airport. Figure 3-1. Peak 2018 daily parking accumulations, Gerald R. Ford International Airport.

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 25 • Introduction of new service provided by a low-cost air carrier may suddenly expand an airport’s catchment area, potentially increasing the share of passengers choosing to park (passengers driving to the airport from further away are more likely to be long-term parkers than passengers driving shorter distances); • Major out-of-town sporting events involving a local team that may cause local fans to travel; and • Changes in an airport’s mix of business versus leisure traffic and local versus visitor traffic (as an example, in 2014, Nashville International Airport’s traffic was approximately 60% local passengers or potential parking customers but by 2019, it was 60% visitors or not potential parking customers). 3.3.3 Off-Airport Parking As described in Section 2.6, many U.S. airports have nearby, privately-operated park- ing facilities that offer parking to airport passengers (typically at a lower cost than on-airport options). When determining the design day demand to be used as a basis for estimating future facility needs, airport planners should consider the number of occupied off-airport parking spaces during the airport’s parking design day. This off-airport demand can inform the design day in one or both of two ways: 1. Airport management’s desired market share. Once the number of occupied off-airport spaces is established, an airport planner can calculate the airport’s current market share. Airport managers can then determine if the same or different market share should be assumed when preparing estimates of future needs. Given that the on-airport parking prices typically set the price for parking in that airport’s market, the airport can use that leverage to increase or decrease its market share. 2. Risk of land use changes. Depending on land use development patterns near the airport, it is possible that an existing off-airport parking business could be converted to another use, requiring that the demand now served by the off-airport parking facility would be accom- modated at the airport or other location. 3.4 Analyze Recent Trends in Parking and Transportation Network Companies Once the design day for current parking demand is established, certain historical trends can be evaluated to inform future forecasts. Analyses of the trends or changes in (a) design day occupied parking spaces per originating passenger and (b) TNC trips per originating passenger can provide a potential basis for future projections of TNC activity and the asso- ciated impact on parking demand. As noted in Chapter 2, passenger propensity to park at U.S. airports has declined since 2012 with the introduction of TNCs. Over that same period, however, many airports have experienced significant growth in passengers such that despite reductions in parking demand on a per-passenger basis, the number of needed parking spaces has increased. Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 provide examples of how to determine this correlation using data from a medium-hub U.S. airport. Due to the airport’s rules regarding TNC data, the name of the airport cannot be published. Figure 3-2 depicts the airport’s peak month parking demands from 2014 through 2018. As shown, the design day parking demand increased from approximately 9,100 spaces in 2014 to approximately 11,000 spaces in 2018, an increase of approximately 12%. However, on a per-passenger basis (in this example, on a per-originating-enplanement basis), the design day

26 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue Source: InterVISTAS (airport not noted due to non-disclosure agreement). Figure 3-2. Historical parking demand, peak parking month, U.S. medium-hub airport. Source: InterVISTAS (airport not noted due to non-disclosure agreement). Figure 3-3. Historical TNC activity, peak parking month, U.S. medium-hub airport.

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 27 parking demand decreased by 19.7% over the same period. Figure 3-3 depicts monthly TNC trips (during the peak parking month) over the same period. As shown, TNC trips per passenger increased from approximately 0.01 trips per passenger to 0.15, an increase of 0.14 trips per passenger. Thus, for this airport, the correlation between TNC activity and change in parking demand can be calculated as –0.197 ÷ 0.14 = –1.41. In other words, for every 0.01 increase in TNC trips per passenger, the design day parking demand per passenger decreased by 0.0141, or 1.41%. With that relationship (developed using data for an individual airport), future design day parking demand per passenger can be calculated based on a forecast of how TNC trips per passenger will change. Examples of methods to estimate TNC trips per passenger are provided in subsequent sections of this chapter. 3.5 Estimate Future Propensity to Park This section presents three alternative methodologies for developing estimates of future passenger propensity to park considering the anticipated growth in the use of TNCs and AVs. Each methodology reflects a varying level of data availability recognizing that an airport may not have many of the items identified on Table 3-1. Methodologies presented include: • Professional judgment; • Use historical TNC growth patterns to project future trends; and • Use passenger survey data to inform estimates of future passenger propensity to park. 3.5.1 Professional Judgment This approach estimates future TNC activity at an airport based purely on professional judgment about the share of trips to and from the airport that will eventually be conducted using TNCs or other single-party AV-based travel options (such as subscription-based or peer-to-peer car rental services, or other modes that have not yet been developed). Based on an airport planner’s understanding of a particular airport and the associated region’s possible adoption rate for AVs, the future TNC trips per airline passenger can be estimated as follows: 1. For each planning horizon, estimate the share of trips conducted by TNCs and/or other single-party AV-based access options; 2. For each horizon year, calculate the corresponding reduction in design day parking spaces per passenger (using the ratio described in Section 3.4); and 3. Interpolate between historical and estimated future values. Figure 3-4 depicts such an approach for one specific airport using the historical data pre- sented on Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 as a basis. For purposes of this example, assume that the airport planner has determined that for this airport the ratio of TNC trips per monthly passenger (which was 0.15 in 2018) would be 0.25 by 2028 and 0.33 by 2038. Using the correlation factor described in Section 3.4 (parking spaces per passenger reduces 1.4% for every 0.01 increase in the ratio of TNC trips per monthly passenger), the 2028 parking spaces per passenger can be calculated as follows: 1. The 2028 value of TNC trips per passenger is 0.25, an increase of 0.10 from the 2018 value. The 2038 value of TNC trips per passenger is 0.33, an increase of 0.08 from the 2028 value. 2. The 0.10 increase in TNC trips per passenger from 2018 to 2028 suggests that over the same period, parking spaces per passenger will decrease by 14.1% (0.1 × –1.41% = –14.1%). The 0.08 increase from 2028 to 2038 suggests that over the same period, parking spaces per passenger will decrease by 11.3% (0.08 × –1.41% = –11.3%).

28 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue 3. A 14.1% reduction from the 2018 parking spaces per passenger value (0.0143) results in a 2028 parking spaces per passenger value of 0.0123 (0.0143 × [1 – 14.1%] = 0.0123). An 11.3% reduction from 2028 through 2038 results in a 2038 parking spaces per passenger value of 0.0109 (0.0123 × [1 – 11.3%] = 0.0109). 4. Values for intervening years can be interpolated to create the values shown on Figure 3-4. This is an illustrative example, and the assumptions and calculated values may not apply to other airports. 3.5.2 Forecast Based on Historical TNC Patterns This approach assumes an airport’s data is limited to historical parking accumulations and monthly TNC trip data, but that the historical trends can be used to estimate potential future changes in TNC use. The general methodology is as follows: Step 1: Calculate year-over-year growth in TNC trips per passenger on a monthly basis (i.e., growth from March 2015 to March 2016, growth from April 2015 to April 2016, and so on), ideally for several years. Step 2: Develop a mathematical model (using a curve fitting program or other method) that replicates the pattern resulting from Step 1. Step 3: Use the Step 2 mathematical model to estimate year-over-year TNC growth in the future. This assumes that the historical changes in year-over-year growth are a good indicator of future growth patterns. Step 4: Apply historical correlation of growth in TNC activity to reduction in parking activity (such as that described in Section 3.4). Using data from the same airport used to prepare Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3, Figure 3-5 presents the year-over-year growth, on a monthly basis, for March 2016 through October 2018. Using a curve fitting program, it was determined that the following rational model formula best fit the data. = + + + y a bx cx dx1 2 Source: InterVISTAS. Figure 3-4. Professional judgment approach—future TNC transactions and parking spaces per monthly originating enplanement. This formula and constants are specific to the airport and data used in the example. They should not be viewed as a general formula for application at other airports.

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 29 y = percent growth from same month, prior year x = month number, starting one year after first month of data (i.e., if data began on March 2015, then March 2016 would be month number 1) a = 1.68 b = 0.0514 c = –0.0826 d = 0.0160 The model was then used to estimate year-over-year growth rates through 2038, as shown on Figure 3-6. The year-over-year growth rates were then applied to the October 2018 TNC trips per passenger value to calculate the values for future Octobers. Using the ratio (described in Section 3.4) between increase in TNC trips per passenger and reduction in design month parking spaces per passenger, the future design day parking spaces can be calculated. The results for both future TNC trips per passenger and design month spaces per passenger are shown on Figure 3-7. Source: InterVISTAS (airport not noted due to non-disclosure agreement). Figure 3-5. Year-over-year growth in monthly TNC trips per originating enplanement. Source: InterVISTAS (airport not noted due to non-disclosure agreement). Figure 3-6. Forecast year-over-year growth in monthly TNC trips per originating enplanement.

30 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue 3.5.3 Forecast Approach Using Data from Passenger Survey The next approach uses passenger survey data to estimate how passengers, across an air- port’s entire catchment area, might trend toward use of TNCs and AVs in the future. While this method may still rely in part on professional judgment, passenger survey data can provide additional information to inform key elements of that judgment. In particular, use of the survey data can provide a refined view of how an airport’s passengers might change behavior due to the ongoing maturation of TNC services and the eventual introduction of AV-based services. A key element of TNC attractiveness is the relative cost compared with airport parking. Therefore, survey data that provides information on a passenger’s home location, trip duration (i.e., number of days away from home), and their airport access mode can help estimate the price-elasticity between parking and other services, such as TNCs. This relation- ship can then be used to estimate the maximum potential TNC usage based on the length of a passenger’s ground transportation trip to and from the airport. This method also examines TNC activity versus short-duration parking (i.e., drivers picking up or dropping off airline passengers) separately from TNC activity versus long-duration parking Source: InterVISTAS (airport not noted due to non-disclosure agreement). Figure 3-7. Estimated TNC trips per monthly originating enplanement and corresponding parking spaces per monthly originating enplanement.

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 31 (i.e., an airline passenger parking at the airport for the duration of their trip). As described below, while a passenger’s choice of TNCs versus either parking option includes cost as a key consideration, the decision of using a TNC versus short-duration parking includes several non-financial considerations that may not apply to long-duration parkers. As part of its periodic surveys of airline passengers, the staff of Dallas/Fort Worth Inter- national Airport collect passenger mode choice data and, for Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex residents, home zip code as well. An analysis of passengers using TNCs versus choosing to park at the airport can be prepared using this data, plus available parking accumu lation data. Based on data gathered from the 2018 passenger survey, Figure 3-8 depicts (a) zip codes that generated trips to the airport (grey areas indicate zip codes not represented by any passenger responses) and (b) each zip code’s share of surveyed passengers who indicated they used a TNC to travel to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Figure 3-8 also depicts the range of TNC fares associated with each zip code based on the TNC fare schedule in place in 2018. As shown, TNC trips to the airport were concentrated to the east of the airport, most TNC trips were from zip codes where the TNC one-way fare was less than $40, and almost no TNC trips were from zip codes where the TNC one-way fare exceeded $60. The same passenger survey also indicated the portion of passengers from each zip code who used short-duration parking (i.e., they were picked up or dropped off at the airport by a friend or relative) and long-duration parking (i.e., they parked their vehicles at the airport for the duration of their trip). Figure 3-9 shows the distribution of mode choice (isolating TNCs, short-duration parking, and long-duration parking) for four geographic zones concentric around Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (each zone represents 25% of the survey responses). As shown, as travel distances to the airport increased, fewer passengers chose TNCs and more chose to park. The methodology used in the approach is: 1. As in prior examples, determine the existing design day parking demand. 2. Based on each surveyed passenger’s zip code, estimate the one-way TNC fare. 3. Near-term forecast. Assume that for the next 5 to 10 years, TNCs will continue to mature and seek to increase market share, but that TNCs will have a different impact on the mode choice of customers now using short-duration parking versus those using long-duration parking. a. Short-duration parking. Isolate survey responses indicating customer use of either TNCs or short-duration parking; compare the proportion of customers now choosing TNCs rather than short-duration parking, by TNC fare; and estimate (1) how that pattern might change in the future and (2) the corresponding impact on passenger propensity to park for short durations. b. Long-duration parking. Isolate survey responses indicating use of either TNCs or long- duration parking; compare the proportion of customers now choosing TNCs rather than long-duration parking, by TNC fare; and estimate (1) how that pattern might change in the future and (2) the corresponding impact on passenger propensity to park for long durations. 4. Long-term forecast. Assume that beyond 10 years, passenger use of parking will increasingly reflect the availability and cost of TNCs and other single-party AV-based access services. a. Estimate AV adoption rate across region for a 10- and 20-year planning horizon. b. Estimate potential fare reductions resulting from the availability of TNCs/single-party AV-based services. c. Estimate the impact that these fare reductions will have on passenger use of parking at the airport.

Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Figure 3-8. TNC fares by zip code and TNC activity concentration.

Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Figure 3-9. Mode shares by passenger geographic quartile.

34 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue 3.5.3.1 Design Day Parking Demand For purposes of this example methodology, it is assumed that in 2018, design day parking demand at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport was approximately 2.0 spaces per 1,000 monthly origi- nating passengers during the peak month for parking. Of that, it is assumed that 0.2 spaces per 1,000 monthly originating passengers are associated with short-duration parking (stays of 4 hours or less) and 1.8 spaces per 1,000 monthly originating passengers are associated with long-duration parking (stays exceeding 4 hours). 3.5.3.2 Estimating TNC Fares As shown on Table 2-1, TNC fares typically reflect travel distance, travel time, service fees, and base fares. Fares for trips to or from an airport may also include an airport access fee, if charged by the airport operator. As of January 2020, TNC fare schedules (not including surge pricing) for major TNC companies are publicly available through the websites of individual TNC companies or through third-party websites (such as www.uberestimator.com and www. estimatefares.com) that provide TNC fare estimates and comparisons. For each zip code generating TNC trips to an airport, the TNC fare can be estimated from the associated travel distance and travel time to the airport, and publicly available TNC fare schedules. 3.5.3.3 Near-Term Estimate—TNC Use Versus Short-Duration Parking Short-duration parking demand is primarily created by drivers picking up or dropping off airline passengers. A passenger’s choice to get picked up or dropped off versus use a TNC reflects several factors, including TNC fare, short-duration parking fees (and space availability), the driver’s vehicle operating costs (e.g., fuel, tolls), and a driver’s willingness to spend the time driving to and from the airport (and their perception of the value of their time taken away from other activities). Additional non-financial factors are (a) the value the airline passenger places on the time they are able to spend with the driver, (b) driver desire to greet the passenger(s) as they exit the secure section of the airport, and (c) driver desire to provide assistance to passenger(s) who need it (e.g., families with small children, elderly travelers). Therefore, there will likely be a share of airline passengers that will choose to get picked up and/or dropped off regardless of the relative cost of a TNC versus short-duration parking. The methodology assumes that (a) there is a market segment composed of passengers using TNCs or parking for short durations, (b) this market segment represents a constant percentage of all originating passengers, and (c) the proportion of this segment choosing to park is solely dependent on the TNC one-way fare. At Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, combining the TNC fares associated with each zip code with survey responses, by zip code, revealed the share of passengers choosing TNCs versus short-duration parking. As shown in Figure 3-10, in 2018, for zip codes where a one-way TNC trip was under $20, TNC customers comprised approximately 40% of TNC and short- duration parking customers combined. This share increased to 50% for one-way TNC fares of $25, then reduced to 0% by the time one-way TNC fares reached $55. To estimate how this pattern might change in the future, professional judgment could be used to estimate the share that TNCs might comprise of the combined TNC and short-duration parking customer market segment by 2025. For Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, it was estimated that for one-way TNC fares of $25 or less, the TNC share of the TNC and short- duration parking customer market segments could increase to 70% while the maximum TNC one-way fare passengers would be willing to pay would remain approximately $55. These future estimates reflect judgments regarding changes in several factors potentially influencing passenger choice of TNCs versus short-duration parking, such as:

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 35 • Ongoing growth in the share of the public willing to consider TNCs; • Potential increases in traffic congestion on roadways near the airport, which could dis- proportionately increase the round-trip travel time between the airport and nearby destina- tions for short-duration parkers, which would increase the attractiveness of TNCs for those nearby destinations; and • A potential maximum TNC share, recognizing that the non-financial considerations related to short-duration parking will likely mean that a portion of customers will always choose short-duration parking regardless of their potential TNC fare. The resulting pattern is shown on Figure 3-10 as the “2025 estimate.” Table 3-2 summarizes the estimated reduction in passenger propensity to park for short durations by 2025. As shown, a shift toward TNCs would reduce the short-duration parking demand by 26.7%. As noted above, for purposes of this example, short-duration parking generated demand for 0.2 design day spaces per 1,000 originating passengers in 2018. There- fore, by 2025, short-duration parking is estimated to generate 0.15 design day spaces per 1,000 originating passengers. 3.5.3.4 Near-Term Estimate—TNC Use Versus Long-Duration Parking Long-duration parking demand is created by airline passengers parking at the airport for the duration of their trip. A passenger’s choice to park versus use a TNC reflects several factors: (a) the difference between the cost of using a TNC and parking for a long-duration; (b) vehicle ownership levels (i.e., is the passenger’s family inconvenienced if one of the family vehicles is parked at the airport for several days); and (c) several qualitative factors, such as the relative convenience of long-duration parking facilities (i.e., must the customer wait for and ride a shuttle bus), the number of persons in the travel party, and the amount of accompanying baggage. Similar to the methodology used to estimate TNCs versus short-duration parking, this methodology assumes that (a) there is a market segment composed of passengers using TNCs or parking for long durations, (b) this market segment represents a constant percentage of all originating passengers, and (c) the proportion of this segment choosing to park for long durations is solely dependent on the TNC one-way fare. Combining the TNC fares associated Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Figure 3-10. TNC versus short-duration parking activity, by TNC fare.

36 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue with each zip code with survey responses, by zip code, revealed the share of DFW passengers choosing TNCs versus long-duration parking. As shown in Figure 3-11, in 2018, for zip codes where a one-way TNC trip was under $10, TNC customers comprised approximately 80% of TNC and long-duration parking customers combined. This share steadily decreased such that by the time one-way TNC fares reached $55, TNCs comprised 0%. To estimate how this pattern might change in the future, professional judgment could be used to identify the maximum share that TNCs might comprise of the TNC and long-duration Survey responses Estimated 2025 pattern TNC fares TNC Short- duration parking Short- duration share Short- duration share Short- duration parking $10 to $15 20 36 64% 30% 17 $15 to $20 53 73 58% 30% 38 $20 to $25 41 69 63% 30% 33 $25 to $30 93 90 49% 30% 55 $30 to $35 71 105 60% 44% 78 $35 to $40 28 82 74% 65% 71 $40 to $45 11 44 80% 73% 40 $45 to $50 5 23 82% 75% 21 $50 to $55 2 17 90% 86% 17 $55 to $60 0 5 100% 100% 5 Over $60 0 92 100% 100% 92 Total 324 637 467 Percent change from survey -26.7% Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Table 3-2. Example estimated short-duration parking reduction. Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Figure 3-11. TNC versus long-duration parking, by TNC fare.

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 37 parking customer market segments by 2025. For Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, it was estimated that for one-way TNC fares of $10, the TNC share of TNC and short-duration parking customers could increase to as high as 99%. It was also determined that passengers within this market would be willing to pay one-way TNC fares approaching $60. This estimate reflected in survey results (shown on Figure 3-8) indicated that while the volume was extremely low (i.e., one or two survey responses), there were still some passengers willing to use TNCs at those higher fare levels. The resulting pattern is shown on Figure 3-11 as the “2025 estimate.” Table 3-3 summarizes the estimated reduction in passenger propensity to park for long durations by 2025. As shown, the shift toward TNCs would reduce long-duration parking demand by 27.9%. As noted above, for purposes of this example, long-duration parking gener- ated demand for 1.8 design day spaces per 1,000 originating passengers in 2018. There- fore, by 2025, long-duration parking is estimated to generate 1.30 design day spaces per 1,000 originating passengers. When the results of the analyses of TNCs versus short- and long-duration parking are combined, the 2025 design day parking spaces per 1,000 originating passengers is expected to be 1.45, a 27.5% reduction from the assumed 2018 value of 2.0. 3.5.3.5 Long-Term Estimate—TNC and AV Impact on Parking Demand As noted in Chapter 2, the introduction of AVs is expected to further reduce demand for airport parking. In addition to changing vehicle ownership patterns, the primary impacts of AVs on airport access are expected to further reduce the cost of on-demand service to/from the airport and to improve the availability of such service (e.g., to households that do not own a private vehicle or are unable to use their vehicle for airport access). The magnitude of this impact may be governed by two key factors: Regional coverage by AVs. Due to their expected higher price, TNCs and car rental companies—rather than private owners—are expected to be early adopters of AVs. It is Survey responses Estimated 2025 pattern TNC fares TNC Long- duration parking Long- duration share Long- duration share Long- duration parking $10 to $15 20 5 19% 1% 0 $15 to $20 53 30 36% 9% 8 $20 to $25 41 37 47% 19% 15 $25 to $30 93 72 44% 29% 48 $30 to $35 71 62 47% 39% 52 $35 to $40 28 58 68% 49% 42 $40 to $45 11 32 74% 59% 25 $45 to $50 5 12 71% 69% 12 $50 to $55 2 14 87% 79% 12 $55 to $60 0 5 100% 88% 4 Over $60 0 58 100% 100% 58 Total 324 384 277 Percent change from survey -27.9% Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Table 3-3. Example estimated long-duration parking reduction.

38 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue also likely that these adopters will choose to deploy the AVs in areas where they can maximize usage throughout the day. Thus, areas generating high volumes of trips by customers willing to pay for such services, such as central business districts or airports, will more likely be served by AVs than sparser areas. Cost. A key attraction for the commercial use of AVs is that they can reduce the cost of the trip for the customer. As of January 2020, estimates of such cost reductions are limited and subject to significant change as the understanding of the fixed and variable costs of AV operation evolves. Using the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport passenger survey data, one methodology to estimate the impact of AVs on airport parking is as follows: 1. Identify likely zip codes for initial AV deployment; 2. Estimate how the introduction of AVs will change the fares offered in portions of the region that are served by AVs; and 3. Use the historical relationship between the change in parking demand and the introduction of lower cost services, such as TNCs, as a basis for estimating how the lower fares will change passenger propensity to park. These steps are described as follows: Step 1. Current airport passenger use of TNCs can provide insight into where AV operators may choose to deploy their vehicles. For purposes of this example, it is assumed that areas in the Dallas/Fort Worth region with high concentrations of airport-related TNC trips will be attractive areas for AV deployment. Figure 3-12 depicts a limited number of zip codes with the highest concentrations of TNC trips to the airport; this could inform an estimate of how AV operators could deploy their fleet in a smaller region that promises higher vehicle utilization. As shown, for this example it is assumed that the region of initial AV deploy- ment comprises approximately 7.9% of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport’s 2018 parking transactions. Step 2. The next step is to estimate how AV deployment would reduce costs for airport trips in the areas where AVs are available. As noted in Chapter 2, the estimated fare of an AV TNC could be as much as 60% below the fare of a non-AV TNC. For purposes of this example, it is assumed that by 2028, AV trips to the airport would be 30% cheaper than non-AV TNCs, and by 2038, AV trips to the airport would be 60% cheaper than non-AV TNCs. It is also assumed that the presence of AVs in an area will likely reduce the costs of all trips provided by similar services (such as non- automated TNCs). Results of Steps 1 and 2 combined indicate that 5% of the airport’s parking customers could be exposed to AV services offering airport fare reductions of 30% by 2028 and of 60% by 2038. Step 3. The last step is to apply the airport’s historical relationship between parking activity and the fares offered by competing services. For purposes of this example, it is assumed that (a) the introduction of TNCs reduced the price of on-demand airport trips by approximately 20% and (b) the introduction of TNCs and several years of TNC market maturation reduced parking demand per passenger by approximately 30%. Applying that same relationship to the potential reduction in fares due to the presence of AV TNCs results in, for the areas served by TNC AVs, an estimated 45% reduction in parking demand by 2028 and a 90% reduction by 2038. As noted above, the near-term analysis estimated that by 2025, design day parking spaces per 1,000 originating passengers would reduce to 1.45. Based on their assumed initial deployment, To reduce the differential cost of AV trips versus airport parking, airports could consider implementing airport and/or curbside access fees. Such fees are discussed in Section 7.3 of this Guidebook.

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 39 AVs are expected to reduce fares in areas responsible for 7.9% of the parking demand. Thus, the AV-driven 30% reduction in fares by 2028 (which is assumed to result in a 45% reduction in parking demand) could reduce total parking demand per originating passenger by 3.6% (7.9% × –45% = –3.6%) when compared to 2025. By 2038, the 60% total reduction in fares (which results in a 90% reduction in parking demand) could reduce total parking demand per originating passenger by 7.1% (7.9% × –90% = –7.1%) when compared to 2025. Table 3-4 summarizes the forecast design day parking spaces per originating passenger using this approach. Source: InterVISTAS, from passenger survey data provided by Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Figure 3-12. Potential service areas for AVs, based on existing TNC trip concentrations. Spaces per 1,000 originating passengers Change from 2025 2018 2.00 2025 1.45 2028 1.39 - 3.6% 2038 1.35 - 7.1% Source: InterVISTAS. Table 3-4. Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport example: estimating parking demand per passenger using passenger survey data.

40 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue 3.6 Parking Demand Estimates Once the estimated future parking demand per passenger values are calculated, they can be combined with the passenger forecast to estimate the future parking demands. Figure 3-13 depicts a potential range applied to the TNC trips per passenger forecast presented in Figure 3-7. In this example, the fore- cast TNC trips were increased by 10% to create a high scenario and decreased by 10% to create a low scenario. Figure 3-14 depicts how the range shown on Figure 3-13 would create a range around the forecast of parking demand per passenger. Table 3-5 summarizes the resulting parking demand calculations using the range shown on Figure 3-14 (the forecast of passenger activity is for illustrative purposes). 3.7 Parking Demands Versus Parking Requirements Once the estimated future design day parking space demand is established, airport planners typically convert the space demand to a space requirement, which is the number of spaces that should actually be provided to accommodate the design day space demand. This conversion typically incorporates a “circulation allowance.” A circulation allowance is the number of spaces (often expressed as a percentage of the design day demand) added to the design day demand to improve the customer experience during the design day. In large parking facilities with high occupancy (e.g., over 90%), drivers find it increasingly difficult to locate available spaces. As a result, vehicles spend additional time circulating through the parking lot or garage, which has direct consequences on vehicle emissions, traffic congestion within the facility, and anxiety in passengers that they may miss their flight. Typically, airport planners apply a 10% circulation allowance to the design day demand to determine the actual number of spaces that are required to accommodate the The estimates of future demands should recognize that the future evolution of TNCs and introduction of AVs have many unknown elements. Therefore, airport planners should consider a reasonable range of likely scenarios encompassing a range of possible outcomes. The magnitude of the range can be based on professional judgment, sensitivity tests of key assumptions, such as the geographic area potentially included in the initial deployment of AVs providing TNC/car rental services, and other factors. Source: InterVISTAS (airport not noted due to non-disclosure agreement). Figure 3-13. Forecast TNC trips per originating enplanement, low and high range.

Estimating Future Parking Facility Needs 41 Source: InterVISTAS (airport not noted due to non-disclosure agreement). Figure 3-14. Forecast parking design day spaces per monthly originating enplanement. Table 3-5. Parking demand forecast calculation. Existing High TNC Impact Low TNC Impact 2018 2028 2038 2028 2038 Peak month originating enplanements 800,000 1,075,000 1,300,000 1,075,000 1,300,000 Design day parking spaces per originating enplanement 0.01433 0.01099 0.00963 0.01229 0.01117 Design day parking spaces 11,450 11,800 12,500 13,200 14,500 Source: InterVISTAS.

42 Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue design day demand. The circulation allowance can be reduced in a parking facility that has (or will have) an automatic parking guidance system (APGS), which, as described in Section 4.3, guides drivers to available spaces. By improving the drivers’ ability to quickly locate an avail- able parking space, the circulation allowance can be reduced. While developing a program for a new garage, airport planners may wish to evaluate the extent to which the cost of an APGS can reduce the number of spaces (and associated construction cost) in the structure. Such evaluation may also consider other potential APGS benefits, including an improved customer experience and reduced vehicle-miles-traveled.

Next: Chapter 4 - Adapting Parking Facilities for Other Vehicular Uses »
Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Ongoing and emerging shifts in customer ground access behavior, resulting from the growing use of transportation network companies (TNCs) and the eventual adoption of emerging technologies, are posing a significant challenge to the reliance of airports on parking revenue.

The TRB Airport Cooperative Research Program's ACRP Research Report 225: Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenues is a guidance document that identifies near-term and long-term solutions to help airports of all types and sizes repurpose, renovate, or redevelop their parking facilities to address the loss of revenue from airport parking and other ground transportation services.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

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

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!