straight to recording for all: challenges to implementing...

Straight to Recording for All:

Challenges to Implementing Successful Land Use Strategies at Airports

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

Challenges to Implementing Successful Land Use Strategies at Airports

Presentations by• Dr. Janet Bednarek, Professor, Department of History, University of

Dayton• Dr. Stephen Van Beek, Director & Head of North American Aviation,

Steer Davies Gleave• William Lebegern, P.E., Associate Vice President, Aviation Project

Director, Mid-Atlantic Division, HNTB Corporation

ACRP is an Industry-Driven Program

✈Managed by TRB and sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

✈ Seeks out the latest issues facing the airport industry.

✈ Conducts research to find solutions.

✈ Publishes and disseminates research results through free publications and webinars.

Five Ways to Get Involved!1. Join the ACRP

IdeaHub community

2. Volunteer for a project panel

3. Prepare a research proposal

4. Answer an ACRP survey

5. Apply the research results

Visit us online: www.trb.org/ACRP

http://www.trb.org/ACRP

Other Ways to Participate

ACRP PublicationsAvailable on this Topic

ACRP Report 27: Enhancing Airport Land Use CompatibilityVolume 1: Land Use Fundamentals and Implementation Resources, and Volume 2: Land Use Survey and Case Study Summaries

ACRP Report 113: Guidebook on General Aviation Facility Planning

ACRP Synthesis 9: Effects of Aircraft Noise: Research Update on Select Topics

ACRP Synthesis 14: Airport System Planning Practices. A Synthesis of Airport Practice

ACRP Synthesis 16: Compilation of Noise Programs in Areas Outside DNL 65.

Visit online: www.trb.org/ACRP

http://www.trb.org/ACRP

Additional presentations from this and other ACRP Insight

Events can be found on ACRP’s Web page

www.trb.org/ACRP/ACRP-Insight-Events

ACRP Insight Events

http://www.trb.org/ACRP/ACRP-Insight-Events.aspx

Airport Jurisdictional IssuesEverything has a History

Janet R. Bednarek, PhDUniversity of Dayton

Janet R. Bednarek, PhDUniversity of Dayton

• Professor of History, University of Dayton

• Author of America’s Airports: Airfield Development in the United States, 1918-1945 (2001) and Airports, Cities and the Jet Age: US Airports Since 1945 (2016)

Where in the World?

Atlanta, 1930s

Cleveland, 1930s

Chicago Midway, 1941

Douglas Plant/Orchard Field, 1940s

(Future Chicago O’Hare)

Wold-Chamberlain 1930s(Future Minneapolis-St Paul)

Mines Field, 1930(Future Los Angeles)

Los Angeles (LAX), 1930s

Miami 36th Street Airport, 1930s(Miami International)

• Early city planners (1920s-1930s) showed great interest in airports, particularly between 1927 and early 1930s

• Archibald Black published a series of articles in various journals, both aero and urban

• John Nolan (1928) published article with elaborate plan for airport area (included multi-modal transportation and housing) – could be seen as foreshadowing later aerotropolis ideas.

Context

• Zoning was a relatively new tool• Village of Euclid v. Ambler (1926)• Cities using new zoning power focused primarily on

urban and residential zoning• 1930s: Most cities de-funded city planning • Courts hostile to “airport zoning” – generally only

approved zoning dealing with height restrictions or other clear “hazards to aerial navigation”

Context

• Airport sites that had been in outlying areas in 1920s through 1940s became locations witnessing post-war suburbanization

• Lack of “airport” zoning led to residential construction in vicinity of airports (noise issue; Doolittle Commission)

• Airports, even when connected to city, often surrounded by multiple jurisdictions interested in population growth

Post-WWII Suburbanization

Chicago Metro

Minneapolis

Cleveland

Dallas-Fort Worth

Denver

• Even cities where the airports remained entirely within city boundaries – development (often residential) surrounded the airports in the 1950s and 1960s

Context

Phoenix

Los Angeles

• Airports are owned and managed by local governments

• Often subject to overlaying jurisdictions – city, county, state, public authority or special use districts (i.e. park districts)

Overlying Jurisdictions

Port Authority of New Yorkand New Jersey (PNYNJ)

• PNYNJ manages airports in the New York City region

• Airports under lease to PNYNJ

• Still local input of multiple jurisdictions

• Wold Chamberlain Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport owned and managed by metropolitan airport authority

• In 1960s, when debating closing existing airport in favor of new airport, discovered jurisdictional issue

• Heart of airport property originally park land and under Minnesota law must remain park land, limiting new uses of airport property

Minneapolis/St. Paul

Los Angeles Metro

• Los Angeles World Airports Owns LAX and Van Nuys, plus airport property in Palmdale (not shown)

• Multiple other airports under multiple jurisdictions often surrounded by multiple jurisdictions

• Kenton County, Kentucky, Airport Board owns and manages the airport

• Airport is located in Boone County, Kentucky –original airport enabling act allowed one county to own and manage an airport in another county

• Most of the noise issues involve western suburbs of Cincinnati

Greater Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport

Greater Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport

(CVG)

CVG

1954

2012

• Many airport owners and managers around the country found that the “best” way to manage land use around the airport was to own or otherwise control the land

• In many cases the airport owner/manager purchased property

• In others local economic development entities purchased property to develop “airport friendly” activities

• Karsner: Phoenix, Tampa, Detroit

Ultimate Solution?

Land Use Policy Considerations Challenges to Implementing Successful

Land Use Strategies at Airports

ACRP Insight Event: Webinar

Stephen D. Van Beek, Ph.D.

July 18, 2018

Land Use Policy Considerations11 April 2018 | 2

ACRP Insight Event: Land Use PolicyConsiderations

What needs and projects are driving changes in how airports are using land?What can airports, policymakers and regulators do to balance infrastructure?

• The Changing Aviation Business Requires a New Focus for Land Use

• Growth: where and what kind

• The Diversity of Airport Models: DEN, GSP, BOS

• Airport Finance: Infrastructure and PPPs

• Airport Ground Transportation:

• Congestion 2018-style

• Parking, rental cars and TNCs

• Future thoughts: APMs and CAVs

• Policy Reset? More Flexibility, New Funding, Commercial Considerations

• Airside focus

• Airport flexibility

• Commercial considerations

• Discussion

11 April 2018ACRP Insight Event: Land Use Policy Considerations 3

have more operations today than they did 10 years ago

Source: FAA Aerospace Forecast, 2015

11 April 2018 | 3


Airside “Growth”: Operations at 30 Core Airports (2014 versus 2005),Courtesy: FAA

Only SIX have more operations today than they did 10 years ago

FAA Update: Enplanements vs. ATC Ops(1999-2017) Enplanement growth hitting terminals and ground transportation

11 April 2018 | 4


Enplanements up 15.5%, Operations up 4.1%

Denver International and Land

AirsideNo issues

11 April 2018 | 5


Terminal30 new gates

Ground TransportationParking, rail, size

GSP: Small hub with big land issues

AirsideCargoApron

Terminal Redone,

room to grow

Ground TransportationNew parking capacity

BMW HQ

11 April 2018 | 6


Boston Logan and “Land”

AirfieldRON, movements

Terminalsmore gatesconnectivity

Ground Transportation Gateways, roadways,

and curbs

11 April 2018 | 7


Airport Finance: Challenges & IssuesToday

11 April 2018 | 8


• Top Airports: Gateway and large O&D airports share problems with terminal space (i.e., gates, size of holdrooms, space for concessions) and ground transportation (i.e., gateways, roadways, curbs).The days of “30 miles of runway” to relieve congestion mostly over.

• Costs: Passenger revenues come in linearly, costs come exponentially(e.g., constrained airport footprints). Balancing investment risk (spending toomuch) and service risk (poor customer service) getting even more challenging.

• Lack of Independent Funding Source: Lack of a PFC increase encouraging PPPs and/or long-term agreements with airlines. We need new strategies & models!

• Airside lands: Some airside current taxiways and runways, and land set set-asidefor future growth that either won’t materialize or may take years to be puton-line. Should airports put infrastructure to better use?

• Commercial vs. Public Use: New private equity players calling into question airport “over-built” infrastructure for users who don’t adequately contribute to the upkeep of the infrastructure and/or foreclose better use.Business models being stressed…

Airport Master Plans with Ground Transportation Strategies:“Rip ‘Em Up”

11 April 2018 | 10


• Ground transportation continues to change, today representing the most common, unmet congestion problem for many airports

• Roadways, transit and rail tracks/stations, rental car centers and parkingtake up huge amount of land—what of is really necessary going forward?Is this risk/reward what it used to be? What do we know and what don’t we know?

• Off-airport intermodal connections are highly regulated, if not overly regulated by U.S. DOT/FAA (there is “pending” guidance). There is also little ability to pay for ground transportation with anything but non-aeronautical revenues, or as wrapped into PPPs.

• “All you can eat” roadways and curbs by users (especially TNCs) and PUDOs, not possible. Solutions required (garage pickup, 2 seat rides required, fees).

• Connected Automated Vehicles offer new possibilities for on-airport movements—more flexible and scalable than traditional solutions (e.g.,APMs).

• Remote Terminals on and off airports may be required. Can we figure out how to bring passengers airside?

TNCs: Examples of Disruption to Airport Ground Transportation Planning

11 April 2018 |10


SFO BOSTNC Agreement Oct. 2014 Feb. 2017

Total Pax 55.8 million 38.4 million

Access Fee $3.80 pick upand drop off

$3.25 pick up

Peak Month 692k 543k

Mode Share 34% 25%

TNCs provide door-to-door service for passengers, creating a demand responsive, affordable way to access the airport. While positive for customer service, the addition in single passenger vehicles is stressing airportgateways, roadways and curbs.

Parking: Don’t give up on it yet!11 April 2018 |11


• Daily pricing part of a supply-centric era in which there was lower competition for the airport access market (e.g., no TNCs) and vehicle miles traveled was steadily increasing. Airports responded to the market by building additional lots to accommodate demand.

• Customer have more choices today and airports must provide ground transportation services and price access/parking in way to attract customers. Airports must also sort demand by day/time to improve utilization of their infrastructure in the shoulder and off-peak times.

• Daily prices of $35, for example, are only competitive for short-stay trips typically at peak (Tu-Th), while the price would normally uncompetitive for the shoulders (M/F) and especially for off-peak.

• Pricing by transaction looks at total revenue generated by the trip and discounts those times that are underutilized and, even at peak, if it results in incremental revenue for the airport (and additional market share). At airports with transaction pricing, average stays increase from 2-3 days to 4-5 days.

• The result is increased revenue and improved utilization, potentially obviatingthe need for additional capital expenditures and/or reducing the size of parking projects (especially if combined with new products such as long-term valet).

Discount Pricing Premise: Daily Rate vs. Utilization

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Su M T W Th

Daily Rate@ $35 @ $35

Foregone Revenue

Foregone Revenue

Revenue Maximized (Depending on elasticity)

F Sa

Business, paid by employer,competitive

11 April 2018 |12

ACRP Insight Event: Land Use PolicyConsiderationsLeisure, paid by customer, uncompetitive

Airport Policy Reset: Considerations for Policy Change

11 April 2018 |13


Airport Capacity: New Inclusive Balance of Airside, Terminal and Landside Needs

11 April 2018 |14


• Examine FAA eligibilities, funding and regulations. Future challenges are most likely to be with terminals and ground transportation. More flexibility for interim use (short-term and medium-use) of airport lands should be encouraged, not “walled off” or made practically impossible to do.

• Obtain airport industry consensus on future needs. Congress and FAA unlikely to move without clear airport (and aviation industry) guidance. Engage airlines on agreeable strategies.

• Consider new intermodal, multi-agency ground transportation policies and funding strategies. Airports’ customers must get to the airport, but much of our policy regimeis artificially constructed around the airport boundary.

• Use technology and consult with TSA about new ways of getting the airport. Direct airside access from off-airport? New terminals on airport linked by CAVs and/or APMs to the airside? Goal at many airports must be to reduce loading on gateways, roadways and curbs.

• New commercial players (e.g., equity and developers) have innovative and different perspectives. How can we tap into their knowledge to help solve problems and improve airport bottom lines?

ACRP Insight Event:Challenges to Implementing Successful Land Use Strategies at Airports

Elusive Perspectives – How Hard Can This Be?

William Lebegern, P.E.

Photography courtesy of HNTB Corporation

April 10, 2018

straight to recording for all: challenges to implementing...

Documents