Journal of the Transportation Research Board

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD

NO.

1703

Issues, Problems, and

Performance Measures in
Airports and Airspace
Aviation
Click on article title to reach abstract; abstracts link to full textclick on Full Text icon.

CONTENTS
Foreword

Use of Path Objects for Air Traffic Control

John N. Barrer

Aviation System Performance Measures for State Transportation Planning

Geoffrey D. Gosling
Discussion, Ian Humphreys and Graham Francis
Authors Closure

Assessing the Impact of Aviation System Performance by Using Airline Cost Functions
Mark Hansen, David Gillen, and Reza Djafarian-Tehrani

Traditional Airport Performance Indicators: A Critical Perspective

Ian Humphreys and Graham Francis

Social Costs of Aircraft Noise and Engine Emissions: Case Study of Amsterdams Schiphol Airport
Peter Morrell and Cherie H.-Y. Lu

Noise Contour Comparison of Stage 3 Hushkit Options for Boeing 727-200

W. Evert Meyer and William J. Willkie

Airport Automated People Mover Systems: Analysis with a Hybrid Computer Simulation Model
Yi-Dar Lin and Antonio A. Trani

Airport Infrastructure Management with Geographic Information Systems: State of the Art
Michael T. McNerney

Fatigue Cracking in Rigid Airfield Pavements at Large Commercial-Service Airports

Michael T. McNerney and B. Frank McCullough

Optimum Design and Operation of Airport Passenger Terminal Buildings

Mahmoud Saffarzadeh and John P. Braaksma

Use of Public Transportation by Airport Passengers

Peter B. Mandle, Douglas M. Mansel, and Matthew A. Coogan

Effects of Rail Stations at Airports in Europe

J.-P. Widmer and C. Hidber

Off-Airport Passenger Check-in Facilities at Satellite Terminals: A Review

Douglas M. Mansel and Peter B. Mandle

Premium Public Parking Services: A Way to Improve Parking Operations at Airports

Anna Fantoni, Douglas M. Mansel, and Peter B. Mandle

Transportation Research Record 1703

ISSN 0361-1981
ISBN 0-309-06684-0
Subscriber Category
V aviation
Printed in the United States of America
Sponsorship of Transportation Research Record 1703
GROUP 1TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION
Michael S. Bronzini, George Mason University (Chairman)
Transportation Forecasting, Data, and Economics Section
Gordon A. Shunk, Texas Transportation Institute (Chairman)
Committee on Social and Economic Factors of Transportation
William R. Black, Indiana University (Chairman), M. Lynn Bortel, Jesse L. Buffington, Roslyn Carter Phillips, Burton
Clifton, Robert S. DeSanto, Arno Hart, Thomas N. Harvey, Lori G. Kennedy, Brian T. Ketcham, Brenda C. Kragh,
Thomas R. Leinbach, Todd Litman, Shirley M. Loveless, Alan Lubliner, Arthur Christian Nelson, Amy A. OLeary,
Michael L. Patten, Victoria A. Perk, Kathleen H. Quinn, Barbara C. Richardson, Marilyn Skolnick, Katie N. Womack
Environmental Concerns Section
Thomas L. Weck, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. (Chairman)
Committee on Transportation-Related Noise and Vibration
Gregg G. Fleming, U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center (Chairman), Cary B. Adkins, Jr., Robert E. Armstrong,
Domenick J. Billera, David E. Coate, Rudolf W. Hendriks, Lloyd A. Herman, John R. Jaeckel, Betty Ann Kane, Walter F.
King III, Parviz A. Koushki, Winfield M. Lindeman, Christopher W. Menge, James T. Nelson, Soren Pedersen, Neal H.
Phillips, Kenneth D. Polcak, Panos D. Prevedouros, Ulf Sandberg, James L. Sowell, Michael A. Staiano, David R. Still,
Eric Stusnick, Jay Waldschmidt, Roger L. Wayson, Thomas F. Wholley, Steven Wolf

Aviation Section
John W. Fischer, Library of Congress (Chairman)
Committee on Aviation Economics and Forecasting
Vicki L. Golich, California State UniversitySan Marcos (Chairman), Gerald W. Bernstein, Charles R. Chambers, Jr.,
Augusto DallOrto F., Jaap G. De Wit, Martin Dresner, Louis P. Gialloreto, Richard S. Golaszewski, Kazuhiro Ohta,
Alastair T. Pugh, Michael W. Pustay, David E. Raphael, Charles Saunders, Joseph P. Schwieterman
Committee on Airport Terminals and Ground Access
Jody Yamanaka Clovis, Port of Seattle (Chairman), Zale Anis, Claire Barrett, Winfield S. Beyea, George W. Blomme, Paul J.
DeMeo, Belinda G. Hargrove, M. Allen Hoffman, Laurence J. Kiernan, Andrew C. Lemer, Richard F. Marchi, John S.
Miller, Panos D. Prevedouros, Diane M. Ricard, Phillip S. Shapiro, William J. Sproule, Jan Titus, Douglas W. Wiersig,
Seth B. Young
Committee on Airfield and Airspace Capacity and Delay
Saleh Mumayiz, MITRE-Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (Chairman), Dayl Cohen, Herbert B. Armstrong,
Jan M. Brecht-Clark, James M. Crites, Rand Decker, Donald J. Guffey, Andrew L. Haines, Belinda G. Hargrove, M. Ashraf
Jan, Margaret T. Jenny, Adib Kanafani, Peter F. Kostiuk, Tung X. Le, Nathalie Martel, Michael T. McNerney, Daniel Ira
Newman, Ben Pourbabai, Robert A. Samis, Paul M. Schonfeld, K. Romi Singh, Vojin Tosic, F. Andrew Wolfe, Thomas J.
Yager, Alan Yazdani, Steven Zaidman
Committee on Aircraft/Airport Compatibility
Michael T. McNerney, University of Texas at Austin (Chairman), Clifford R. Bragdon, Jan M. Brecht-Clark, E. Fenton Carey,
Jr., Bill Dunn, William A. Fife, David Gillen, Elmer H. Haupt, Steven W. Johnson, Don Minnis, L. William Motzel, Daniel
Ira Newman, Payam Rowhani, Waheed Uddin, James R. White, Norman D. Witteveen, Thomas J. Yager
Committee on Aviation System Planning
Geoffrey David Gosling, University of CaliforniaBerkeley (Chairman), Stephen B. Kiehl, Ted I. Alman, Nancy Benjamin,
George W. Blomme, Margaret Broten, Robert E. Caves, Richard E. Corbett, Richard De Neufville, George B. Dresser,
Igor Frolow, Donald J. Guffey, Mark J. Holzer, Linda K. Howard, William Keller, Flavio Leo, Richard F. Marchi, Lloyd A.
McCoomb, Keith F. McCrea, Roger P. Moog, David Rubin, Robert W. Yatzeck
Task Force on Environmental Impacts of Aviation
Daniel Tompkins Wormhoudt, Environmental Science Associates (Chairman), Peter J. Gray-Mullen, Richard D. Alberts,
George W. Blomme, Karleen Ann Boyle, Jim Buntin, Richard Burke, Christopher D. Grant, John A. Lengel, Jr., Dennis W.
Mewshaw, Lynne Sparks Pickard, Burr Stewart, Steve L. Stretchberry, Bonnie A. Wilson
GROUP 5INTERGROUP RESOURCES AND ISSUES
Kumares C. Sinha, Purdue University (Chairman)
Committee on Spatial Data and Information Science
David R. Fletcher, Geographic Paradigm Computing (Co-Chairman), Kathleen L. Hancock, University of Massachusetts
Amherst (Co-Chairman), Reginald R. Souleyrette, Iowa State University (Secretary), Mark Bradford, Gil Chesbro,
Ron Cihon, Cecil W. H. Goodwin, Edward F. Granzow, Paul T. Hamilton, Elizabeth A. Harper, Bobby R. Harris,
Charles Hickman, Wendy Klancher, Stephen C. Laffey, David Loukes, Shashi Sathisan Nambisan, Karl I. Olmstead,
Zhong-Ren Peng, Wayne A. Sarasua, Phillip J. Shinbein, Bruce D. Spear, Eric Thor Straten, James R. Tucker, A. Keith
Turner, Alan P. Vonderohe
Transportation Research Board Staff
Joseph A. Breen, Aviation Specialist
Nancy Doten, Administrative Assistant
Richard F. Pain, Transportation Safety Coordinator
Robert Hilterbrand, Administrative Assistant
Sponsorship is indicated by a footnote at the end of each paper. The organizational units, officers, and members are as of
December 31, 1999.

FOREWORD
The papers contained in this volume were among those presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board in January 2000. Nearly 1,600 papers were submitted by authors; more than 1,000 were presented at the meeting; and
approximately 600 were accepted for publication in the 2000 Transportation Research Record series. The published papers will
also be issued on CD-ROM, which will be available for purchase in late 2000. It should be noted that the preprint CD-ROM distributed at the 2000 meeting contains unedited, draft versions of presented papers, whereas the papers published in the 2000
Records include author revisions made in response to review comments.
Starting with the 1999 volumes, the title of the Record series has included Journal of the Transportation Research Board to
reflect more accurately the nature of this publication series and the peer-review process conducted in the acceptance of papers for
publication. Each paper published in this volume was peer reviewed by the sponsoring committee acknowledged at the end of the
text; members of the sponsoring committees for the papers in this volume are identified on page ii. Additional information about
the Transportation Research Record series and the peer-review process can be found on the inside front cover. The Transportation
Research Board appreciates the interest shown by authors in offering their papers and looks forward to future submissions.

Use of Path Objects for Air Traffic Control

John N. Barrer
The MITRE Corporation, 1820 Dolley Madison Boulevard, MailStop W370, McLean, VA 22102-7492.

FULL
TEXT

A path object is a set of instructions plus the values of associated parameters that would be used by an
aircrafts flight management system (FMS) or area navigation (RNAV) computer to construct a flight
trajectory on the basis of the values of the parameters provided by the pilot or air traffic control (ATC)
system. The concept of path objects and its applicability for development of FMS- or RNAV-based
flight paths for aircraft routes are described. The use of path objects requires only a small number of
parameters for specification of an RNAV route, and the computer then calculates the resulting flight path.
Because most RNAV routes are just variations of the same basic shapes, many RNAV routes can be
generated from a single path object by changing just one or two parameters. This offers the capability
to reduce the size of the navigation database by a significant amount. This also allows the dynamic
alteration of three-dimensional FMS-RNAV routes instead of radar vectoring, which represents
a significant improvement in ATC procedures. Because of the compact expressions for the path
objects, these procedures could be used in a voice communications environment as well as a data link
environment. A path object can be thought of as a high-level language with which aircraft and ATC
systems communicate flight path intentions. The concept of FMS- or RNAV-stored path objects is a
change in thinking about the role of avionics technology. It offers a means of including the precision of
the FMS-RNAV technology in the ATC system during the transition from todays system to the futures
fully automated control system. This is an enabling technology that improves the ability to use and
maintain FMS-RNAV in its role as a vital component of the ATC system. It has the potential to enhance
future air traffic management-communication navigation surveillance concepts and applications.

Aviation System Performance Measures for

State Transportation Planning
Geoffrey D. Gosling
Institute of Transportation Studies, 109 McLaughlin Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1720.

FULL
TEXT

A proposed set of aviation system performance measures that have been defined to support multimodal
transportation planning in California is presented. As part of the 1998 update of the California
Transportation Plan (CTP), the California Department of Transportation has defined a framework of
system performance measures that could be applied on a multimodal basis to assess the performance
of the transportation system, support informed decision making, and establish a coordinated and
consistent process for performance measurement throughout the state. The research that is described
examined approaches to measuring the performance of the aviation system that have been adopted at
a national level and in other states, as well as general principles for measurement of transportation
system performance that emerged from a conference held in 1997 as part of the CTP update process.
The range of considerations that arise in measuring the performance of the aviation system is discussed,
and potential performance measures that have been proposed to address the requirements of the
CTP framework are identified. Finally, issues that will need to be addressed in implementing any
comprehensive set of performance measures for the aviation component of the transportation system
are discussed.

Assessing the Impact of Aviation System

Performance by Using Airline
Cost Functions
Mark Hansen, David Gillen, and Reza Djafarian-Tehrani
M. Hansen and R. Djafarian-Tehrani, 107B McLaughlin Hall, and D. Gillen, 115 McLaughlin Hall, Institute of Transportation
Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.

FULL
TEXT

The manner in which changes in the performance of the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) affect
carrier costs is examined. The methodology includes estimation of airline cost functions that contain
NAS performance metrics as arguments, using quarterly data for 10 U.S. domestic airlines. The
primary interest is in the impact of delay on cost performance, and performance metrics that vary by
airline and quarter are developed. The potentially large number of metrics are reduced by applying
factor analysis to seven underlying variables, including average delay, delay variance, and the
proportion of flights that are cancelled. The analysis reveals that variations in the seven variables
can be adequately captured by three or fewer factors. The three factors used correspond to delay,
variability, and disruption, the last two of which are merged into a single irregularity factor in
the two-factor model. When used as arguments in an airline cost function, the disruption factor is
found to be a significant contributor to airline costs in the three-factor model, as is the irregularity
factor in the two-factor model. No significant effect is found for the delay factor in the multifactor
models. These results challenge the prevailing assumption that delay reduction is the most important
benefit from investments in NAS capital and operations rules. The carrier cost savings that would result
from improved NAS performance levels are estimated, and these are compared with previously
published estimates.

Traditional Airport Performance Indicators

A Critical Perspective
Ian Humphreys and Graham Francis
I. Humphreys, Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough,
Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, United Kingdom. G. Francis, The Open University Business School, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes,
MK7 6AA, United Kingdom.

FULL
TEXT

Airport managers require effective performance measures to enable them to plan and manage within the
context of rapid passenger growth and the trend toward an expansion of commercial activities. Airport
performance measurement in various ownership patterns from Europe and the United States is
reviewed, bringing together a rich picture of different practices. The need to be aware of contingent
circumstances to evaluate airport performance objectively is emphasized. Many measures currently in
use are output variables and are usually quantitative and based on what is easy to measure instead of
what is important to measure. The problems of discrepancies in the definition of key variables and of
attempts to achieve direct comparability between airports are examined. Consideration is given to the
dysfunctional effects of measurement systems and how they can be adapted to encourage innovation and
organizational learning through such techniques as best-practice benchmarking. Airport planners,
managers, and academics who have an interest in performance measurement and who wish to question
the role of traditional measures will be interested in the discussion. Lessons from European experience
in a postprivatization environment are considered. The research recommends the adoption of a
performance measurement system for airports that examines processes as well as results and that
considers antecedent variables as well as outcome variables. The conclusions indicate how airport
planners and managers can gain new insight into the underlying processes behind quantitative indicators
and how an understanding of these processes can stimulate organizational learning and innovation.

Social Costs of Aircraft Noise and

Engine Emissions
Case Study of Amsterdams Schiphol Airport
Peter Morrell and Cherie H.-Y. Lu
Air Transport Group, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United Kingdom.

FULL
TEXT

With the increasing trend of charging for externalities and the aim of encouraging the sustainable
development of the air transport industry, there is a need to evaluate the real social costs of the
undesirable side effects of aircraft noise and engine emissions. The mathematical models, based on
extensive literature reviews of existing externality measurements, are developed to derive the social
costs of noise and engine emissions from aircraft movements in monetary terms by using Amsterdams
Schiphol Airport as a case study. Furthermore, the results of a survey on the current noise and engine
emissions charges are briefly described and compared. The hedonic price method is applied to calculate
the annual social cost of aircraft noise during the landing and takeoff stages of the flight. In contrast, the
direct evaluation method is applied to estimate the social cost of each engine exhaust pollutant during
different flight modes. The empirical results have shown that the average social cost of noise per aircraft
landing at Amsterdams Schiphol Airport is similar to that of emissions, assuming a 30-min cruise time
to landing or after takeoff. However, the uncertainty in the estimation of social costs for emissions is
higher than that for noise, mainly because of the unknown effects of the exhaust pollutants on the upper
atmosphere and on the climate.

Noise Contour Comparison of Stage 3

Hushkit Options for Boeing 727-200
W. Evert Meyer and William J. Willkie
Leigh Fisher Associates, P.O. Box 8007, San Francisco, CA 94128-8007.

FULL
TEXT

Because of the hushkitting of older Stage 2 aircraft such as the Boeing 727 to meet Part 36 Stage 3
requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), up to 1,000 older and noisier aircraft may still be
flying in the United States after December 31, 1999. Many noise studies with FAAs Integrated Noise
Model (INM) have predicted a significant decrease in the noise contours after this date, anticipating
replacement of most Stage 2 aircraft with modern Stage 3 aircraft, such as Boeing 737-700 series,
Boeing 757-200, and Airbus A320 series aircraft. The INM noise footprints of a Boeing 727-200 with
the Federal Express Aviation Services Inc. (FedEx) and Raisbeck Stage 3 hushkit treatments were
compared with that of an unmodified Boeing 727-200 as well as that of a Boeing 757-200, which is
representative of a true new-technology Stage 3 aircraft. Although the FedEx and Raisbeck Stage 3 kits
are extremely cost-effective solutions for achievement of Stage 3 compliance under FAR Part 36, the
real benefits to the community are somewhat limited compared with those from an aircraft designed
from the outset as a Stage 3 aircraft.

Airport Automated People Mover Systems

Analysis with a Hybrid Computer Simulation Model
Yi-Dar Lin and Antonio A. Trani
Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061.

FULL
TEXT

Automated people movers (APMs) have become an attractive solution to mobility problems associated
with large airport terminals. A hybrid computer simulation model (called APMSIM) that has been
developed to simplify the operational analysis of airport APM systems is presented. Given an airport
passenger demand function, along with various APM vehicle technology and airport terminal
characteristics, the model estimates time-varying level-of-service characteristics of the terminal
including queues and processing times. The model simulates the movement of individual passengers
and APM vehicles in the system network. APMSIM constitutes a design tool for airport planners and
designers for determination of the sensitivity of system performance for a range of APM design
parameters, examination of the flexibility of an APM system under given operational policy and
network configurations, and estimation of APM vehicle energy consumption on the basis of network
constraints and system characteristics. The model is a hybrid discrete-event and continuous simulation
model developed in EXTEND, a general-purpose simulation software.

Airport Infrastructure Management with

Geographic Information Systems
State of the Art
Michael T. McNerney
Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 3208 Red River Street, Suite 200,
Austin, TX 78705-2650.

FULL
TEXT

The widespread application of geographic information systems (GISs) at airports is detailed through
surveys of U.S. airports. A recent survey conducted through the Airport GIS Committee of the
American Association of Airport Executives indicated that more than 60 percent of airports use GISs
or plan to use GISs within the next 3 years. The application of GISs for infrastructure management,
environmental analysis, and airport operations is becoming commonplace at larger U.S. airports.
Integration of infrastructure management in general and pavement management in particular with
airportwide GISs provides far greater management capabilities than traditional infrastructure
management systems. The development of integrated airport GISs and the availability of affordable,
differentially corrected Global Positioning System receivers have resulted in a paradigm shift in
methods of infrastructure management. As the new millennium approaches, the state of the art in
infrastructure and pavement management is turning away from the traditional forms toward mapbased systems that have sophisticated analytical tools. In the case of pavement management, the use of
map-based analysis will overcome many of the shortcomings of the traditional MicroPAVER inspection
process. The capabilities of the current state of the art in pavement management are detailed.

Fatigue Cracking in Rigid Airfield

Pavements at Large
Commercial-Service Airports
Michael T. McNerney and B. Frank McCullough
Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, 3208 Red River Street, Suite 200,
Austin, TX 78705-2650.

FULL
TEXT

Fatigue of airport pavements is an important consideration in the analysis of high-traffic pavements.

The current pavement condition index (PCI) method of pavement evaluation does not adequately
evaluate fatigue cracking of airport pavements and should be considered for modification. Recent field
inspections by the authors of Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport, DallasFort Worth International
Airport, and Albuquerque International Sunport have shown the fatigue cracking in thick concrete
pavements to be prevalent. However, it is not normally recorded in a normal PCI inspection because the
crack widths are less than 3 mm (18 in.). A properly designed, constructed, and maintained pavement
should theoretically fail only in fatigue because all other distresses caused by construction deficiencies,
material deficiencies, environmental distresses, and maintenance deficiencies would be avoided.
Therefore, it is important for the management of airport pavements that receive high levels of traffic to
consider fatigue-cracking distress. In practice, it is not possible to sample 100 percent of pavements to
fully evaluate all hairline cracking. However, a geographical distribution of pavement control sections
can be established and monitored for changes over time. The PCI should be revised or a new distress
identification method should be developed to account for fatigue cracking.

Optimum Design and Operation of Airport

Passenger Terminal Buildings
Mahmoud Saffarzadeh and John P. Braaksma
M. Saffarzadeh, Department of Civil Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, P.O. Box 14155-4838, Tehran, Iran.
J. P. Braaksma, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada.

FULL
TEXT

The standard procedures for the design and operation of airport passenger terminal buildings (PTBs)
often lead to either high operating and maintenance costs or passenger dissatisfaction. A new
philosophy of planning, design, and operation that is based on optimum resource utilization and
passenger flow management and control was initiated. An optimum resource utilization model was
developed on the basis of important issues such as an early association of physical and operational
plans, the stochastic nature of airport demand, the long-term costs of over- and undersupply of PTB
facilities, performance measures, and utilization of scarce resources. Three submodels were developed
as part of the optimum resource utilization model, that is, the simulation, optimization, and flow
management and control models. An object-oriented simulation model, which consists of a set of simple
submodels and nodes, was developed to perform as a real-world airport terminal. The optimization
model will provide a list of optimum required resources for all predefined segments of the PTB. A realtime flow management and control model was developed, in which the PTB operator would be able to
respond to preplanned or spontaneous events.

Use of Public Transportation by

Airport Passengers
Peter B. Mandle, Douglas M. Mansel, and Matthew A. Coogan
P. B. Mandle, Leigh Fisher Associates, P.O. Box 8007, San Francisco, Ca 94128. D. M. Mansel, Port of Oakland,
530 Water Street, Oakland, CA 94607. M. A. Coogan, 10 Clay Road, White River Junction, VT 05001.

FULL
TEXT

Transportation plans in some communities have focused on providing rail service to the local airport,
whereas other communities have emphasized bus and van service. The opportunity for rail, bus, and
van service at U.S. airports and the use of these services by airline passengers at the large airports in
the United States and overseas are reviewed. On the basis of the airline passenger mode share data
presented, there appears to be a ceiling on the market for public transportation (rail, bus, and
shared-ride vans) at airports in the United States. The ceiling on public transportation use by airline
passengers in most cities appears to be about 10 to 15 percent, even at airports with rail service. The
primary potential market for rail service is passengers who have trip ends in downtown areas (or other
areas well served by rail), who are traveling alone and who have little or no baggage, and who are
familiar with the rail service and are able to walk from the rail station to their final destination. In
many cities the objectives of transportation planners and airport operators (i.e., encouraging the use of
efficient access modes) might best be served by transportation plans that focus on bus or van services.

Effects of Rail Stations at

Airports in Europe
J.-P. Widmer and C. Hidber
Institute of Transportation, Traffic, Highway and Railway Engineering (IVT), ETH-Hnggerberg, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland.

FULL
TEXT

The effects of rail stations, including high-speed rail, at airports in Europe are discussed in terms of a
cost-benefit framework. Rail stations are operational at many European airports and are at the center
of interest when road access relief at airports is considered, as well as when rail and air transport
complementarity is considered. As public budget deficits are under more scrutiny than in the past and
privatization of state-owned public transport companies is being considered, it is of interest to know the
extent to which rail stations at airports improve the performance of the rail companies and have a
positive impact on the economy as a whole (are of value to taxpayers). The study is based on a costbenefit analysis of rail stations at five major airports (Brussels, Zurich, Frankfurt, Paris-Orly, and
Paris-Charles de Gaulle) and two medium-sized airports (Geneva and Stuttgart). The results of case
studies of several rail stations (those in Belgium, France, Germany, and Switzerland), which had wide
spectra of technology and operating system backgrounds, showed that the overall effects of rail stations,
by taking into account investment costs and the partial effects on the railways, were positive for the
major (hub) airports analyzed [except in particular cases for particular reasons (Brussels and ParisOrly)] but were balanced or negative for the medium-sized airports analyzed. The results show not only
the impact of airport size but also that of distance to the airport by rail, because the benefit to users in
terms of time and fare savings played a significant role and highlighted the benefits of having access to a
rail network as much as possible. Finally, the effects on public transport as a whole (i.e., the effects on
all public transport companies at the airport, including taxi and parking operators) were negative.

Off-Airport Passenger Check-in

Facilities at Satellite Terminals
A Review
Douglas M. Mansel and Peter B. Mandle
D. M. Mansel, Port of Oakland, 530 Water Street, Oakland, CA 94607. P. B. Mandle, Leigh Fisher Associates,
P.O. Box 8007, San Francisco, CA 94128-8007.

FULL
TEXT

In many regions, satellite (i.e., remote, off-airport) terminals that provide baggage check-in and
baggage claim would provide several advantages to air travelers, including the ability to avoid parking
at the airport or asking a relative or friend to drive to the airport, once to drop off and once to pick up
the passengers; congested airline ticket counters and long lines at the skycap podiums; and traffic
congestion on the way to the airport and at the airport curbsides. In some regions, such as Boston and
Los Angeles, the benefits of satellite terminals have already been demonstrated, even though these
terminals currently do not provide baggage check-in or baggage claim. In the United States, satellite
terminals that provide baggage check-in and baggage claim serve only passengers traveling on a single
airline or a distinct group of airline passengers (e.g., only passengers disembarking a cruise ship).
However, baggage check-in and baggage claim for the general public is provided at several satellite
terminals that serve overseas airports. The two most significant challenges to be overcome are satisfying
FAA security requirements and justifying to airlines that the benefits of providing baggage check-in and
baggage claim at a satellite terminal outweigh the associated costs.

Premium Public Parking Services

A Way to Improve Parking Operations at Airports
Anna Fantoni, Douglas M. Mansel, and Peter B. Mandle
A. Fantoni and P. B. Mandle, Leigh Fisher Associates, P.O. Box 8007, San Francisco, CA 94128-8007.
D. M. Mansel, Port of Oakland, 530 Water Street, Oakland, CA 94607.

FULL
TEXT

Premium public parking services, such as valet, reserved, and business parking, are becoming
increasingly popular at U.S. airports. They offer an enhanced level of customer service; are important
business opportunities and sources of revenue for airports; contribute to reduction of curbside
congestion, thereby encouraging travelers to park instead of being dropped off or picked up; and
improve an airports ability to compete with privately operated, off-airport parking facilities. A study
was conducted at more than 14 U.S. airports and demonstrated that successful premium public parking
services provide a good combination of location, parking capacity, rate structure, quality of service, and
business arrangements. Although these factors are very specific to each airport, general guidelines for
parking managers who wish to optimize existing parking facilities, maximize net parking revenues, and
provide a high level of customer service are outlined.