This page intially left blank

This page intially left blank

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more than 4,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org

www.national-academies.org

Roughly 5,000 airports open to public use are scattered across the United States, including some 3,300 that are part of the national airport system and eligible for federal grants. Most airports are used exclusively by general aviation (GA) for a range of activities, from crop dusting and flight instruction to private transportation and recreational flying. Others accommodate a mix of GA and air carrier operations. The country’s 100 busiest airports, located in large metropolitan areas, handle both GA operations and most of the nation’s airline and air cargo traffic. Whether they are small or large, situated in urban or rural areas, or used mostly by airlines or GA operators, the nation’s airports face many of the same problems and have many of the same research needs.

While specific research needs and priorities vary from one airport to the next, the general topics of interest are often similar across the airport system. For instance, most airports need better runway pavements; smaller airports need pavements that are economical to build and maintain, and larger airports need pavements that are more durable and capable of handling heavier loads. While such environmental impacts as aircraft noise, air pollution, and deicing chemical runoff are major and almost universal concerns for larger airports, all airports are subject to federal, state, and local environmental regulations, and all face significant challenges in meeting them. In addition, now more than ever, operators of airports of all sizes and types are seeking cost-effective ways to strengthen the security of their airfields, terminals, and other airside and landside facilities.

Research is crucial to meeting these many needs. In some cases a more systematic survey and evaluation of procedures and products that are already working at some airports, and dissemination of good information on effective practices to all airport operators, may be sufficient. In other cases, research may be required to develop new materials, equipment, designs, and techniques to address particular problems. The federal government, through multiple agencies, provides the nation’s airports with billions of dollars in aid each year; operates and regulates the nation’s air traffic control system; provides and establishes standards for security; and sets environmental, safety, and design standards affecting airport configurations, equipment, and operations. Therefore, it has a key role and much at stake in ensuring that critical airport research needs are met.

The federal government sponsors airport-related research in numerous ways through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Transportation Security Administration (now housed in the Department of Homeland Security), and other agencies. At its Airport Technology Research and Development branch (located at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey) and with grants to universities, FAA sponsors research to investigate alternative runway and taxiway materials and configurations, approach lighting and other visual guidance technologies, runway snow- and ice-control materials and methods, fire and rescue operations, and mitigations for bird and other wildlife hazards. This research supports FAA’s overarching mission to promote the safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system. As might be expected, airport-related areas that are major recipients of federal aid and investments, such as runways and taxiways, receive a commensurate amount of attention in FAA research.

FAA also conducts research related to airports through its headquarters and division offices. These offices undertake special studies—for instance, to better model aircraft air pollutant emissions and measure airport noise. For the most part, this research can be characterized as short-term, driven by the specific needs of rulemaking initiatives and policy proposals. At the other end of the spectrum, NASA undertakes aeronautics research with decades-long time horizons in mind. For example, it sponsors research to reduce aircraft noise through innovative propulsion systems, as opposed to incremental improvements in conventional engine noise abatement. DOD, meanwhile, sponsors research on topics relevant to military needs, a few of which have applications in civil aviation. Of course, research that is not normally viewed as directly pertinent to airports, such as the research undertaken by FAA, NASA, and DOD on air traffic control systems, can have significant implications for airport operations, configurations, capacity, and environmental compliance.

Largely missing from this varied R&D portfolio is a research program that views the nation’s airport landside, airside, and air traffic management systems as functioning in concert to form the national airspace system. Situated at the nexus of these systems, airport operators are in a position to identify factors that affect the overall safety, capacity, and efficiency of their facilities—for instance, how air traffic control rules can affect airport operations and capacity, how airport facility constraints can affect congestion and delay, and how community noise and other environmental factors can

affect the ability of airports to meet demands for aviation services. At the moment, however, airport operators do not have a direct role in advising the federal agencies on R&D, and they do not have a ready way to pool their ideas and resources to develop or disseminate common solutions to shared problems. The airport-sponsored research that is undertaken is usually done at the behest of individual operators, and dissemination of results to other operators is often haphazard at best, even when the results of the research may have widespread application.

In contrast, operators of two other transportation modes, state highway departments and public transit agencies, have long had the ability to work together to identify needs and find solutions to common problems. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), established in 1962, pools federal-aid research funds volunteered by individual states to develop near-term, practical solutions to problems facing many highway agencies. For more than a decade, the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) has likewise sponsored research and other technical activities that respond to the needs of the public transit industry. In both cases, the operators have a central role in identifying problems and in programming specific research projects to address them. These applied research programs do not replicate the work of the federal government or industry. They focus on needs and problems of operators that are often urgent, would otherwise be overlooked, or would only find their way into the research agenda of federal agencies or industry organizations over time.

The creation of an airport cooperative research program, modeled partly on existing cooperative research programs for highways and public transit, has been urged by numerous individuals and organizations over the past decade and has formed the basis of proposals by the National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) and the Airports Council International–North America (ACI-NA). In 2000 legislation reauthorizing FAA (Public Law 106-181),¹ Congress requested a formal study of the concept by the U.S.

Department of Transportation. The study request (in Section 906 of the act) reads as follows:

In response, FAA contracted with the Transportation Research Board (TRB), under the auspices of the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, to conduct the study. Following usual NRC procedures, TRB assembled a committee with a range of expertise and a balance of perspectives on issues related to the study topic. James C. DeLong, Manager, Louisville International Airport, chaired the committee, which included nine other members with expertise in airport management, design, engineering, environmental analysis, and research and planning. Committee members served in the public interest without compensation.

To fulfill its charge, the committee was given the following statement of task by NRC:

• Program governance;

• Contracting processes;

• Role of merit review in the selection of contractors;

• Role of peer review in the conduct of the research and completed reports;

• Research areas to be funded by the program;

• Funding; and

• Program administration.

The committee met three times during an 8-month period. During the first meeting, the committee was briefed by representatives from FAA’s Airport Technology R&D branch, NASAO, ACI-NA, and the Association of American Airport Executives (AAAE). During the second meeting the committee met with staff from FAA’s Office of Airport Planning and Programming and the Air Transport Association (ATA), who offered ideas on airport research needs and additional perspective on the desirability of an airport cooperative research program. In addition, the committee heard from members of the highway and public transit industries who have been actively involved in the formation and administration of NCHRP and TCRP.

The committee is grateful for the help of the following individuals, who provided information to the committee during the course of its study: Richard Marchi, ACI-NA; Henry Ogrodzinski, NASAO; Caren Centorelli, AAAE; Paul McGraw, ATA; and Satish Agrawal, Benito DeLeon, and Paul Jones, FAA. Special thanks are due to Charles Chambers, Senior Vice President of Global Aviation Associates, Ltd.; David Hensing, retired Deputy Executive Director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; and William Millar, President of the American Public Transportation Association. Mr. Chambers provided information on aviation finances. Mr. Hensing and Mr. Millar described the experience of the highway and transit communities in organizing and programming NCHRP and TCRP. Robert Reilly, Director of TRB’s Cooperative Research Division, which manages these two programs, briefed the committee on program administration, procedures, and finance.

Thomas R. Menzies, Jr., managed the study and drafted the final report under the guidance of the committee and the supervision of Stephen R. Godwin, Director of Studies and Information Services.

The report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft

manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

Thanks go to the following individuals for their review of this report: William Flannery, Des Moines International Airport, Iowa; Gina Marie Lindsey, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Washington; Peter Mandle, Leigh Fisher Associates, San Mateo, California; Frederick Piccolo, Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, Florida; Travis Villin, Colorado Division of Aeronautics, Watkins; and C. Michael Walton, University of Texas, Austin. Although these reviewers provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the committee’s findings and conclusions, nor did they see the final report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by L. G. (Gary) Byrd, Consulting Engineer, Mill Spring, North Carolina, and Lester A. Hoel, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Appointed by NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Suzanne Schneider, Associate Executive Director of TRB, managed the report review process. The report was edited and prepared for publication by Norman Solomon under the supervision of Nancy Ackerman, Director of Publications. Special thanks go to Frances Holland for assistance with meeting arrangements and correspondence with the committee.

This page intially left blank