Air Cargo Facility Planning and Development—Final Report (2015)

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.

Page 6-1 CHAPTER 6: TASK 4—DATA COLLECTION GAP ANALYSIS CHAPTER OVERVIEW Airport air cargo master planning revolves around two key aspects of air cargo activity: spatial needs for the movement and storage of air cargo vehicles (trucks, aircraft and GSE) and space for the storage of air cargo. Subtask 4 identifies data gaps commonly found in the airport master planning process. This tech memo describes the data gaps the project team experienced during the data collection phase of the project. The team also describes how data gaps related to specific surveys for this study were remedied through analysis tools provided by Google Earth Pro and other public documentation. This memo concludes with a discussion on efficient techniques to collect data on air cargo activity on airports. INTRODUCTION In 2012 the team conducted an intensive survey of air cargo facilities at U.S. airports. The data collected will be used to craft guidelines for air cargo facility planning and development at airports. The primary objective is to assist airport operators in utilizing effective planning practices and in making development decisions that meet the industry’s current and future technological, operational, and security challenges in a cost-effective, efficient, and environmentally compatible manner. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of Task 4 is to identify gaps in current data collection and reporting procedures, based on the output of Tasks 1 through 3, that affect air cargo facility planning and decision making. To assess what information is available and what is missing, and to develop cost-effective strategies to fill information gaps to improve the decision-making process. In addition, it will describe an approach to standardizing the form and content of the information required. Lastly, a technical memorandum reporting the results of this task for review and comment by the project panel will be prepared. SUBTASK 4: CARGO VOLUME AND UTILIZATION DATA GAP ANALYSIS The data collection effort for ACRP 03-24 utilized a combination of data gathering techniques which span from actual records, such as annual air cargo aircraft operations data from the control tower, (scientific or analytical evidence) to gathering anecdotal evidence to ascertain the use and utilization of air cargo facilities. The anecdotal evidence for this effort is comprised of airport management interviews and surveys, air cargo tenant interviews and surveys, as well as case studies and round table discussions to gather information on air cargo activities on airports. Although our team’s data collection tools and techniques provided hundreds of data points, many of these were groupings of anecdotal information. Empirical evidence can come in large batches or small while one or a few data points make for anecdotal empirical evidence. Scientific or analytical evidence is not always readily available to the airport planner which, resultantly, requires innovation to fill in the data gap analysis. Data gathered from airport management for this study included annual cargo tonnages, international cargo vs. domestic cargo volumes, and the number of air carriers operating at an airport as well as the amount of space assigned to these carriers. Data gaps are the result of the team’s inability to ascertain scientific or analytical data. This lack of information is often the result of the private sector’s (cargo carriers) unwillingness to share certain metrics related to their operations due to the proprietary

Page 6-2 nature of the data. While it would be possible to use the scientific method to make our own observations remotely outside the facility, i.e. 15 trucks approach and depart the UPS building at BWI per day, it is impossible to ascertain the volume in tons and number of pieces of cargo moving through the facility as well as determine to which cargo aircraft the cargo is assigned. In order to gain this information UPS would have to provide it or allow scientific observation and data collection within their facility which is highly unlikely. In short, the operators of air cargo activities on airports have the best data, or scientific evidence, of activities within these facilities. In fact many cargo carriers such as FedEx, UPS and third party providers rely on their own industrial engineers to determine the best operations model for moving cargo through their airport facilities. In addition, the staff at the local station on an airport often knows the best methods of utilizing their cargo facility since they are involved in the day-to-day operations and understand their facility’s capabilities and short comings. It is important to point out that while UPS and some passenger carriers at case study airports allowed for interviews and completed several air cargo business surveys, the data was insufficient to build large data sets for targeted analysis. The most useful data set from the data collection effort is the result of the Airport Planners Survey. The outcome then for ACRP 03-24 data collection efforts results in both anecdotal evidence of air cargo facility use and utilization; as well as empirical data on the facilities and cargo volumes accommodated by these facilities. The data collected is from a combination of data types and sources and represents the realities experienced by airport planners and airport planning consultants in their data collection efforts related to air cargo facility master planning. Data gaps experienced in these data collection efforts for this ACRP study, in surveys and interviews, is similar to air cargo data gaps commonly experienced during a typical airport master planning process. SURVEY DATA COLLECTION RESULTS Since this project focuses on air cargo facilities, specifically the development of new planning metrics in their design, survey tools were developed to gather information on the utilization and traffic flow related to on airport air cargo buildings. Three surveys were developed which included a survey of airport management and two surveys designed to gather information from private sector air cargo businesses. Given the sensitivities of a government sponsoring study gathering data from private sector business all surveys were carefully vetted to ensure no needlessly commercially intrusive questions were asked. The three primary survey tools developed for ACRP 03-24 include an Airport Planners Survey, an Air Cargo Business Survey and the Air Forwarders Survey. Subtask 3.1 discussed the survey tool design and implementation. The results of these surveys will be discussed here. Airport Planning Department Survey – The Airport Planning Department Survey was developed by the research team to provide data for on-airport cargo facilities, operations, and plans related to air cargo activity at case study airports as well as participating system airports. Although the survey was titled Airport Planning Department Survey, the study team understood that airport planners, properties managers, marketing staff and airport air cargo managers were all potential respondents and so the survey instrument was designed with this wider respondent audience in mind. A detailed discussion of this survey and response rates to questions is forth coming. Air Cargo Business Survey – This survey instrument was developed to provide data on cargo activity, on-airport cargo facilities, operations, and plans related to air cargo activity at case study airports as well as participating system airports. Most of the participating non-case study airports were asked to

Page 6-3 complete surveys after the case study airports data arrived and it was determined additional data was needed. The survey was designed to be completed by a wide range of cargo operators on an airport such as passenger airlines, integrated express (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.), cargo-only carrier/freighter, air freight forwarder, 3PL providers, regional air cargo carrier (Contractor) and ground handlers. The survey was sent or hand delivered to 174 air cargo business tenants via email and regular mail. Business lists were supplied by case study airports and non-case study airports. A response rate of 18% was achieved for this survey effort as a result of 31 responses being returned. While a higher response rate was hoped for the results may point to survey fatigue as well as relative importance in air cargo business day-to-day operations. The Air Cargo Business Survey was a self-completed survey that was emailed, mailed or handed out, completed by the respondent, then returned, either in person or by email. The key advantage of this approach is its relatively low cost, as one surveyor/interviewer can hand out a large number of questionnaires in a given time period. Disadvantages of this approach include lower response rates and inferior data quality. Length and complexity are also concerns; generally, airport planners should try to keep such surveys short and simple to maximize the number of responses and completeness of the information they get back. According to ACRP Report 26: Guidebook for Conducting Airport User Surveys, survey results for airports should be approximately 50%: Although experts differ on this point, a general rule of thumb is that the response rate needs to be at least 50% for a researcher to be reasonably confident that the results are representative. However, lack of response bias (difference in the mean value of the characteristics of interest between respondents and the population being surveyed) is more important than a high response rate (Babbie, 1973). Regardless of what is considered an acceptable response rate, the lower the response rate, the more caution must be used in interpreting the data. Response rates vary widely by survey method and are generally fairly high for interview surveys of air passengers, but much lower for surveys conducted by mail or telephone [of tenants]. Many of the responding businesses were for case study airports where facilities were visited by project team members and therefore had a personal interest in completing the survey. It is noteworthy to point out that 62% of the response rates were businesses located at international gateway airports with the remainder related largely to domestic cargo airports. Given the limited number of responses for this survey the usefulness of the data will be limited but will play a role in the facilities requirement task. Table 6-1 identifies the responses by type of cargo business. Table 6-1 Air Cargo Business Survey, Responses by Type of Cargo Business. Responses Rate Integrated Express 9 29% Passenger Belly 8 26% Freighters 5 16% Third Party Handler 8 26% Regional Cargo Feeder 1 3% Total 31 100% SOURCE: CDM Smith

Page 6-4 Air Forwarder Survey – This survey was developed to provide insight into this sector of the industry with particular emphasis on real estate and facility location decisions both on and off airport. The survey included questions regarding contact information, address, facility size, location (on or off airport) type of activity at the facility, traffic volume and location decision criteria. The survey was sent to the corporate headquarters for the top 15 air forwarders in the U.S. Only one of these businesses, CEVA, responded to our request and prepared responses for five CEVA locations. Surveys were also sent to air forwarding businesses listed on the airport planner’s survey. An additional survey distribution effort took place with the emailing of surveys to 250 air forwarders in the Chicago market area. As a result of these distributions only eight additional surveys were returned for a total of 13 surveys, which represents a five percent response rate. Given the limited number of responses for this survey the usefulness of the data will be limited but will play a role in the facilities requirement task. Airport Planning Department Survey Results The Airport Planning Department Survey was distributed via e mail to the 16 case study airports who had agreed to participate. A response time of 10 days was requested for completion. Many airport planners assigned to complete the survey indicated they would need three to four weeks to complete the survey due to work load issues. A list of 55 system wide airports was developed, in addition to the 15 case study airports, and each was contacted to request their participation in the ACRP 03-24 study by completing the Airport Planning Department Survey. This invitation consisted of an email introduction to the study, a pdf cover letter for the survey and the survey in pdf form. As indicated in a previous section of this report, the response rate with case study airport was 100% but only 29% or 16 among the system wide outreach. The Airport Planners Survey collected data on the following airside and landside components: storage facilities, warehouse and office space; processing space; specialized services (including refrigeration and climate-controlled facilities); sorting equipment; parking spaces (aircraft and truck) and gates; fueling, deicing, and other servicing facilities; ramps and docks; off-airport facilities; gate access and egress components; security and customs clearance facilities; and others, as appropriate. Survey Sample: Size & Distribution As listed in Table 6-1, a total of 31 airports responded with 16 being the case study airports. The research team designed and implemented the Airport Planning Department Survey to collect air cargo data not only from case study airports but airports in the U.S. with scheduled air cargo service. This survey effort was system wide gathering data from ACI member airports which represent a wide range of airports in size and characteristics such as international gateway and major hub airports as well as O&D airports. The system wide airport distribution list was developed by a review and analysis of air cargo facility data collected by an ACI-NA airport facilities project (ACI-NA, 2004). This ACRP 03-24 study is designed to update cargo facility data previously gathered during a 2002-2003 survey effort. The previous list was expanded to include airports in a variety of geographic locations. The list of airports currently included in the distribution is highlighted in Table 6-2. Of the 55 system wide (non-case study) airports invited to participate in the ACRP 03-24 study by completing the Airport Planning Department Survey, 16, or 29%, chose to complete and return the survey. The airports represent a broad cross-section of cargo volumes. Four of the top ten North American airports (ranked by 2011 total cargo volumes) and nine of the top 20 responded. While the inclusion of these top cargo airports assures that the survey sample

Page 6-5 represents the majority of air cargo in the U.S., the strong sample distribution also includes an excellent sample of medium and small airports as well. Table 6-2 Air Cargo Case Study and Non-Case Study Airports. Airport Market 2011 Metric Tons Case Study Airports International Gateways Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Int'l (ATL) Atlanta 663,162 Dallas Fort Worth Int'l (DFW) Dallas 654,415 Seattle-Tacoma Intl (SEA) Seattle 279,625 Alternative International Rickenbacker Intl (LCK) Columbus 66,287 King County/Boeing Field (BFI) Seattle 115,000 Indianapolis Intl (IND) Indianapolis 971,664 Passenger Hub Washington Dulles Intl (IAD) Washington DC 302,661 General Mitchell (MKE) Milwaukee 76,627 Denver Intl (DEN) Denver 248,141 Air Cargo Hub Spokane Intl (GEG) Spokane 49,096 Des Moines Intl (DSM) Des Moines 61,584 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl (CVG) Cincinnati 481,669 O&D Airport Austin Bergstrom Intl (AUS) Austin 69,556 San Antonio Intl (SAT) San Antonio 121,516 Louis Armstrong-New Orleans Intl (MSY) New Orleans 48,464 Kansas City Intl (MCI) Kansas City 85,998 Non-Case Study Airports Completing Airport Planners Survey Albuquerque International (ABQ) Albuquerque 55,063

Page 6-6 Table 6-2 (continued) Air Cargo Case Study and Non-Case Study Airports. Airport Market 2011 Metric Tons Baltimore/Washington Int’l Airport (BWI) Baltimore/Washington 107,741 Fairbanks International Airport (FAI) Fairbanks 19,877 Greenville-Spartanburg International (GSP) Greenville- Spartanburg 25,279 Jackson-Evers International (JAN) Jackson 6,089 Jacksonville International Airport (JAX) Jacksonville 65,914 Louisville Regional Airport Authority (SDF) Louisville 2,188,422 Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK) Oakland 483,375 Nashville International Airport (BNA) Nashville 40,817 Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Philadelphia 415,205 Phoenix Sky Harbor International (PHX) Phoenix 274,046 Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW) Fort Myers 14,764 St Louis Lambert International Airport (STL) St Louis 69,576 Ted Stevens Anchorage Int’l Airport (ANC) Anchorage 2,543,105 Theodore Francis Green State Airport (PVD) Providence 10,368 SOURCE: Airports Council International (ACI-NA) Figure 6-1 shows the size distribution of airports represented in this survey. Given the size definitions below (established by ACI-NA’s 2002 Air Cargo Facility & Security Survey), the sample consisted of five Large Cargo Centers; nine Medium Cargo Centers; and 17 Small Cargo Centers. For example, four of the top 10 cargo airports that participated in the study and include: Ted Stevens Anchorage International, Sandiford-Louisville International, Indianapolis International, and Hartsfield- Jackson Atlanta International. • Large cargo centers – 500,000 or more metric tons in 2011. • Medium cargo center – 100,000-499,999 metric tons in 2011. • Small cargo centers – 100,000 or less metric tons in 2011. Figure 6-1 Number of Respondents by ACI Cargo Ranking. (SOURCE: ACI-NA, 2010.) In addition to covering a wide range of air cargo airport roles and service levels, the research team added information related to the climate in which each airport is located. Our sample of case study airports and non-case study airports represents a diverse range of locations and operating environments. 0 2 4 6 8 N um be r of R es po nd en ts ACI Ranking Total Respondents = 31

Page 6-7 This information was added since it became apparent during the data collection that air cargo operations in milder climates tend to operate with less warehouse space and more in the open on the airport ramp. The 31 respondent airports are located in eight different climate zones as defined by U.S. Department of Energy. As shown in Figure 6-2, the majority are located in the Mixed-Humid climactic region, which is one of the larger climate zones of the contiguous 48 states, stretching from Kansas to North Carolina and from Pennsylvania to Georgia. Figure 6-2 Number of Respondents by Climate Type. (SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy.) Survey Question Composition The survey has three main parts, each with multiple subject areas. Part I consists of general airport information including contact info, air cargo activity (carrier composition, domestic and international traffic), cargo buildings/areas, air cargo facility plans, and environmental factors. Part II focuses on the details of the cargo buildings, which includes general facility dimensions and access, and special characteristics such as refrigeration and perishables storage. Part II also collects data on cargo building occupants and their particular operational characteristics. Part III asks respondents to provide a contact list for all air cargo tenants. The research team was able to fill in data gaps related to airport cargo buildings by utilizing several data sources such as Google Earth Pro, and county auditor records. Our team also used third party developer data for cargo building specs posted online. The survey concluded with respondent’s perceptions and critique of the survey tool as well as an estimate of the time taken to complete the survey. AIRPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT SURVEY PART I—GENERAL AIR CARGO ACTIVITY AND FACILITIES General Airport Information – The first section of the survey addresses general airport information such as airport name, three-letter identifier, contact person, title, department, and email address. This section achieved a 96% response rate, with only a small number of airports neglecting to provide contact information. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Page 6-8 Air Cargo Activity – This section addresses three main areas of air cargo activity: carrier composition, annual tonnage, and domestic/international traffic. Overall, this section had a response rate of 64%. These sub-topics are further discussed below: • Carrier Composition – This sub-section addresses the number of airlines operating at each airport and asked for each airline by name and type (i.e. passenger, integrated express cargo, and all- cargo carriers). As a whole, this sub-section saw an average response rate of 81%. • Annual Tonnage – This sub-section requests annual tonnages from each airport, both inbound and outbound, for 2011. This sub-section returned an average response rate of 86%. • Domestic and International Traffic – This sub-section attempts to break down the tonnages reported in the previous section by the following levels: Domestic or International > Enplaned or Deplaned > Type of Aircraft (passenger or all-cargo) > Freight or Mail. This sub-section had an overall response rate of 55% (66% for domestic; 43% for international). Not all airports collect domestic vs. international cargo splits data. Cargo Buildings and Areas – This section identifies the number of buildings and areas within each airport that are dedicated to air cargo activity. Management structure, shared usage, and largest cargo aircraft accommodated are also identified by respondents. This section had an average response rate of 63%. Air Cargo Facility Plans – This section explores each airport’s expansion/improvement plans of their listed air cargo facilities, if applicable. Motivation for improvement, type of improvement, developer, estimated completion date, dimensions, anticipated occupants/primary users, and special characteristics are discussed here. This section experienced an average response rate of 17% and may be indicative of a lack of cargo facility planning at airports. Environmental Factors – This section gauges the interest the air cargo industry has in reducing their environmental footprint and any efforts taken to achieve those goals. Early on in the study process environmental issues/enhancement were thought to be of high priority to the air cargo industry, the response has determined that sustainable enhancements are a much lower priority than expected. Only three of the 31 respondents reported any LEED certified air cargo facilities. Age of the air cargo facilities may play a role in this response rate since airport management may not pursue environmental related improvements to older structures. However, 10 respondents reported a total of 22 other energy efficiency upgrades to their air cargo facilities. These upgrades include installing skylights, warehouse windows, white/reflecting roof, green roof, CFL/LED lighting, solar panels, and improved insulation. This section returned an average response rate of 28%. AIRPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT SURVEY PART II—CARGO BUILDINGS DETAIL Cargo Buildings – This section discusses the general details of each cargo building on each airport. Building name, total area in square feet, ownership, access, ramp size, ground service equipment (GSE), truck parking, truck docks/doors, security protocols, surplus space, and number of tenants are all data items asked of each respondent. At total of 118 air cargo buildings were listed by respondents, and— through various other sources—the team was able to bring this total to 170. All questions within this section had an average response rate of 68%.

Page 6-9 Facility Special Characteristics – This section explores the frequency at which cargo facilities have unique features such as perishables storage, unit load device (ULD) handling, roller/castor floors, sorting systems, material handling systems (MHS), elevating traversing vehicles (ETV), telecommunications systems, security screening, and green design. The respondents indicated that only 21% of the 177 air cargo buildings had at least one special handling characteristic. This indicates that the large majority of air cargo facilities surveyed do not have special characteristics. Only the most heavily used air cargo facilities have the demand to warrant unique cargo handling features. In order to limit a carrier’s capital expenditures and operating costs, freight requiring special handling will be shipped through a cargo facility at an airport with the appropriate handling capabilities. The overall response rate for this section was 10%. Cargo Building Occupants – This section requests each airport to identify all occupants within in their listed air cargo buildings and details for each occupant. A total of 406 occupants were reported by respondents, which included 22 vacancies. Through field visits and examination of online airport records, the consultant team was able to identify an additional 30 occupants, bringing the total number of occupants to 436 (again, including 22 vacancies). Details for each occupant were also requested, which includes occupant name, air cargo category, unit number, total area, warehouse area, office area, GSE area, ramp area, operations per day, peak-hour aircraft parking, aircraft fleet mix, handling, and number of carriers. The average response rate for these questions was 57%. AIRPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT SURVEY PART III Air Cargo Business List The third and final section of the survey asks respondents to provide a contact list for all air cargo tenants. Out of the 31 survey participants, 14 (45%) airports provided a contact list for a total of 174 tenant contacts (40%). All 174 contact entries provided a name, address, and phone number. Email addresses were provided for 137 (74%) of the tenant contacts, which represents 31% of all occupants listed by respondents. The average response rate for this part of the survey was 66%. The average response rates for each section and sub-section of Parts I, II, and III of the survey are summarized in Table 6-3. Tables listing the response rates by individual survey question are available in Appendix B. A copy of the actual survey is available in Appendix A. Within the response rate tables of Appendix B, there are several response classifications that require explanation. These include the following: Hard Responses, CDM Smith Estimate, N/A, N/A (CDM Smith Estimate), Incomplete, and Usable Data. Hard Responses are from respondents and include only usable information; incomplete data is excluded. Through field visits and various other online sources, CDM Smith was able to enhance fill in data gaps with estimates/assumptions. This data is classified as CDM Smith Estimates. All data that was “N/A” or not applicable was accounted for and excluded from respondent answers since it is not useful information. In several instances the research team estimated or made assumptions on data that was also “N/A” or not applicable. This data was also accounted for and excluded. Incomplete data includes any blanks, question marks, and other unknown or null answers that are not usable. Usable Data is the result of combining Hard Responses and CDM Smith Estimates while excluding all unusable data.

Page 6-10 Table 6-3 Summary of Average Survey Response Rates. PA R T I Respondents - 62% General Airport Information - 96% Air Cargo Activity 1.1 – 1.5 64% Cargo Buildings and Areas 1.6 – 1.13 63% Air Cargo Facility Plans 1.14 – 1.25 17% Environmental Factors 1.26 – 1.28 28% PA R T II Total Cargo Buildings - 177 Cargo Buildings Detail 2.1 – 2.13 47% Facility Special Characteristics 2.14 9% Cargo Building Occupants 2.15 44% PA R T II I Airports Providing Contact List 3.1 45% Tenant Contacts Provided (% of all tenants) 40% Tenant Email Addresses Provided (% of contacts provided) 79% SOURCE: CDM Smith Survey Assessment/Feedback At the conclusion of the survey, respondents were asked to provide the time required to complete the survey and give their opinion on survey length. Forty-three percent of respondents participated in the survey assessment, and the average survey completion time was 286 minutes or 4.75 hours. The majority of participants felt that the survey was too long and too detailed; while some thought it was adequate. Almost none of the participants felt that the survey was too short or not detailed enough. These results are summarized in Table 6-4 below. Table 6-4 Survey Assessment/Feedback. Part Question Response Rate SU R V EY F EE D B A C K Feedback Participation 43% Average Completion Time (hours) 4.75 Too Long 29% Too Short 0% Just Right 18% Too Detailed 25% Not Detailed Enough 4% Just Right 14% SOURCE: CDM Smith DATA GAPS ANALYSIS The research team has years of experience collecting data from the air cargo community which is a highly competitive sector and often reluctant to reveal information related to operations, volume, commodities, and customer base. While data gaps are always inevitable we have found surveying with follow-up interviews, as described in Task 3, as one of the best means to collect information vital to the study to minimize gaps in the data collection. The face-to-face meetings often put respondents at ease, help answer any questions upfront, and help legitimize the study in their mind. But often there are data points that are missed, lack sufficient amounts, or have yet to be considered in air cargo facility analysis.

Page 6-11 Task 4 requires the identification of gaps in data collection and reporting procedures, based on the output of Tasks 1 through 3, that affect air cargo facility planning and decision making. In this task, available information will be reconciled against what is missing, and cost-effective strategies will be developed to fill information gaps to improve the decision-making process. Techniques to Backfill Missing Airport Planner Survey Data As indicated in the previous section, the team was able to fill in many data gaps related to the Airport Planners Survey with measures based on field visits as well as various online sources such as Google Earth Pro, Bing Maps and government records. These steps provide relatively inexpensive data collection practices and were particularly helpful in filling in missing information on building size, occupant space in square feet and identifying space used by air cargo businesses for truck parking, truck docks and truck door counts, gate access, aircraft ramp space and GSE storage. This section of the report will present methods and tools for collecting data for air cargo facility space and uses where gaps exist. It is advised that airport planners with aerial photo interpretation skills conduct an analysis of air cargo facilities. Based on the research team’s experience in airline and air cargo operations as well as skills in air photo interpretation we were able to determine several patterns in activities on the ground related to air cargo operations by type of carrier and building occupant. We call this pattern of activity “freightcraft” which is a play on the term “tradecraft” which used in the intelligence community for analysis of foreign military operations, facilities and equipment. Freightcraft is the gathering of information related to air cargo activities on the ground. Information and land use patterns can be ascertained through aerial images regarding: aircraft ramp space, GSE space, warehouse space, truck parking, loading docks and loading doors. Information may also be ascertained for cargo roadway access, aircraft taxiway and taxi lane access, and security gates. One of the primary tools for gathering information on space utilized for air cargo activity on an airport is the analysis of aerial and satellite images using Google Earth Pro or Bing Maps. Google Earth Pro allows the user to measure areas via a polygon measuring tool. This tool provides options for measuring area in square footage, square yards, acres, meters, etc. and can be applied to air cargo warehouses, GSE area, aircraft parking ramp, as well as truck parking. Google Earth Pro also has options for viewing buildings and structures from a “street view” perspective as well as a 3-D building option but not all buildings have the 3-D data input into Google Earth. Bing Maps provides aerial views of airports and has an oblique or “birds eye” view which allows for views of the sides of buildings. Airport Layout plans (ALPs) are also useful tools for airport planners to gather data on facilities but the advantage of aerial photos is that aircraft types can be depicted, as well as the types of ground handling equipment in the GSE area. Ground Service Equipment Storage – GSE locations are typically adjacent to air cargo warehouses and often placed on pavement related to the aircraft parking ramp. GSE storage also commonly follows security fence lines and consists of a mix of equipment. GSE typically includes ULDs, dolly trailers for towing ULDs, portable air stairs, tugs, belt loaders, and K loaders for loading cargo into aircraft main decks. Equipment may also include APUs, forklifts, slave pallets, and aircraft maintenance vehicles. Deicing equipment may be stored in GSE areas during the winter months. GSE areas may be divided by a tug lane which is marked on the pavement. Aircraft taxi lanes may also be adjacent to the GSE area and should not be included in the size analysis. Figure 6-3 below is an example GSE space

Page 6-12 analysis in Google Earth Pro for the FedEx Express facility at Seattle International Airport (SEA). The yellow polygon identifies the assumed boundary for the GSE space and the total square footage arrives at just over 200,000 ft2 of space being utilized for GSE. It is noteworthy to point out the hard stand area in the far right (light colored pavement) is a hard stand for ATR-73 aircraft but it is currently being used for GSE storage. GSE areas adjacent to passenger belly cargo warehouses typically do not include space for aircraft ramp since air cargo is tugged to the passenger ramp area near the terminal. Figure 6-3 GSE Area Estimate for FedEx Express at Seattle-Tacoma Intl. Airport. (SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, CDM Smith Analysis.) Aircraft Parking Ramp – Aircraft parking areas can be ascertained by noting where aircraft are parked in an aerial photograph but often cargo aircraft are not present when the image was taken. Airports typically mark aircraft hard stands by painting parking positions, and other important demarcations, on the pavement. Figure 6-4 illustrates the typical parking position markings for the FedEx Express hard stand (ramp) at SEA. The yellow taxi line is at the center of the position with the equipment foul line marked in white, which forms the shape of an aircraft profile. Figure 6-5 below is an example aircraft ramp space analysis in Google Earth Pro for the FedEx Express facility at SEA. The yellow polygon identifies the assumed boundary for the aircraft parking space. The total square footage arrives at nearly 180,000 ft2 of space. Air Cargo Warehouse – A number of tools are available to the airport planner for determining the space associated with air cargo warehouse space when it is not available from lease/ sublease documents and tenants are nonresponsive to requests. A cargo building with a single tenant occupying 100% of the space is fairly easy to assess. Utilizing Google Earth Pro the cargo building perimeter can be outlined. Care should be taken to not include office space as warehouse space. Office space may be located in a

Page 6-13 wing of the building or it may be “carved out” of warehouse space. Carved out office space can usually be obtained through the building landlord or by requesting the information from the tenant. Typically office space in a warehouse that has adjacent aircraft parking is kept to a minimum to optimize the use of the warehouse floor. Office space may also be located on a mezzanine level within the building. Figure 6-4 Example Cargo Aircraft Parking Position – FedEx Express at Seattle-Tacoma Intl. Airport. (SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, CDM Smith Analysis.) Taxi Line Taxi Stop Equipment Foul Line

Page 6-14 Figure 6-5 Aircraft Parking Area Estimate for FedEx Express at Seattle-Tacoma Intl. Airport. (SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, CDM Smith Analysis.) One of the more challenging aspects to remotely assessing the space of a warehouse is determining the amount of space assigned to each occupant. In the case of Building B at SEA, square footage was ascertained through a combination of air photos (Bing Maps) and tenant surveys. As illustrated in Figure 6-6, on the eastern side of the building Hanjin provided their square footage for their office and warehouse space. The remainder of the building was unknown, and for illustration purposes the top of the photo is oriented to the south. Air photo analysis in Google Earth and Bing Maps and assessment of the remaining facility from the exterior during the field work portion of the study assisted in estimating the remaining warehouse space when it is not available from lease/sublease documents and tenants are nonresponsive to requests.

Page 6-15 Figure 6-6 Example Estimating Technique for Building B at Seattle-Tacoma Intl. Airport. (SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, CDM Smith Analysis.) Warehouse occupant space information may also be obtained, as a last resort, through local building permits and county auditor/assessor web sites. For example, for the UPS cargo Building at St Louis International Airport the St. Louis County Revenue Division has information on the building size, lot acreage, year built, lists of improvements, and heating systems, among other criteria. Nearly each county in the U.S. has similar property data bases with some being more robust than others. An additional source for cargo building occupancy and space breakouts are third party developers which lease these buildings to the air cargo industry. Appendix A provides an example air cargo building profile for an Aeroterm Building located at Southwest Florida Regional Airport (RSW). Google Earth Pro also supports 3D modeling capabilities and some airports are utilizing this function. 3D models help airport planners visualize the relationship new buildings will have with existing facilities. Figure 6-7 illustrates the 3D capabilities for an airport by plotting the location of the UPS facility. Interior wall Hanjin Vacant Continental Office

Page 6-16 Figure 6-7 Google Earth Pro 3D – UPS 3D Rendering at St. Louis Intl. Airport. (SOURCE: Google Earth Pro.) Air Cargo Warehouse Truck Docks and Doors – Air cargo warehouse throughput is often related to the number of available truck docks and truck doors to service the trucking side of the industry. Airport planners can obtain the number of warehouse truck docks and doors by utilizing Bing Maps Birds Eye View function as exhibited in Figure 6-8. By rotating and viewing all sides of the facility the number of doors and docks can be ascertained. Google Earth Pro Street View is also a useful tool since it provides a direct side view of the facility (Figure 6-9). Air Cargo Warehouse Truck Parking – Truck parking capacity is needed in the air cargo master planning process. Truck parking includes stalls adjacent to the cargo building at either truck docks or doors as well as stalls in the building’s parking lot. Both Google Earth Pro and Bing Maps are useful tools in ascertaining the number of truck parking positions as well as total area.

Page 6-17 Figure 6-8 Google Earth Pro Street View – Cargo Building B at Baltimore-Washington Intl. Airport. (SOURCE: Google Earth Pro.) Data Collection Challenges When comparing airport passenger terminal master planning process to that of the air cargo terminal or warehouse master plan process, the passenger terminal planning process has far more data available to the airport planner. Airports often have better data on passenger terminals since they have command and control of the terminal throughput information. Airports collect information on passenger movements through the curbside, ticketing, security and gate hold rooms. Airports also collect data on passenger expenditures in concessions as well as baggage claim information among many others places where passengers and airport businesses intermix. The challenge for the airport planner then is the lack of data on air cargo movement and throughput within air cargo buildings and support infrastructure. Airport management for decades has provided space for air cargo carriers and other cargo related business without a thorough understanding of the methods and practices of cargo carriers. In the U.S. there is in fact a veil of obscurity between the air cargo industry and airport management. Airport planners understand the general movements of cargo through the landside and airside cargo infrastructure but the carriers and the third party handler businesses have the best grasp of the cargo activities on airports. Even third party facility providers lack detailed information on cargo building throughput since their air cargo related tenants internally perform facility strategies and plans. The carrier may choose to move cargo primarily via fork lift and pallets, or they may choose a slide-sortation system since they will move primarily small packages. Large cargo facilities at international gateways may rely heavily on roller floors

Page 6-18 for ease of ULD movement. These design and planning decisions are often made at the corporate level by the carrier’s industrial engineers. The airport planner who has been given the air cargo planning task may also find that the level of interest for air cargo master planning at the low end of the priority list in airport’s Master Planning process. Resultantly the planner may lack adequate funds to perform a thorough cargo data collection effort since, for example, the passenger terminal planning was given higher priority. The planner then must make wise choices in the best methods of collecting information on cargo activity without burning through the planning budget. Air cargo master planning revolves around two key aspects of air cargo activity: spatial needs for the movement and storage of air cargo vehicles (trucks, aircraft and GSE) and space for the “storage” of air cargo. (Storage of cargo may last from several days to mere minutes). This section identifies sources of air cargo data that will assist the airport planner in developing an inventory of facilities and traffic volumes. While a survey of cargo businesses is often the best method of collecting data it is important that the airport planner collect data from in-house data whenever possible as well as develop a continuous data collection effort for a wide variety of cargo activities. Additionally, the air cargo industry in many of the larger cargo markets have air cargo associations which include both carriers and air forwarders. These organizations may assist in data collection efforts and airport management benefits by supporting these groups. Cargo Volume – Cargo volume, or traffic, at airports is typically collected by airport management in their operations division, planning division, air service development division or business planning division. Types of cargo volume data collected usually include air cargo (freight and mail) weight in tons or pounds (monthly and annually). Usually one or two people in airport management are required to collect the data from the air carriers and enter the data into a database. This data is typically prepared to be presented in report or spreadsheet format. It is noteworthy to point out that some airports gather cargo data as landed weight by carrier which includes both the aircraft weight and the aircraft weight. While this type of data collection follows an FAA method of gathering data on cargo it is an incomplete data source and is difficult to use in cargo facility analysis. Some airports will track and provide air cargo weight statistics by carrier market share. This data is very beneficial to the airport planner since it provides information on how much cargo each carrier is moving through their assigned areas on the airport. Air traffic control towers also have air cargo carrier operations data by type of aircraft (passenger or cargo, etc.) and by carrier name as well as aircraft design type. Air traffic control tower data is also useful for determining peak hours of cargo operations. As mentioned in Task 5 Forecasting Cargo, air cargo traffic arrivals and departures data may also be obtained relatively inexpensively through Official Airline Guide (OAG) schedules, FAA IFR data, as well as Flightaware.com data. Air cargo volume arriving and departing the airport cargo facilities on trucks is difficult to obtain. This data would only be known the truck operator or carrier. A survey of carriers may provide information on truck volumes but it is again proprietary information and may not be easily obtained. Air forwarders that are located off airport often will not provide this information if requested by airport management.

Page 6-19 Air cargo volume by pieces per hour is also difficult to obtain by airport planners. This information is often considered proprietary by cargo carriers and is greatly affected by the level of package sortation automation within a cargo building. Some carriers provide this information in press releases when new cargo facilities are opened. For example, FedEx Express indicated in a press release that their Memphis hub accommodates 325,000 documents (Overnight Letters, Courier Paks) per hour while the Oakland FedEx facility can accommodate 12,000 packages per hour. Piece per hour information is not critical to the airport planner but can be useful when comparing facility efficiency. Cargo Operations – Cargo operations take place in three primary areas on an airport. On the landside truck operations take place at Building/warehouse loading docks and parking lots. Operations also take place at the cargo building where cargo is handled and stored as well as sorted in the case of integrated express carriers. Cargo operations take place as well on the aircraft ramp or apron area and where aircraft and GSE vehicle operations intermingle. And, of course, cargo aircraft also utilize the taxiways and runway systems but our discussion here is limited to the immediate areas concerning areas on an airport designated for air cargo activity. Cargo Security Operations – Collecting data on warehouse space designated for security is challenging to obtain since air cargo operators are reluctant to discuss or provide this information due to the sensitive nature of the topic. Also, the utilization rate for security equipment ranges greatly. During our field visits we observed on passenger carrier with a work bench size platform for keeping “trace” detector equipment. At another cargo warehouse for passenger carrier “hub” operations the carrier had three scanner detection systems with two for scanning packages and one for scanning oversized cargo positioned on wooden pallets. Air Forwarders – Air forwarders are often located at off-airport locations which make gathering data for these facilities extremely difficult as well. During the team’s field work efforts we were able to interview several off-airport forwarders but these meetings were essentially set up at the behest of airport management. Air forwarders are located on an airport when they need a direct advantage of access to aircraft. Since lease rates are almost always lower at off-airport warehouses in the vicinity of an airport air forwarders often chose to locate at these facilities. Figure 6-9 below identifies air forwarder locations in the vicinity of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

Page 6-20 Figure 6-9 Freight Forwarder Location Map Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl. Airport. (SOURCE: Atlanta Regional Freight Mobility Plan 2008.) Truck Parking/Movements – Truck movements on the landside area of the airport include truck trips on airport access roads as well as truck parking in designated lots in the air cargo area. These lots may be adjacent to air cargo buildings or in separate designated truck parking lots. Data for truck parking can be collected by airport planners by conducting an air cargo truck parking survey. This would entail collecting truck parking data through observation as well as truck driver surveys. Survey questions would request information related to arrival time, departure time, parking duration (waiting time), truck type and size, commodities carried and origin/destination data. Other data that could be collected includes frequency of trips to the airport cargo area on a weekly or monthly basis. Surveys would need to be conducted at various predetermined times throughout the week. Other tools used to collect truck operations and fleet mix data include traffic counters as well as web or security cams. In 2011, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration concluded a study utilizing web cams to evaluate a technology capable of collecting data to determine whether a truck parking area is full, and if not full, to indicate the number of spaces available. The program utilized The SmartPark video system which has software that automatically counts vehicles entering and exiting a rest area truck parking facility by using video cameras that monitored the entrance and exit ramps to the truck parking area without the involvement of human operators. It used this information to determine a count of available truck parking spaces. Image processing software in the cameras was designed to detect when a vehicle appears in the image. The image processing software distinguished between trucks, tractors, and other vehicles based on overall vehicle length. Vehicle detections were transmitted from the cameras to the onsite computer. The Autoscope Solo® Terra™ video detection system was the key element of the SmartPark video system.

Page 6-21 Figure 6-10 Example Truck Parking Camera System. (SOURCE: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.) Truck Access/Movements – Air cargo roadway access data is often needed at airports with significant cargo trucking operations. Data collection tools include manual or hand held counters that are used for intersection and other visual count or classification studies performed by a field surveyor. For automated data collection, the “road tube” is the most common short term data collection method for traffic counting and classification. Two main reasons for this are that the data collected is accurate and economical compared with other detection methods. Road tubes are used to detect vehicle axles by sensing air pluses that are created by each axle (tire) strike of the tube in the roadway. This air pulse is sensed by the unit and is recorded or processed to create volume, speed, or axle classification data. While one road tube is used to collect volume, two road tubes can be used to collect speed and class data. When a pair of wheels (on one axle) hits the tube, air pressure in the compressed tube activates a recording device that notes the time of the event. Based on the pattern of these times (for instance, the length of the interval between the time that two axles of a typical vehicle activate the counter), the device will match each compression event to a particular vehicle according to a vehicle classification scheme. Warehouse Bypass Truck Traffic – Some airports permit trucks transporting air cargo to pass through security gates to deliver or pick up air cargo directly on the aircraft apron. This practice allows for expedited cargo handling of large project cargo, cargo contained in ULDs as well as bulk loaded or loose cargo. Data related to this activity may be collected, via survey or interview, from air cargo businesses utilizing this practice or through observation of activity. Data collected would be similar to the truck parking area data collection with a focus on truck on ramp duration, size of truck and average tonnage transferred directly from the truck to the aircraft or vice versa. The cost for collecting the data via observation can be expensive since a field surveyor will need to be in position to collect the data for a period of time. Other sources of data include collecting of information from airport security records on who (company) has accessed the ramp via a cargo area security gate, and the length of time they were on the ramp. This data would not have the type and size of truck however. Another data collection tool would be the utilization of web based or security cameras that record traffic through these gates. Cargo tug traffic to passenger terminal – Data collection regarding tug operations for transporting cargo to passenger airline aircraft are commonly overlooked in an airport master plan. Data needed for accurate analysis of these operations include distance from the passenger airline’s warehouse to the passenger terminal, as well as average tug time and frequency of these operations. Data collection should also include the user’s estimates of the sufficiency of the tug time and distance as well as ways to improve connectivity between the terminals and the warehouses. Surveys or interviews of tug lane users provide the best means of collecting the data. Observation by data collection team members is also a viable, but more expensive, method. Observation data will also miss out on the collection of the volume of air cargo transported during each movement.

Page 6-22 Ground Service Equipment (GSE) – GSE needs space for: maneuvering equipment between the warehouse and aircraft, storing equipment when it is not in use, and storage of ULDs which may or may not contain cargo. Data collection efforts regarding GSE needs should also take into consideration the type of entities utilizing space for GSE. These primarily revolve around integrated express carriers, third party ground handlers, passenger airlines moving belly cargo and cargo carriers with freight aircraft which all have varying needs related to GSE. Passenger airlines, for example, do not need aircraft ramp space adjacent to the cargo warehouse but still require space for maneuvering and storage of tugs and carts. Surveys or interviews of carriers with GSE needs provide the best means of collecting the data. Aerial photos can be utilized by airport planners but would be fairly limited in determining the flow of GSE during peak periods of operation. Hydrant Fueling – Hydrant fueling is typically required at cargo areas on airports where high volumes of Jet-A fuel are required for large aircraft. Airports that serve as air cargo hubs or international gateways to the air cargo industry benefit from hydrant fueling beneath the cargo apron as it cuts down on fuel truck traffic as well as expense. Data collection to determine whether a need exists within the airport’s air cargo carrier community must take place with direct consultation with a cargo carrier’s facilities planning/engineering division. Peak Hour Cargo Aircraft Parking – Cargo aircraft parking demand can be provided from several sources. The tenant utilizing the hard stands and ramp area will likely provide peak hour parking information during the data collection effort. If this is not the case aircraft parking can be collected by airport planners and interns by conducting an air cargo aircraft parking survey. This would entail collecting aircraft parking data through observation. Through observation the planner can collect information related to arrival time, departure time, parking duration (waiting time), aircraft type and size. Airport planners can also use aircraft arrival and departure information gathered from the air traffic control tower or FAA databases to determine cargo aircraft arrival time, departure time, and parking duration. SUMMARY Chapter 6 identifies data gaps commonly found in the airport master planning process. It also describes the data gaps the project team experienced during the data collection phase of the project. The team details how data gaps related to specific surveys for this study were remedied through analysis tools provided by Google Earth Pro and other public documentation. The collected data is used to craft guidelines for air cargo facility planning and development at airports. The primary objective is to assist airport operators in utilizing effective planning practices and in making development decisions that meet the industry’s current and future challenges. This chapter concludes with a discussion of efficient techniques to collect data on air cargo activity on airports. The next chapter focuses on air cargo forecasting techniques. Forecasts of air cargo facility demand will be translated into cargo facility needs.